The 2016 Iowa Caucuses
February 1, 2016 2:30 PM   Subscribe

Amidst an increasingly unpredictable political season, tonight the Iowa caucuses will finally cast the first votes of the 2016 presidential campaign. It's an outsider vs. establishment war in both parties, as Republican leaders struggle to dislodge Donald Trump and Ted Cruz from the top while Hillary Clinton marshalls her endorsements and long résumé against the populist zeal of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. The best guesses of FiveThirtyEight, BetFair, and Ann Selzer's gold-standard Des Moines Register poll all favor Trump and Clinton, but the race remains very close, and turnout in the demanding and complicated caucus events will be key. Vox provides a helpful video explainer on the process [previously]. Pass the time with FiveThirtyEight's 40-minute elections podcast, and keep an eye on the New York Times live blog of the caucuses for real-time updates once voting starts at 8:00 PM Eastern -- and don't forget to leave your two cents in the MeFi election prediction contest!
posted by Rhaomi (2563 comments total) 33 users marked this as a favorite
 
If Trump and Clinton win here I don't see how they can fail to win the nomination. Sanders' path to victory is to win both Iowa and NH in order to get southern voters to swing towards him en masse.
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Quadrennial reminder that the Iowa Caucus is a undemocratic discriminatory electoral process that's basically a poll tax on people's time that shouldn't be a bellwether for anything, let alone something this important.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [140 favorites]


Feel the Bern, Iowa.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think Trump could still be stopped, but you're probably right on Sanders. Clinton is going to win SC and probably NC and Florida too, if Sanders doesn't win Iowa he'll just have New Hampshire (which is probably in the bag for him at this point).

Trump's danger will be if enough other candidates drop out to let some opposition rally around, say, Rubio (who did pretty well at the last debate and seems to be the obvious not-Trump at this point). But the Democratic side is a 2 horse race (sorry O'Malley) and Sanders has a huge weakness in the South right now, he needs a really strong start to chip away at that.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Trump and Clinton win, two of the late and great Spy magazine's favourite targets get the last laugh...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


To get caught up in this early election fever is just what cable outfits want..ad money and pundits babbling. Worse, a long long day by day excitement well before elections means that if you plan to run, you better have heavy money behind you...and that means wealth will control who gets in and who does not. And so we add to this dumb game rather than demanding that elections take far shorter time, as is done in many democratic nations.
posted by Postroad at 2:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


Past Republican winners have been Santorum (2012) and Huckabee (2008). I'm feeling better about not worrying about these results, no matter how the press my try to spin them.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


So, how do you think people are going to do in the 2018 midterms?
posted by eriko at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]


I agree, Postroad. All primaries/caucuses should occur on the same day. It should be a Sunday. It should be one month before the general.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


So how bad will the snowstorm be tonight?

Related: do they always have a snowstorm on caucus night, or does it just seem that way?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


you better have heavy money behind you...and that means wealth will control who gets in and who does not

There is some truth to that, but that's actually one of Bernie Sanders' many selling points. His campaign has been funded entirely by small donors, raising over $20 million in January alone, and has been able to keep up with Clinton's, er, "less-grassroots-based" fundraising. Maybe the truism that nobody can even hope to compete without corporate/big-money donations is not quite as true as people think.
posted by dialetheia at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, I'll be caucusing for Bernie here in Iowa City, followed by burgers and beers at Short's. Snow be damned.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


May the farce be with you.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


On that -- Trump Debates Trump (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert), which is pretty thin, compared to Ellen's 11-Trump Debate Panel.

Back to Iowa:

Why Iowa Matters For Trump And Sanders (five theories from Nate Silver, 538)

Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? Because everyone thinks they do. ( Andrew Prokop, Vox)

Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? (Because it's the first step in nominating a candidate) (Dalia Hatuqa, Al Jazeera)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:46 PM on February 1, 2016


So how bad will the snowstorm be tonight?
I don't think it's going to be a factor. It sounds like it's not going to hit until the wee hours of the morning, and it's not clear that it's going to amount to much anyway.

I will probably be posting from the caucus out of sheer boredom.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




As a non American, I'm completely transfixed by the craziness of the whole thing. Caucuses, superdelegates, faithless electors, brokered conventions, midnight voting in Dixville Notch. It's amazing threatre.

As someone who lived in America for a year and has a lot of friends there, fingers crossed the right person gets the job and they get some good done.
posted by kersplunk at 2:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]




Meanwhile. The. Daily. Fucking. Kos. And. The. New. York. Fucking. Times. Are. Publising. Articles. Totally. Damning. Of. Hillary. And Bill.

And their hundreds of millions of dirty money. And their naked quid pro quos.

Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


So, how do you think people are going to do in the 2018 midterms?

The Trump Imperium will have no need for midterms.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thats the New York Review of Books, not the NYT. The New York Times endorsed Hillary.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Donald Trump with a London Cockney accent.

Not sure that it's particularly relevant, but I wanted to get rid of it, so I'm leaving it here.
posted by Kabanos at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


fingers crossed the right person gets the job and they get some good done.

Nah, Elizabeth Warren has stuck to her guns about not running for the office this cycle, which is a damned shame because what I really want is a gender-swapped Bernie Sanders, maybe 20 years younger.

The Trump Imperium will have no need for midterms.

You laugh, but if Bernie makes a good showing and Bloomberg makes good on his threat...
posted by Ryvar at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


So, how do you think people are going to do in the 2018 midterms?

As badly as people do every election.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


i support Clinton for the same reason I'm not just ready to take up arms and revolt. Clinton represents a status quo that hurts a lot of people but could be far worse.

If I was in Flint, I might feel differently.
posted by angrycat at 2:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus?

Because people believe she can beat Trump, and that's the overriding concern. Sanders is great but if he doesn't win the general who cares?
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


All right, fellow Republicans. Now is the time for you to stop trolling, and just vote for fucking Rubio already. Donald Trump is just what you're using to scare me. I understand. It's OK. As long as you don't actually fucking vote for him.
posted by corb at 2:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


DON'T YOU WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, CORB?
posted by Justinian at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


I actually think the big open question of this caucus is whether any of the Trump people actually turn out. Hillary vs. Bernie is interesting, but that's much more interesting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, as much as the Bernbots have convinced themselves otherwise, there is a sizable contingent of people who actually like and support "$Hillary". Clinton is, in fact, an extremely accomplished and competent person and a strong candidate.

ZenMasterThis, if those weren't just rhetorical questions and you actually wonder at Clinton's likely win or her support, you're too far inside the Bern bubble to engage in useful discussion.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]


Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus?

Because people believe she can beat Trump, and that's the overriding concern. Sanders is great but if he doesn't win the general who cares?


John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [63 favorites]


As a lefty dude Sanders strikes me as a great big "It's really all about class you guys" lefty who is thiiiiiis close to busting out "identity politics are a bourgeois distraction", which is super-bad in an electoral environment increasingly influenced by POC voters. Clinton polls much better with members of racial and gender minorities, and that's a big deal for me, both in the sense that those are groups we should be paying lots of attention to and in the sense of who can actually win the general.

(Also, leaving aside policies, the Sanders rhetoric has me afraid that he'll be 1st Term Obama as fuck, while Clinton has no delusions about the GOP being amenable to working with her. Given the increasing psychosis of the Congressional GOP, I'd rather have a Democratic President with wide-open eyes.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [75 favorites]


John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.

But... that Kerry lost doesn't imply that Dean wouldn't have done worse?
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Meanwhile. The. Daily. Fucking. Kos. And. The. New. York. Fucking. Times. Are. Publising. Articles. Totally. Damning. Of. Hillary. And Bill.


The same NYT that endorsed her? And yeah, sorry but the wreck list of DailyKos has been shit for a long time.

Which is the answer to your question. There are more accusations than proof and accusations by people with an agenda. Why ask such a silly question?
posted by bgal81 at 3:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




The secret.
posted by carmicha at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.

But... that Kerry lost doesn't imply that Dean wouldn't have done worse?


Yeah, as I soon as I posted I realize that it's a totally bad analogy about something I apparently still have VERY raw feelings about, ripped opened every 4 years by the Iowa caucus.

And I apologize to Secretary Clinton for comparing her as a candidate to Kerry, which isn't really fair.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


To make a strained analogy, Daily Kos reminds me of westeros.org with the anti-Clinton contingent playing the part of Elio and Clinton playing the part of the TV show. And me laughing at all of them.

I told you it was strained.
posted by Justinian at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly, 2016!Kerry shouldn't even be compared to 2004!Kerry.
posted by bgal81 at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I think about when I think about caucuses.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I would go with Linda, myself, Justinian.
posted by bgal81 at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?

And people wonder why some hardcore Sanders supporters have a bit of a reputation for being condescending and arrogant.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]


I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what would make America great again, from Republican standpoint, is nominating Rubio, and reclaiming the party without the bigotry. Make America great again, by preaching that it is a country of hard-working immigrants, who come for the opportunity and stay for the values.

(Lafayette, Hamilton: "Immigrants! We get the job done!)
posted by corb at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


There are more accusations than proof and accusations by people with an agenda.

So what's Simon Head's agenda? (Asking sincerely; don't know a lot about him.)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016


(Shrieking noises intensify)
posted by boo_radley at 3:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Clicks to get, books to sell.
posted by bgal81 at 3:06 PM on February 1, 2016


So basically, some Bernie people think that Hillary is beholden to Wall Street, etc.,etc., etc., and some Hillary people think that Bernie supporters are over-privileged white dudes who like feeling awesome and pure and don't really have to worry about whether he's viable, because they're not the ones who are going to be screwed if the Republicans win. But to be honest, most people I know don't fall into either camp: they're supporting one or the other, but they don't hate the other one or their supporters. But I have to say that some of Bernie's supporters aren't doing him a lot of favors.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what would make America great again, from Republican standpoint, is nominating Rubio, and reclaiming the party without the bigotry. Make America great again, by preaching that it is a country of hard-working immigrants, who come for the opportunity and stay for the values.

I think that misses the core problem, which is that the entire worldview rests on the faulty idea that America isn't great now, that "making America great" has any actual meaning, or that it's a worthwhile aim.

It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom? Why isn't America great now?

Well, we all know what the Republicans mean when they say those things, even if they strenuously deny it. It's the reason why guys like Trump or Cruz are winning.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


Yes, well, the same could be said for some of Hillary's supporters.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


"As a lefty dude Sanders strikes me as a great big "It's really all about class you guys" lefty who is thiiiiiis close to busting out "identity politics are a bourgeois distraction", which is super-bad in an electoral environment increasingly influenced by POC voters. Clinton polls much better with members of racial and gender minorities, and that's a big deal for me, both in the sense that those are groups we should be paying lots of attention to and in the sense of who can actually win the general."

Socialism is racist, let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!

Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.
posted by zipadee at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]


Donald Trump with a London Cockney accent.


...is basically just that racist guy down the pub who keeps trying to insinuate that he's "well 'ard."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


So what's Simon Head's agenda?

Don't know about him specifically, but the New York Review of Books is a fairly left-wing journal as such things go. Supporting Bernie is unsurprising. If the New York Times supported Sanders that would be a much bigger story, since they're in the generally center-left (for America) field that Clinton occupies.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ted Cruz tries, fails to get a hug from his daughter on campaign trail.

I like how she tries to flick him away with her fingers.
posted by Kabanos at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom?

Women, blacks, hispanics and gays.
posted by eriko at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [54 favorites]


All right, fellow Republicans. Now is the time for you to stop trolling, and just vote for fucking Rubio already. Donald Trump is just what you're using to scare me. I understand. It's OK. As long as you don't actually fucking vote for him.
posted by corb at 5:55 PM


My Facebook feed is 50% evangelical paleo-conservatives (everyone back home, basically). After Ben Carson's campaign imploded a couple of them toyed with the notion of Ted Cruz for a week and now they've all gone radio silent in the middle of one of the biggest political circuses this country (and I guess the world, by extension?) has ever seen. Not a single mention of Rubio except by me as a "well, here's the least-worst guy you've got."

At the moment I'm not sure the non-idiot, non-Tea Party Republicans really have a candidate they're interested in claiming as their own (yourself and about 15% of the party excepted).
posted by Ryvar at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yes, well, the same could be said for some of Hillary's supporters.

No, not really.

That's kind of the problem with fanaticism. Fanatics assume the other side is equally and oppositely fanatical, but that's generally not the case, and it's not really the case with the Clinton-Sanders split. Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.

Not that all or even most Sanders fans are like this, just that it's false that this is a case of "both sides do it".
posted by Sangermaine at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.
And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Can't Obama just run again?
posted by bgal81 at 3:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


I tend to think Trump doesn't need to win Iowa. In fact, I think he would probably be better off coming in a close 2nd to Cruz.

If Cruz loses to Trump in Iowa, particularly with any significant margin, he may be mortally wounded. Given that the field will likely shrink dramatically after NH, that could lead to an effective Trump vs Rubio fight, and I think that would finally get support to coalesce around Rubio, while Trump would hit his ceiling.

On the other hand, if Cruz wins, we could see a three man race going all the way to the convention.

As crazy as Trump is, I'd rather face him in the general, since I think Rubio could actually be electable.
posted by tau_ceti at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, but Michelle Obama probably can.
posted by corb at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


what would make America great again, from Republican standpoint, is nominating Rubio

Ew, no. I can't fathom why anyone with a uterus would support a politician whose platform is built on defunding Planned Parenthood and fully outlawing abortion, including exceptions for saving the life of the mother.
posted by palomar at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


The Clintons as portrayed in that DailyKos article almost sound like villains from The Blacklist.

Not that that's going to stop me from voting for her when Sanders can't overcome her inertia, because the alternative is a country controlled by religious fundamentalists :^(
posted by Small Dollar at 3:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apparently somebody at Clinton HQ must have found a dusty old copy of their 2008 playbook recently, because a whole lot of the Clinton supporters on my FB feed this week have gotten unapologetically nasty this week, mostly resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Sanders supporters, and nonspecific praise for her "pragmatism" and "growth." (This is mostly among gay men in DC for whatever that is worth)

It's really disquieting, because both of Democrats were running really nice campaigns that if anything strengthened both candidates' positions, and assuredly strengthened their party as a whole (Sanders forced Clinton to step up her game on economic issues, and Clinton forced Sanders to reach out to minority communities. The process actually works when everybody engages in civil debate!)

Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.

Personally, I see little in Clinton that inspires anything more than tepid support. Her support for the Iraq war really should have been an automatic disqualifier (and could become a huge liability in our diplomatic affairs), while Bill's legacy of "pragmatism" is looking awfully tarnished over time. Hillary is not Bill, but I see little to believe that their political philosophy is much different. Bill spent an enormous amount of political capital to appease congress (throwing my civil rights under the bus in the process), and was thanked with an impeachment.
posted by schmod at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [53 favorites]


I am of two minds on the whole caucus thing. From an idealistic standpoint, the parties are not part of the government, and I don't like the idea of putting on a big public election to determine who the party will endorse.

From a realistic perspective, with our stupid two-party system, so many elections are determined by who the party is supporting and therefore party endorsement should be as open as possible.
posted by ckape at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016


And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.

---

let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus?

She's the business-as-usual, don't-rock-the-boat candidate. The safe bet. She represents stability and the centre right democrat idea of electability.

I'm sure she'd be a competent if boring president who would deal with anything that comes her way well while not advancing any particular cause. She has the advantage over the republicans of not being fucking crazy and seeming like an adult. For America it's really not a bad outcome.

Her campaign is going to be HORRIBLE though. The moment any far right position of her opposition seems like it's gaining ground she's going to tack to a position that's 10% less awful than in them give speeches about it being the only practical way. Not looking forwards to that at all.
posted by Artw at 3:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


I am pretty sure this is what most Kossacks picture when they think of Hillary Clinton, tbh.
posted by bgal81 at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, not really.

Yes, it can, because every time somebody like you makes condescending and arrogant assertions with zero support it makes me want to vote for Clinton even less than I already do.

Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.

Of course, which is why Sanders and Clinton are polling more or less at the same level.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


This is mostly among gay men in DC for whatever that is worth

Is Hillary popular in the gay male community? I've had a few discussions with my best friend (who is a gay Seattleite) and he is a Hillary supporter and likes to use the word "unelectable" with regard to Bernie.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?

People do get it. But there is a real fear that a Benie nomination would result in a Republican victory in the general and the eventual appointment of even more conservative Supreme Court justices than Alito, Thomas and Scalia.
posted by notreally at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I wonder how much American electoral politics and it's advertising contribute to cord cutting?

I'm pretty glad I can just Netflix the commercials away in 2016 and I'll probably spring for commercial free Hulu as soon as it gets annoying there.
posted by srboisvert at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Of course, which is why Sanders and Clinton are polling more or less at the same level.

You completely missed my point, which is that among the Sanders supporters is a very dedicated group of near-fanatical supporters, hence the Paul comparison. That's one of Sanders's strengths, the devotion he inspires in some. It's not really present in the Clinton camp, they're not identical.

Vote for who you like, but be honest about the ways things are.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes, it can, because every time somebody like you makes condescending and arrogant assertions with zero support it makes me want to vote for Clinton even less than I already do.

Time to spend less time on the interwebs then.

Seriously, Clinton's camp was horrid in 2008, Sanders camp is horrid now (ask BLM, PP, and Ta-Nehisi Coates). This isn't a zero-sum game - both sides can be shitty.
posted by bgal81 at 3:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.

Yes. Apparently, everyone has forgotten the 2008 race, because Clinton and Obama supporters never said anything nasty about anyone, until, oh, about January 15th.

Really, what I'm going to do is count shitty comments from either side and support the other one. If I wanted to go with the side assholes are supporting, the GOP has a much wider selection.
posted by eriko at 3:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Socialism is racist, let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!

As a white dude it wouldn't occur to me to tell women and POC that I know what's in their interest better than they do.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


and reclaiming the party without the bigotry

Crack the Party! Overturn FPTP! I want a house of Reps with Libertarians, Constitutionalist, Republicans, Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens ....
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, not really.

I'll vote for whichever Democratic candidate ends up in the general, but her recent comments on single payer should be really, really problematic to anyone who is left-of-right-wing. She's taken millions and millions of dollars from big pharma and insurance companies over the years. She's in the pocket of big business, particularly that of their lobbyists, and if any of her team and her supporters will one day ever be honest about this, that will be a truly welcome change, because that will let us maybe begin to address the truly toxic influence of money on legislation and public policy.

Vote for who you like, but be honest about the ways things are.

That goes both ways.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


I sense some lingering bitterness over the short-lived Lessig run.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable

It's so weird to see this charge, because as someone currently undecided, holy shit are the Bernie supporters a huge turn-off... typically because they're pulling things like this, or shitting all over anyone who isn't 10000000% in the tank for Bernie.
posted by palomar at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


i just want bernie to stand up straight, is that so much to ask?
posted by poffin boffin at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.

"Struggling so much with women" that among women 45 and younger Sanders outpolls Clinton 48%-33%.
posted by junco at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]


Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.

So the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is... no, wait. okay, the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is that it is inherently patriarchal and white supremacist when deployed in a patriarchal, white supremacist country like the United States. That's the thing that gets me particularly annoyed by it; it's dumb and it's wrong and it's politically useless; a group that describes "identity politics" as a bourgeois distraction is by its nature not left in any meaningful way.

But what I was going to say particularly annoys me about it is that it's antique terminology that no one actually uses anymore, aside from people who use it as a term of abuse (sort of like how other conservatives, conservatives who actually realize that they're conservatives, use the term "race card" as a term of abuse).

The other, other thing that annoys me is that people who use "identity politics" as a term of abuse and then describe "identity politics" as a "bourgeois distraction" clearly haven't ever read Marx particularly well. If you read like the Bolsheviks and Peter Taaffe, but not Marx, you might walk away with the idea that the types of hyperexploitation that happen based on gendered and raced lines don't matter, or with the idea that the way we are gendered and raced under kyriarchical systems is a distraction from the "real" class based oppression we experience under capitalism. But if you sit down with a copy of Capital and actually read the thing, you quickly discover that Marx's interpretive framework isn't nearly as simplistic and cartoonish as most people who claim to be Marxists say it is.

tl;dr: feel free to say all the dumb regressive shit you want, but don't blame Marx for your own bad ideas, and don't pretend like being left requires having bad ideas about how raced, gendered oppression works.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]


I see little in Clinton that inspires anything more than tepid support. Her support for the Iraq war really should have been an automatic disqualifier

You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?
posted by Dashy at 3:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Crack the Party! Overturn FPTP! I want a house of Reps with Libertarians, Constitutionalist, Republicans, Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens ....

It's a nice thought. Unless you get something like Italy, where coalition governments tend to fall and go to early elections, or, even worse, the Israeli Knesset, where a bunch of hardline religious minority parties set a big chunk of the agenda, ruling out compromises. (And one can imagine, say, neo-Confederate parties couched in the language of Calvinist theology or similar acting as kingmakers, for a price, when neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left can muster enough votes to form a government.)
posted by acb at 3:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Field Guide to Ted Cruz
That brings us to the final rule. Cruz is not running for vice-president. He’s not angling for a cabinet position. He’s not positioning himself for a gubernatorial campaign, trying to promote his book, or auditioning for a gig on Fox News. Cruz is running for president because he wants to be president, and because, having surveyed the 2016 political landscape with his dauntingly intelligent and highly strategic mind, he concluded that he can win. The day he announced his campaign, I learned two things. Cruz sees a path to the presidency. And the path exists.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:29 PM on February 1, 2016


Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.

As a very undecided Democrat who likes both Clinton and Bernie, and is generally pained by reservations about both of them and their supporters, there's plenty of smugness coming from both sides of this.

Contempt, I see more coming from Bernie supporters aimed towards Clinton than vice-versa... at least at this point. I think it's mostly from the tone-deaf group of enthusiastic white dudes who don't realize how deeply unappealing their whole "dank Bernie Sanders memes against Hillary" thing is to people outside their group. Clinton was seeming out-of-touch with a lot of her social media appeal-to-the-snake people stuff at first, but now she looks like the more classy candidate in comparison to a lot of the bro-y stuff Bernie supporters are throwing around. Which is honestly pretty ridiculous, given Bernie's wonderful record of principle, but it's true. His supporters are gonna be a big problem going forward, I think.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]


Marx's interpretive framework isn't nearly as simplistic and cartoonish as most people who claim to be Marxists say it is.

Well, Marxists who pay attention to theory are like Christians who have read the philosophy of religion extensively, i.e., a minority (and one likely to be regarded with suspicion by their more dogmatically-sound fellow believers). Marxism-by-creed is a thing.
posted by acb at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'll vote for whichever Democratic candidate ends up in the general, but her recent comments on single payer should be really, really problematic to anyone who is left-of-right-wing

As someone who is left-of-right-wing and for universal health care, I am also against single payer. There are a lot of ways to achieve universal coverage, and many countries have done this without single payer, so I agree with Clinton on this. Obamacare was missing some key elements (especially on the regulation side, one key difference between say Germany and the US) but single-payer is not the right path to universal coverage, IMO.

There are a lot of people on the "left" who are for universal health care but against single payer. I think Sanders' plan is both the wrong approach and impractical (in terms of getting it passed ever).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The 'tone' argument is so tired. Please let it rest in peace.
posted by Dashy at 3:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Team Bernie here. If Secretary Clinton wins, this election becomes a lot less interesting, and I'll probably vote third party.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on February 1, 2016


All right, fellow Republicans. Now is the time for you to stop trolling, and just vote for fucking Rubio already.

Jonathan Chait: Being Less Crazy Than Donald Trump Does Not Make Marco Rubio ‘Moderate’
Rubio burst onto the national scene in 2010 as a self-described “movement conservative” who managed to draw backing from important Establishment Republicans, like the Bush family, and tea party groups. On foreign policy, he has embraced full-scale neoconservatism, winning enthusiastic plaudits from figures in the right-wing intelligentsia, like William Kristol. While much of the Republican Party has recoiled from the excesses of the Bush administration’s wild-eyed response to the 9/11 attacks, Rubio has not. He was one of 32 senators to oppose the USA Freedom Act, which restrained the federal government’s ability to conduct surveillance. He was one of just 21 senators opposing a prohibition on torture, insisting, “I do not support telegraphing to the enemy what interrogation techniques we will or won't use.” Indeed, Rubio now delights his audiences by promising to torture suspected terrorists, who will “get a one-way ticket to Guantánamo, where we’re going to find out everything they know.”

On social issues, Rubio has endorsed a complete ban on abortions, even in cases of rape and incest (a stance locating Rubio to the right of George W. Bush). He has promised to reverse executive orders protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination and to appoint justices who would reverse same-sex marriage. The centerpiece of Rubio’s domestic policy is a massive tax cut — more than three times the size of the Bush tax cut, and nearly half of which would go to the highest-earning 5 percent of taxpayers. By reducing federal revenue by more than a quarter, Rubio’s plan would dominate all facets of his domestic program, which is otherwise a mix of conventional Republican proposals to eliminate Obamacare, jack up defense spending, and protect retirement benefits for everybody 55 and up. Rubio has voted for the Paul Ryan budget (“by and large, it's exactly the direction we should be headed”). He has proposed to deregulate the financial system, thrilling Wall Street. (Richard Bove, author of Guardians of Prosperity: Why America Needs Big Banks, wrote a grateful op-ed headlined, “Thank you, Marco Rubio.”)
Charlie Pierce: Here's What's Really Happening with Marco Rubio in Iowa (emphasis in original)
It's The Marco Rubio Fck The Planet Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI! Tour '16.

And, anyway, Young Marco Rubio has gone full wingnut on the single most wingnutty issue there is: He is the great youthful champion of neoconservative fantasyland.
"When I am commander-in-chief," said Rubio, "the best intelligence services in the world will find the terrorists, and the best military in the world will destroy the terrorists, and if we capture them, they're not going to get a lawyer, they're not going to get the right to remain silent, they're not going to a courtroom in Manhattan. They're getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay and we're going to find out everything they know."
He leaves it there, having placed the image of gleaming waterboards in the eager minds of his audience. But he does not say "torture." Oh, no. He does not do that because Marco Rubio, surging or not, remains a towering political lightweight and as complete a political coward as politics has seen in many a year. We should have been tipped by the way he turtled on his own immigration bill. Or by the way he describes his surrender on what was supposed to be his signature issue as a sacrifice he has made to the war on terror, that he changed on the issue because of Daesh, and not because it wouldn't sell out here in the heartland. Or by the way he talks about the president, now at every stop on the campaign:
"When did the American Dream begin to erode? I can point to one moment in particular. It came in the year 2008 when we elected a president who didn't want to fix the problems in America. He wanted to change America…A president who summarily and regularly undermines the Constitution…We can't elect Hillary Clinton president. We can't elect Bernie Sanders president. We can't elect one of them to succeed a president who sees violating the Constitution as part of his job description…When I take the oath of office, I will put my left hand on the Bible and my right hand up to heaven and I will swear to protect and to defend the Constitution of the United States and, unlike Barack Obama, I'll mean it."
This is quite something for a sitting United States Senator to say. If he believes it, then he is bound by the oath he took as a senator to propose the president's impeachment and to work as hard with like-minded members of the House Of Representatives to bring it about. He has no choice. That is his sworn duty under the Constitution. But he never says "impeachment." Oh no, he does not do that, because Young Marco Rubio—who is surging!—doesn't have the guts to do it, or the dedication to his job as a senator even to try. All he has is the perception of momentum, and the good fortune to have been born neither a Trump nor a Cruz. For the rest of us, the words of Mr. S. Spade of San Francisco will have to suffice: the cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [50 favorites]


And by the way, here's what Clinton said about single payer:
"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"

She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
And she's right. The only people who would find that "really, really problematic" are living in fantasy land.

In the current political situation, single payer will never, ever happen. The Republicans will likely still control Congress no matter who wins, and they will never, ever agree to that. Obama, who also took pharma and insurance money, had to fight tooth and nail to pull the country even a few inches towards universal healthcare.

The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is. The proposal above to amend the Constitution to change our electoral system is more likely.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the possibility of losing what little we've gained is very, very real. President Trump or Cruz or Rubio will definitely, without a doubt, do everything in their power to gut the ACA and everything else Obama has done.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]


To add positively: I really admire and appreciate that the Clinton - Sanders fight has remained so issue- and policy-focused.
posted by Dashy at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


“It’s [same-sex marriage] sinful. They want us to swallow it, you say. We have to run this bunch out of Washington, D.C. We have to rid the earth of them. Get them out of there. Ted Cruz loves God.”
-- Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson campaigning for Cruz.

Team Bernie here. If Secretary Clinton wins, this election becomes a lot less interesting, and I'll probably vote third party.

Team Bernie here. I'll vote for O'Malley in the general if I have to just to keep any one of the people Republicans presented out of reach of the presidency.
posted by Talez at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [52 favorites]


i just want bernie to stand up straight, is that so much to ask?


If Bernie stood up straight, he wouldn't look nearly as much like a wild-eyed, fire-breathing, Apocalyptic preacher riding from town to town. That's seriously half of his brand differentiation. I think his campaign manager may be trying to convince him to start wearing a wide-brimmed hat.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Quoth Glenn Greenwald...

The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims:

1) A refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and

2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?

Her role in the Libyan war shows she didn't learn the lessons she should have from her Iraq vote. Gaddafi may be gone, but NATO's military adventure there has left the country a ruin which presents a greater danger to the U.S. than it did before.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Yes, this method of caucusing is undemocratic and classist and silly but if this is how our current media-reliant system works, so be it.

I'll be there tonight rocking my post-surgery eyepatch!
posted by nicodine at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also, I don't think that saying "Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't like Bernie Sanders" is a good point in Hillary's favor. Hillary is more popular with people of color, but there's no logical or good reason for that. And Sanders isn't a bad candidate because he doesn't support reparations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, I don't think that saying "Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't like Bernie Sanders" is a good point in Hillary's favor.

He doesn't like Hillary either, as he pointed out in his follow-up article that didn't get any attention:
Hillary Clinton has no interest in being labeled radical, left-wing, or even liberal. Thus announcing that Clinton doesn’t support reparations is akin to announcing that Ted Cruz doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose. The position is certainly wrong. But it is hardly a surprise, and doesn't run counter to the candidate’s chosen name. What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important. Many Sanders supporters, for instance, correctly point out that Clinton handprints are all over America’s sprawling carceral state. I agree with them and have said so at length. Voters, and black voters particularly, should never forget that Bill Clinton passed arguably the most immoral “anti-crime” bill in American history, and that Hillary Clinton aided its passage through her invocation of the super-predator myth. A defense of Clinton rooted in the claim that “Jeb Bush held the same position” would not be exculpatory. (“Law and order conservative embraces law and order” would surprise no one.) That is because the anger over the Clintons’ actions isn’t simply based on their having been wrong, but on their craven embrace of law and order Republicanism in the Democratic Party’s name.
posted by junco at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Team Bernie here. If Secretary Clinton wins, this election becomes a lot less interesting, and I'll probably vote third party.

If my preferred left-lefist doesn't win I will refuse to vote for the center-leftist and do my part in assuring the victory of the frothing racist, misogynist, islamophobic, crazypants Trump!
posted by Justinian at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [45 favorites]


The repubs will STILL control the House, a majority of state legislatures and potential the Senate.

Who will be able to do anything perchance a Dem takes the office?

4 more years just like the last. With Hillary, it will be Vince Foster on up to Benghazi! with the added bonus of the email "scandal." With Bernie, who knows, probably lame duck from the get go.

Dems should be seriously looking at down ballot races. The Kochs, who pledged to spend 900 million sure aren't putting a lot into the presidential, where do you think they ARE putting it?
posted by Max Power at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm fine with either Clinton or Sanders but there really isn't a more bro-ish campaign slogan than #FEELTHEBERN. Somehow I always hear it in my head in Jeff Spicoli's voice.
posted by octothorpe at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


You can be radical and not support reparations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Every four years a bunch of people start to whine about how Iowa is a terrible place to have such focused political attention, as though the alternatives are so much better.

The caucus system takes time for a reason. Those that show up actually know what they hell they are voting for and care about their position. We all mope about decrying how such-and-such a percentage of the population doesn't even know there are three branches of government and yet they get an equal vote to blah, blah, blah... but then in comes the caucus, an event that lazy people just won't attend, but anyone can attend. If you are going to nominate a candidate for a major party, this is a pretty good way to do it. Moreover, these people are not just involved, they've been saturation bombed by these candidates. They've seen them, heard them, met them - how many of us can say that, sitting at home, avoiding stump speeches, and waiting to cast a primary vote that we decided on x many months ago? How many of you are ready to see your candidate lose in a first round vote, then listen to debates about who to support in the next round because you have to choose among the top candidates? (GOP, I'm looking at your sorry asses)

Then comes the criticism of Iowa itself. A rather boring and ignorant bunch of arguments comes about with snide comments about farms and pigs. However, rarely do you hear comments about how it has one of, if not the best, public education system in the country and how only about 10% of the economy, and 2% or so of the jobs, are related to agriculture.

Next of course comes the slam that Iowa is just a bunch of bible belt white folks. Yes, Iowa is less diverse than the country as a whole. Of course, that hasn't stopped it from going Democratic at least as often for the GOP in recent national elections (including for Obama), being one of the first states to legalize gay marriage, and having progressive stances on issues that would make most of the nation feel bad about itself for, oh, the last 150 years.

So, yeah, go ahead and make fun of Iowa, and then realize that it has done pretty damn well by the nation over the last several decades.
posted by Muddler at 3:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


"no logical or good reason" - I think I see what you're saying, but that's a pretty unfortunate phrasing.

I do have a question on the TNH criticism of Sanders, having not read the article* - is this a standalone criticism or in comparison to Clinton?

*to my shame.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016


If my preferred left-lefist doesn't win I will refuse to vote for the center-leftist and do my part in assuring the victory of the frothing racist, misogynist, islamophobic, crazypants Trump!

I don't think we have to be mean in this thread. I think it would be better if we respected that everyone who is over 18 and American has the right to make up their own mind.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'll probably vote third party.

It's been 16 years and the great Miss Ivins is no longer with us, but her wise words still ring true: "When you are barely making it in this society, hanging on by your fingernails, with every unexpected expense a crisis, it matters which is the lesser of two evils."
posted by zarq at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [84 favorites]


Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.

I'm pretty convinced that many of the "Berniebros" I encounter online are actually former Ron Paul supporters (see, for example, the Libertarians for Bernie subreddit) or if they're too young to have supported him 4 years ago, they would support a similar candidate today. And this whole narrative (cf Glenn Greenwald) that they don't exist is just strange (considering Sander's campaign has stated that they are displeased with the behavior of some of his supporters). Greenwald's essay seems very out-of-touch with the kind of grassroots online campaign pioneered by Obama, which Sanders himself claims to be emulating.

I'm probably going to vote for Clinton in the primary, because while I don't agree with many of her political positions, I agree with enough and I think she is the most qualified candidate on the whole slate, especially facing an obstructionist Republican Congress. I'd probably vote for her even if she was the conniving, Macchiavellian, murderous medusa that Republican operatives have successfully convinced us that she is.
posted by muddgirl at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Welp, I was too slow on that last comment.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016




The thing that irritates me about Clinton's single-payer criticism is that it assumes the ACA must be repealed before a more universal plan can be negotiated and passed. I'm no parliamentary expert, but couldn't repeal of the existing law be included in the bill implementing the replacement? Then if a proposed Medicare-for-all plan failed, we'd just return to the current status quo, not the more awful state of things pre-Obamacare. It's disingenuous attacks like that which are getting people riled up.

re: misogynistic Bernie Bros, I find that argument hard to swallow -- wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all? Clinton is a decent candidate, but there is plenty of room to criticize her record from a progressive viewpoint.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


I like Bernie and all, but Greenwald is kind of full of it - Bernie supporters being shitty are visible all over the place, and I wish they'd stop it.

Charitably you could argue that he's correct in that the Clinton camp seems to want to sweep them in with anyone mildly critical of her, but really that's just how things work when you've picked up asshold supporters.
posted by Artw at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


"identity politics are a bourgeois distraction"

So the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is... no, wait. okay, the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is that it is inherently patriarchal and white supremacist when deployed in a patriarchal, white supremacist country like the United States.

You do realize that this first entered the thread as a bad-faith interpretation of Sander's position...a bad-faith interpretation proffered by a...wait for it... Hillary supporter.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Most of the people posting Bernie memes and pro-Bernie stuff on my social media feeds are queer women and queer men and it's kind of offensive and invalidating to generalize anyone's supporters just because some of them are annoying. I went to a Bernie rally in Reno and a guy yelled out "legalize weed!!!" and a few people laughed, but more people made noise when he made points advocating for issues that benefit queer individuals, transgendered people, and POC. The bro Bernie supporters are that guy that everyone laughs at, but there are more memorable, personal things that the rest of us take to our hearts.
posted by gucci mane at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [57 favorites]


The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is.

I'm not sure Hillary's well-funded opposition to healthcare reform suggests she is necessarily more competent than Bernie. If whichever presumably left-wing President is elected can't do their job — which is to be a left-wing President that gets left-wing legislation like healthcare reform enacted — then that doesn't really inspire a whole lot of confidence in them being able to do the rest of their job.

Her campaigning is even less confidence-inspiring, given that she was for healthcare reform twenty-odd years ago. If she couldn't do it then, why should we be able to trust her with that task now, especially when her campaign has been paid off by the same companies she would be expected to regulate?

Being President is a serious job, with serious consequences for the public when the job can't — or, worse, won't — be done, because of ties to industry. If she isn't capable or willing to do what we elected President Obama to do back in 2008(!), then maybe she should step aside and let someone in her party with less baggage and more energy step in and get the job done.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


gucci mane, I think there are also many of us who are LGBTQ who, if Sanders isn't the nominee, are very hesitant to support Clinton because I honestly don't think she gets us. Or cares all that much.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's worth noting that not every state is a swing state. If you don't live in a swing state, you can feel free to vote for a third-party without worrying too much about the general.
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Question, as a democrat. If I lived in Iowa, I would have to show up to one of these caucuses, publicly declare my choice, then have to put up with people trying to convince me one way or the other, then I could vote? There's no way I could just show up, write down a name, put it in a box (or digital equivalent) and go home?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The point isn't that Hillary could achieve single payer, it's that neither of them can and neither should pretend they can. The current crop of Republicans, who will surely still control Congress after the election, have voted 40+ times to repeal the ACA. They have built their entire modern platform on destroying it. The idea that they would consider even speaking about maybe considering healthcare reform is crazy.

Bismarck, for all his faults, was right when he said that politics is the art of the possible. I think it's dishonest to promise supporters things you cannot achieve. I think single payer is a goal to work towards, and that the Democrats should do this by developing a strategy to take back Congress, but it's not a goal that can be achieved solely by whoever is the next President.

It's sort of the mirror of the Tea Party's rise, where they promised their supporters that they were going to repeal the ACA when they never had the power or ability to achieve that.

Being President is a serious job, with serious consequences for the public

Yes, so be serious about what can and can't be achieved. Don't mislead your supporters, even if that means telling them things they don't want to hear. I'm tired of everyone promising the Moon. Create a plan that you can realistically implement.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"

She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
Clinton's argument makes no sense to me. People who have health emergencies can receive cover under the Affordable Care Act so long as it exists. Moreover, fighting for single-payer or otherwise socialized medicine doesn't require suspending the Affordable Care Act while the government considers the merits of a better law, nor has Sanders advocated doing any such thing.

It's true that Sanders wouldn't be able to get single-payer healthcare passed in the current legislature, but I think it would be better to have someone powerful advocate for that policy rather than concede to the Right that it can never, ever be done, simply because the Right currently controls Congress. Finally, I think going on the offense with respect to the government's involvement in healthcare would make for a stronger defense of the Affordable Care Act.

That's why this statement bothers me.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [43 favorites]


Brandon Blatcher, that's correct.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016


GOP voters looking for a strong man.
George Lambert
From: Litchfield, NH
Age: 47
Occupation: Computer-software executive
Supporting: Trump

I call myself a liberty Republican
The cognitive dissonance. The cognitive fucking dissonance of calling yourself anything "liberty" while simultaneously supporting a candidate who has yelled to the fucking hills that he will wield executive power with an iron fist.

Someone please fucking shoot me.
posted by Talez at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


This is the first election since 1996 I plan to skip entirely. This circus is only going to get dumber and meaner. I don't find any of these yahoos viable, and I can't bring myself to hold my nose, once again, and pull a lever. That's how I feel.
posted by echocollate at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




To clarify my statement way up top, I'd be against the Illinois Caucus or New York Caucus or New Hampshire Caucus or any other kind of caucus kicking off the presidential election season too. It's not about Iowa, a state I actually love; it's the process that demands folks have the luxury of participating in it, which I think is asking too much.

But you can also bet your sweet ass that I'd be there if I was an Iowan and I'm happy those from there are doing the same.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's sort of the mirror of the Tea Party's rise, where they promised their supporters that they were going to repeal the ACA when they never had the power or ability to achieve that.

And now,

The current crop of Republicans, who will surely still control Congress after the election, have voted 40+ times to repeal the ACA. They have built their entire modern platform on destroying it. The idea that they would consider even speaking about maybe considering healthcare reform is crazy.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses work differently, Brandon Blatcher. If you're a Republican, you show up, listen to some speeches, write down your choice on a piece of paper, and go home. If you're a Democrat, you listen to speeches, go to the side of the room where your people are congregating, try to convince Martin O'Malley's supporters to come to your side, and then you can go home. But you can also stay and vote on platform resolutions if you don't have anything better to do.

It's a stupid, stupid, stupid system. I'm going to leave to go do it in ten minutes, and I don't understand how anyone can support it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


*makes note never to lose to Iowa, because I would completely lose my shit in that situation*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Clinton doesn't win Florida I will sincerely regret all the time I spent in cemeteries.
posted by Splunge at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Question, as a democrat. If I lived in Iowa, I would have to show up to one of these caucuses, publicly declare my choice, then have to put up with people trying to convince me one way or the other, then I could vote? There's no way I could just show up, write down a name, put it in a box (or digital equivalent) and go home?

I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.
posted by Max Power at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016


With regard to that Greenwald piece:

I've been a fan of Greenwald since like back when he was writing for salon.com, and I'm a supporter of Sanders even though I think he's without a doubt too far to the right. That aside, though, while I agree with Greenwald that it's not useful to dismiss Sanders supporters as all being Bernie Bros or whatever, it is also deeply wrong to dismiss the testimony of Clinton supporters (prominent writers like Sady Doyle and Amanda Marcotte, and also just average Clinton supporters) who talk about the violent, stupid, gendered abuse (gendered slurs, targeted, specific rape threats, and threats to make public their home addresses) that they receive for being public supporters of Clinton.

As a dude for Sanders, I believe that dudes for Sanders have a responsibility to acknowledge the antidemocratic, misogynist behavior of other dudes for Sanders, and to make clear to other Sanders supporters that abusive, misogynistic, antidemocratic behavior — the stuff that's all over Sanders subreddit, for example — is simply not to be tolerated no matter which candidate you support. The use of threats of gendered violence, explicit threats or implied threats, to silence women, or to scare women away from public political participation, is not valid behavior for anyone who purports to be on the left, regardless of whatever politics the woman being threatened holds.

As such I'm much more than a little disappointed in that Greenwald piece. It is absolutely true that the Sanders base is gender-diverse; this makes it even more crucial that as Sanders supporters we acknowledge that some Sanders supporters are misguided and misogynistic, and to do everything we can to make clear that misogynistic threats against Clinton supporters issued by some Sanders supporters:
  1. actually exist
  2. are genuine problems, and
  3. must be addressed rather than ignored.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


It's a stupid, stupid, stupid system. I'm going to leave to go do it in ten minutes, and I don't understand how anyone can support it.

Because it sounds democratic, while being profoundly anti-democratic.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016


You can be radical and not support reparations.

Yes, but he answer to why he didn't support reparations was that they were infeasible:

First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.

Coates' response is well so is single payer . It seems like a hypocritical act to be arguing for the infeasible single payer health care, and not wanting to argue for "divisive" reparations.
posted by zabuni at 3:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.

Identity politics are not a "bourgeois distraction," they're a daily reality of life, but cynical, manipulative appeals to people's sense of their own identity do a lot to help prop up white supremacy and patriarchy. So for me the question is, of Sanders and Clinton, which candidate uses identity manipulatively to court votes? I've had my hands full watching my life go down the tubes this election cycle, so I really haven't been able to pay enough attention to tell which candidate seems to be most prone to manipulatively appealing to people's sense of identity to rally support to their side, but whoever's doing that the most is probably going to be most invested, politically, in perpetuating the status quo because they know how to work the levers of people's identities, Southern Strategy style, and why would any politician want to give up that kind of power for making people fall in line? Politicians manipulate people for a living. Whatever tools they bring to the job, you can bet they won't stop relying on them after the election's over.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Most of the people posting Bernie memes and pro-Bernie stuff on my social media feeds are queer women and queer men and it's kind of offensive and invalidating to generalize anyone's supporters just because some of them are annoying.

It's almost entirely brogressive white dudes, some gay and some straight, sharing "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash" on my feed, so that informs my reaction. I don't feel that saying "he has some problematic, vocal supporters who are doing him more harm than good" is the same as saying "all his supporters are problematic." I'm a legitimately undecided voter who likes both candidates and I still see his Reddit hype as something that I find offputting.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited.
Wait, what, no. No. It sucks, but it doesn't suck that much. The caucuses are open to everyone. It's not hard to find out where they are. It's just a pain in the ass, and you're out of luck if you can't find a babysitter or have to work tonight.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is.

The idea that a Democrat President could achieve anything with a majority GOP congress is delusional. If we're not going to accomplish anything, I at least want progressive ideas being spoken from the office of the president. For so many decades dems have been negotiating against themselves in the hopes that it will convince the GOP to get on board. All it does is move us farther to the right. Nothing is going to happen with a GOP congress -- with either Bernie or Clinton. With Bernie, we have a chance to actually change political engagement in this country, which means changing the House/Senate races in the midterms and in 2020. Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


Rustic Etruscan,

The Tea Party was wrong about what it could do when it came to power. But they did do what the Democrats need: lay the groundwork in Congress. The Presidency is powerful but the President isn't a god, no matter who it is.

If the Bernie phenomenon were instead a Tea Party-like takeover of Congress, I'd be much more supportive.

I really wish the Democrats would display some kind of plan for trying to win back Congress and the states. It feels like they've given up on anything but the Presidency, and that's not enough.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.

What the fuck? So if a Democrat can't get into or find a caucus, they don't get to vote? And the caucus locations aren't publically available?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016


People do get it. But there is a real fear that a Benie nomination would result in a Republican victory in the general and the eventual appointment of even more conservative Supreme Court justices than Alito, Thomas and Scalia.

Umm, you forget that Hilary Clinton is the SINGLE MOST HATED PERSON IN THE GOP WORLD? EVEN MORE THAN OBAMA?

Seriously NEVER take into account what they might do. What they will do is go all in to destroy is whomever the Dems nominate. Period. So, what they might do isn't a factor -- we already know what they will do. Lie, threaten, scream, and repeat. The question is which one will get out enough *of our vote* to stop them? Kerry didn't. Gore did, but didn't have enough safety margin and lost anyway. Obama did, twice. That's the key. Our vote. Get our vote out, we win.

The point is to find the candidate that will get the most *democratic* votes. Period. Everything else is noise.

Indeed, the one reason I have for going for Sanders is that people like Bloomberg are so scared of him that they're considering running themselves. They got no problem with Clinton, but Sanders? Scares the fuck out of them. And voting for the person *who scares them* is always tempting. The question is "does that translate into getting democratic votes out?" And the answer is "Probably not." So, we toss that factor into the bin, because it's not useful.

And you are a fool if you are looking at either Iowa or New Hampshire to figure out which Democrat can win states like Ohio. This caucus and that primary are literally meaningless. Let me show you.

Clinton supporter, Clinton wins: It's a lock, give up and let's get ready for the general.
Clinton supporter, Sanders wins: Iowa isn't important. It's only 45 total delegates. It's not a blue state. This has barely started.
Sanders supporter, Sanders wins: See, Clinton can't even get support in a conservative state. Give up, and let's get ready for the general.
Sanders supporter, Clinton wins: Iowa isn't important. It's only 45 total delegates. It's not a blue state. This has barely started.

The winner will declare victory. The loser will tell you exactly why it wasn't important. THEY WILL BOTH BE RIGHT.

So, seriously. This is meaningless. Until we get about 10 in, you won't know. In 2008, Obama won the first four, and then Clinton won the next two and it was basically a dead tie. After Super Tuesday? It was...still a dead tie. We didn't know the actual numbers until the end, but they turned out to be 1063 Obama, 1052 Clinton. It wasn't until the February 9th primaries/caucus, numbers 28-31, that Obama established a real lead.

So this? This is that stupid pair of games the NCAA plays now to decide who the 60-64th teams will be in the big tournament. This isn't even the first round.

News stations will blather. People will blather.

It's not important.

Really. It's not. Not in one bit. If it's anywhere near close enough that the Iowa caucus could be a tiebreaker, it'll come down to an actual brokered convention, because the "pledged" super delegates will go "Oh, shit..." and start looking for somebody else.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


brogressive white dudes

Can people call you femservative, then? Or are you the only one allow to use cute insulting nicknames.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


From that article that entropicamericana posted about Iowa and New Hampshire GOP voters:

Largely, the reason why I’m a conservative is because I’ve been on public assistance my whole life, and I have always felt ashamed of it. I have two major health conditions — cerebral palsy and an injury to my left hemidiaphragm. The whole idea of welfare and entitlements is to create a permanent underclass. They’ll give you plenty of handouts, but they won’t give you any hand-ups.

I... what? This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine with several severe health conditions who lives on SSDI and whose father made a good living working a union job at Chrysler consistently voting GOP.
posted by dhens at 4:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.

How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


At this point I have to pray that the same country that's spent the last 8+ years bogged down in idiotic arguments about the Muslim Nazi Socialist from Kenya is going to elect a self-described socialist who looks and sounds like the host of a Pacifica radio show, or Hillary Clinton. I was pissed at Al Gore when he conceded way too soon in 2000, and I'm kind of pissed at him now. He could win this damn thing without breaking a sweat, and we really need this thing won. The alternative is a reality show novelty candidate fascist and a blobfish creep who almost makes W look reasonable.

If we end up with a Trump/Cruz administration and the Republicans in charge of the house and the senate, the whole world's screwed. Lucky for me I'll probably be dead before things get really bad, because I'm one of those sickly people depending on Obamacare to keep me alive and the conservatives will be repealing that shit, 8 o'clock day one. But hey, good luck in Waterworld, folks!
posted by Ursula Hitler at 4:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

I agree with you. But for Bernie to get elected, there will necessarily be a large grassroots movement of people and causes that haven't traditionally participated in the electoral process. That movement, with Bernie's election, will continue and will create the necessary change.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


So if a Democrat can't get into or find a caucus, they don't get to vote? And the caucus locations aren't publically available?
No, this isn't right. It might have been harder pre-internet, and it might be harder for people who don't have the internet. (There are tons of online caucus-site-finder tools this year, and they're working for me even though my address is wonky in several ways.) Your caucus site is decided by voting precinct, and it's typically not at the same place where you usually vote, which is confusing. But the caucus sites are listed in the newspaper. You can call the local party and they'll tell you.

What is true is that a lot of people find out because they commit to a candidate and then that candidate sends them a mailer or calls them to tell them where to go. So if you're uncommitted, you're probably going to have to go out of your way to find out where you caucus. And if you're committed to a candidate with no ground game (ie Trump), then you might be on your own, although we'll see how that plays out.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Quoth Glenn Greenwald...

The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims:

1) A refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and

2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).


Quoth Izzy Galvez:
No one doubted Bernie Bros™ were an issue until a white man wrote a think piece claiming he doesn't believe they exist.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


But for Bernie to get elected, there will necessarily be a large grassroots movement of people and causes that haven't traditionally participated in the electoral process. That movement, with Bernie's election, will continue and will create the necessary change.

We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Honestly, I know this is a fringe position from the other party, but Sanders is capable of siphoning off way more Republican votes than Clinton is. He has a better gun record than Trump, and even though he's a socialist, he's not a big-city socialist - he's a small-state, rural-friendly socialist. People see Clinton coming and they start reflexively looking for accident victims.
posted by corb at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.

How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.


Not sure I believe this, but there are plenty of folks with good reason to think that with Clinton as the person at the top, the fundamental change from the bottom will be the same DLC/triangulation strategy that hurt so many progressive causes 20 years ago.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hey, that Ta-Nehisi Coates article linked above is excellent and well worth a read.

A Democratic candidate who offers class-based remedies to address racist plunder because that is what is imminently doable, because all we have are bandages, is doing the best he can. A Democratic candidate who claims that such remedies are sufficient, who makes a virtue of bandaging, has forgotten the world that should, and must, be. Effectively he answers the trenchant problem of white supremacy by claiming “something something socialism, and then a miracle occurs.”

No. Fifteen years ago we watched a candidate elevate class above all. And now we see that same candidate invoking class to deliver another blow to affirmative action. And that is only the latest instance of populism failing black people.

posted by triggerfinger at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.

That's not a reason to stop trying.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the idea that conservatives are going to work with ANY Delocratic pretty silly, TBH. It'll be the same aggressive shitbaggery no matter what. Hell, it's hard to say they'd work with a Republican president.
posted by Artw at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The idea that a Democrat President could achieve anything with a majority GOP congress is delusional.

Do Clinton supporters honestly believe that she has any better of a chance at working with a Republican Congress than Sanders? The idea that she can magically undo the several decades of hate for her by the GOP establishment to get things done is absolutely fantasyland. If she even manages to get elected, she would be fighting a steep, uphill climb from day one. A vote for her is a vote for someone who would, in all truth, have a harder time getting the job done than Sanders or anyone else whose last name isn't Clinton.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.

But he isn't really. He's leading among young women, and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decades -- she's one of the most famous and best connected people on the planet. It's very early in the process to be deciding that poll results are based on a careful examination of candidate's positions.
posted by zipadee at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

Well, for starters, he could appoint an AG who would investigate funding of recent federal election campaigns, and the political favors thereby bought and sold. He's the only candidate, to my knowledge, even talking about corruption in campaign finance.

Light is the best disinfectant, etc.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I just can't fathom the mindset that would enable a person to throw all their support behind a candidate because they truly believe this election matters... but if their candidate doesn't make it to the general election, they're not going to vote at all. Guess the belief in the importance of the election is just lip service?
posted by palomar at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


The most fun election scenario would be:

-Trump and Cruz/Rubio are neck-and-neck, the RNC pulls some rules bullshit to give it to Cruz/Rubio, Trump goes 3rd Party

-Same on the Dem side for Clinton, Sanders goes 3rd Party

-Bloomberg runs due to the splits

Then we'd get a 5-way Cruz/Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Clinton, Bloomberg race.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


He's leading among young women, and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decades

Is political favors handed out over several decades just a way to say they feel she has represented their interests but in a way that sounds shady?
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Pretty weird that people are deciding that single payer is some kind of science fiction idea when the largest and most popular health care program in the U.S. (Medicare) is single payer.

Also worth noting that Bernie got over $10 billion in additional funding for a single payer program -- community health centers -- into the Affordable Care Act so I think he knows a little bit about how to do things politically.
posted by zipadee at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]



I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.


To be fair it was a smallish town, they had only lived there 3 or 4 years, all the caucuses were in, at the time, peoples houses or like Elk clubs. When my M in Law asked for information uncomfortable silences would ensue.
posted by Max Power at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016


and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decades
I think it might be due partly to the fact that Sanders supporters keep saying shit like this.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


Clinton will almost certainly be like Obama 2nd term. Ignore Congress, do what you can as President (executive orders, judicial nominations, vetos).

Sanders I'm less clear. The stuff he talks about can only be done through Congress. Does he have a 1st-term Obama like view that he can somehow work with them? Or is it just him saying what he wishes, even though he knows its impossible? I have no idea.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump pays lip service to campaign finance, at least. There does exist a group of people undecided between Trump and Sanders.
posted by Small Dollar at 4:13 PM on February 1, 2016


corb: It's worth noting that not every state is a swing state. If you don't live in a swing state, you can feel free to vote for a third-party without worrying too much about the general.

Yes, but if you live in any of the following 14 states, your vote (and especially your lack of vote) most certainly counts in the primary:
  • Alabama
  • Arkansas
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
Why?

All 14 have open primaries. Which means that everyone can vote for one party's nominee.

I said this in metatalk earlier today, but in 2008, John McCain won no Republican primaries through Super Tuesday. But he became the GOP nominee thanks in part to those 14 states up above with open primaries, which allow moderates and independent voters to cast their ballots for a party's nominee, without being one of its registered members. Before he chose Palin to be his running mate, McCain was a far more palatable choice to folks on the fence than Romney or Huckabee.

Open primaries provide an opportunity and possible point of voter manipulation for candidates. In Mississippi in 2014, Senator Thad Cochran won the Republican primary runoff against Republican state Senator Chris McDaniel. Before the runoff, Cochran begged African American Mississippians (who traditionally overwhelmingly vote Democrat) to cross party lines and vote for him in the state primary. Voter turnout in majority-African American districts exploded.

Back in '08, activists on both sides asked their own bases to vote in the other party's primary, and choose the candidate they thought their party's candidate was more likely to defeat. The most well-known is Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," which asked his dittoheads to vote for candidate Clinton (who was in the middle of losing eleven straight primary contests to Barack Obama,) in the hope that they could prevent Obama from clinching the nomination early and wooing Clinton's funders and superdelegates. At the time Limbaugh -- predictably -- declared that it had worked. Clinton won the Texas and Indiana primaries thanks to support from traditionally Republican districts.

Limbaugh's already raising the specter of "Operation Chaos 2" on his show: Voting for Sanders to either help him win, help knock Clinton out of the running or just delay her from clinching the nomination early. What effect his influence could have on primary elections is unclear.
posted by zarq at 4:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton is a warhawk. A Clinton presidency would not look like Obama's.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Can people call you femservative, then? Or are you the only one allow to use cute insulting nicknames.

People can call me whatever they like. I find it useful to have a term for men who are progressive insofar as they support legalizing weed and gay marriage, but don't care much for things like abortion rights or affordable housing. I don't do it because it's "cute", I do it because I think those people are toxic.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Clinton is a warhawk. A Clinton presidency would not look like Obama's.

You mean Obama, the drone President? I don't think there is any significant difference between them on national security and foreign policy.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton faces losing Iowa to Sanders thanks to young women: Polls showing that Vermont's socialist senator winning powerful support among young women voters

One national survey suggests that Mr Sanders enjoys a 19 point lead over Mrs Clinton among women aged 18 to 34. In Iowa his favourability rating with women is 81 per cent, well ahead of Mrs Clinton's 69 per cent.
Overall, the rival campaigns are almost neck-and-neck in statewide polls, but the Sanders' campaign believes these young female voters in Iowa could be crucial.

posted by futz at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, the thing that scares me most about Clinton is the warmonger thing. Libya and what she has said about Syria and Russia seem to show someone who has learned little or nothing from her vote on Iran.

Obama has hardly been a pacifist but he's been shrewd enough to keep a lid on the worst impulses of the militarist establishment. The Iran deal is a major landmark and Hilary is already threatening to pull it back.
posted by zipadee at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Geh yer corn dogs, pantaloons, earplugs and extra ammunition!
posted by clavdivs at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016


corb's right about Sanders' pull with independents and independent-leaning Republicans. He's more electable than I think some Clinton partisans want to admit with potential crossover voters. But a lot of people don't feel comfortable with those kinds of political coalitions that may include some ugly bedfellows in the current climate, so Sander's might lose some of the Democratic puritans. Me, I'd gladly vote alongside people I don't agree with to see anybody but Trump win (or the other Rs, for that matter). The Republicans still haven't stopped chugging that limited government Kool-Aid, even though their real goals are usually more specific giveaways to various industries and wealthy interests.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


As with past election cycles, I am so very weary of Democratic intra-party machinations (I've encountered more than enough contemptuous supporters of both Clinton and Sanders).

However, I do appreciate the criticisms of the caucus system, which I, regrettably, haven't heeded until now. I never paid much attention to caucuses having lived in primary voting states for most my life, but three years ago I moved to Colorado, which has a caucus.

I participated in the midterm caucus year before last. Turnout was pitiful. I was one of two people from my precinct who showed up. Even then, I didn't realize how undemocratic the process was, but the critiques I've read in recent threads have opened my eyes.

Hopefully my wife and I can find childcare to caucus for Senator Sanders in a month; otherwise, she'll get to attend since I was the only one who could go last time.
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2016


No one doubted Bernie Bros™ were an issue until a white man wrote a think piece claiming he doesn't believe they exist.

This isn't actually so.
When faced with policy issues their critics are often told that Clinton is “problematic”, that she “has some issues”, or something similar. They refuse to engage with material concerns, reject internationalism almost outright, and rummage through a laundry list of accusations against “Berniebros” even when vocal detractors are women. Setting up the Berniebro straw-man has become their knee-jerk response to any critique, no matter how tempered and thorough—if they can’t formulate any kind of refutation they fall back on a ritual: ignore critics and tweet something against “bros” to thousands of followers who will laugh and throw forward some support.
And here's the often-unpleasant Amber Frost with the more acerbic version.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.

That's not a reason to stop trying.


When the theory itself is flawed, well...yeah, that is a reason to change tack. Change isn't going to come from the top down, and the promised "political revolution" is a bit light on the details of how the grass roots will be built.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder what Libyans or Malians think about Clinton?

Ah yes I forgot that Clinton was Commander in Chief in 2011. Oh wait...
posted by thefoxgod at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, seriously. This is meaningless. Until we get about 10 in, you won't know. In 2008, Obama won the first four

Obama won the first one, then Clinton won New Hampshire.
posted by Justinian at 4:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


i struggle with hrc in a way a never did with bho...i used to think it'd be such a huge deal for women to get any viable potus candidate.

what i think now is: corporate execs are largely indifferent to the gender of whoever's on the other side of the glory hole.

this probably says more about me than anyone else, but i'll own it.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


It would be hard for her to be worse than a Republican wrt bombing non-white people, but also hard to be much better. Bombing people is profitable. Again, it comes down to her campaign contributions:

Hillary Clinton has received more money from arms and military service companies than any other candidate during the 2016 presidential campaign, data from Open Secrets shows.

All but one of the world’s 10 biggest arms producers have contributed to Clinton’s previous campaigns, giving her — along with the top Republican receiver Ted Cruz — a significant margin over the other candidates.


To be fair, Sanders is only a little better on this score, and would probably not stand up to the gun nut lobby, either:

The numbers, collected by the Federal Election Commission and compiled by Open Secrets, also reveal that Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders make the list of top 20 senators and top six presidential candidates to receive money from arms and defense companies.

Again, it's all that fucking money. Gotta get the money out of politics. The rest feels like quibbling while Rome burns.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


One thing that Bernie himself understands about a race with Hillary Clinton, that a lot of Bernie supporters and opinion piece writers and I'd imagine a lot of the youngest voters really don't get, is that anti-Hillary stuff has been as plentiful as oxygen for two decades now and the overwhelming majority of it was total bullshit, so if you go too negative against her you run a real risk of seeming like the latest boy who cried wolf. Whether you want to or not - and whether your point is valid or not - you really really have to be careful that you don't accidentally invoke the spectre of Gingrich, Limbaugh, et al and get yourself ignored by mainstream Dems, because even the vaguest resemblance to 90's anti-Clintonism, fair or not, brings up a lot of strong feelings. Bernie gets it, he's careful about his jabs and he mostly comes at her from the angle of respectful colleague.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Do Clinton supporters honestly believe that she has any better of a chance at working with a Republican Congress than Sanders? The idea that she can magically undo the several decades of hate for her by the GOP establishment to get things done is absolutely fantasyland. If she even manages to get elected, she would be fighting a steep, uphill climb from day one. A vote for her is a vote for someone who would, in all truth, have a harder time getting the job done than Sanders or anyone else whose last name isn't Clinton.

I don't think the experience of the last year or so bears this out.

The Republicans clearly despise Obama. Yet, as the power of the Tea Party has waned and they were able to clamp down on some of their excesses under Ryan, the Republicans managed to do things like pass a budget with him.

It's incremental and the budget isn't ideal, but it's clear there's some movement possible again now that the ideologues demanding absolute purity and roaring to shut down the government in pursuit of politically impossible goals have quieted down a bit.

I think Clinton could work with the Republicans in this way. I don't think Sanders is capable of this approach, or at least he's run on a platform that is antithetical to that kind of compromise and pragmatism.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


femservatives or whatever you call people who support Hillary

Well, historically the term for us has been "feminazis", but one can always go in fun new directions.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Ah yes I forgot that Clinton was Commander in Chief in 2011. Oh wait...

Yep Obama owns Libya, but guess who was behind the scenes pushing for intervention when Obama was at first hesitant? And guess who will be more hawkish and more intervention prone? So what's your point exactly? That H-dog will not be all about "humanitarian intervention" when it suits "American interests?"
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have been tuning out a lot of this election because oh boy, but I am increasingly mystified by Sanders let's say very enthusiastic supporters, because: Trump supporters. Not Trump, his supporters. A good portion of this country hold beliefs that I and probably a lot of folks here would consider ignorant and racist.

I mean we have to either live with these dumbasses or make another country, and I don't see some blue state independent movement gain any traction.
posted by angrycat at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016


For what it's worth, I'd say about 70% of the radical/queer/poc people I follow across the internet have at one point or another said something along the lines of "holy fuck, I don't support either Dem but these fucking Bernie assholes are making me lean Hillary"

Obviously they're not being serious, but if Hillary supporters were "just as bad," they wouldn't be joking.
posted by easter queen at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


But a lot of people don't feel comfortable with those kinds of political coalitions that may include some ugly bedfellows in the current climate, so Sander's might lose some of the Democratic puritans.

Yeah ... Much more palatable for a candidate to accept hundreds of millions of dollars from drug companies, defense contractors, financial institutions and foreign governments.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]




> You do realize that this first entered the thread as a bad-faith interpretation of Sander's position...a bad-faith interpretation proffered by a...wait for it... Hillary supporter.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:46 PM on February 1 [2 favorites +] [!]


It was not a bad-faith interpretation of Sanders's position. It was an accurate description of the loudly expressed stances of the self-aggrandizing, self-important little boys that you find in many Marxist formations. Many of these boys have started supporting Sanders, and through their support they have been diligently chasing anti-white-supremacist PoC, feminist women, and their white-and-male allies away from the Sanders movement.

I know that Sanders is smarter than that position; I wouldn't support him if he weren't smarter than that position. I also know that many of Sanders's supporters hold to exactly the line from that comment by Pope Guilty (a comment that I favorited so hard).

As a cis man, there are types of information about the world that I can only get second-hand. I simply do not know what it is like to expect to be street harassed every time I walk out the door, and so I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the effects of street harassment. I can expect not to be groped when I ride the subway, and so I don't know how to be vigilant against it. As a white person, I simply don't know firsthand the corrosive, pervasive effects of living as a PoC under white supremacy; if I want to know, I have to ask.

Even though deep down I'm totes self-aggrandizing and self-important (otherwise I wouldn't waste so much time blatting out little essays in the comment threads on an ancient community website), I at least have the humility to accept that there are certain types of information that I can't get firsthand, and to accept that I have to listen to the people who can get that information when they tell me. This is why I tend to write off anyone who uses the term "identity politics" at all. Just as healing the damage done by capital to the people living under it requires actually consulting the people living under it and asking us what we need, healing the damage caused by patriarchy requires listening to and believing and following actual women.

I believe the thing that dogmatic Bolsheviks (I refrain from using the term "Marxist" here, because I don't think the "identity politics is a bourgeois distraction!" position is actually Marxist in any meaningful way), anyway, I believe the thing that dogmatic Bolsheviks can't get past is that the leadership of women (or the leadership of PoC) is necessary, but not sufficient. People with the cartoonish idea that acknowledging the existence of race and gender is "identity politics," and that "identity politics" means always voting for the person with the right race or gender, don't seem to be able to realize that maybe it is necessary for women and PoC to occupy leadership positions, but not sufficient. Like, just because it is necessary that any left government must include women and PoC at top positions, because women and PoC bear the brunt of the damaged caused by white supremacist patriarchal capitalism and so have insight into the workings of that system derived from their lived experience that white men simply don't have, doesn't mean that it's sufficient for just any woman or just any PoC to be put in the top position.

It is a problem that Sanders is a white man, but it's not an insurmountable one; he just has to be publicly humble enough to listen to women and PoC when they tell him what's up, and he has to get women and PoC with good politics into his inner circle and eventually appoint them to his cabinet. I hated how badly Sanders reacted in the moment when Black Lives Matters protestors took the stage at Netroots; I love how after that moment Sanders responded to their critiques by elevating PoC in his organization, who helped him retool his message and positions. The fact that Sanders appears willing to listen and learn (despite the countervailing fact that he is a very grumpy white man) is actually the main reason why I trust him enough to identify as a supporter; the fact that so many of Sanders's supporters bleat gibberish about "identity politics" instead of showing any willingness whatsoever to listen and learn is the chief reason why I feel awkward talking Sanders himself up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [58 favorites]


"Me, I'd gladly vote alongside people I don't agree with to see anybody but Trump win..."

I assume you mean voting for anyone in the primary, if so, not a bad tactic but it is a nightmare in Michigan. For example:
"Eight years ago, the state violated both parties’ rules by scheduling a January primary, partly because then-Governor Granholm thought this would give her an “in” (and maybe a job) with Hillary Clinton, who she was convinced would be the nominee."
Oh wait, it's more subversive...

"She was wrong. Even though John McCain was going on to win the nomination that year, Michigan Republican voters chose a candidate who dropped out of the race in a few weeks. As for Democrats, they manged to leave one name off the primary ballot: Barack Obama.

And Americans wonder why Marcellus and Madame Mercury are the only choices.
posted by clavdivs at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016


Are re really seeung a waning tea party? That seems like wishful thinking.
posted by Artw at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, I'm out. Have fun folks.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016


Exactly, femservatives or whatever you call people who support Hillary....

Can we please make an effort to not name call? One of the most despicable things about the '08 election was how viciously and nastily Obama supporters treated Clinton supporters on Democratic websites like Daily Kos and TPM. We do not need to re-enact that here, no matter whom each of us supports. Please.
posted by zarq at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


I think Clinton could work with the Republicans in this way. I don't think Sanders is capable of this approach, or at least he's run on a platform that is antithetical to that kind of compromise and pragmatism.

Considering some of the horrible things that the Republican candidates are pledging to do to what remains of the social safety net, I want a candidate who's antithetical to their platform. I don't want some pragmatist that will "compromise" and only cut Social Security benefits by half of what the GOP wants. We've just had eight years of that shit.

This is about taking back the Overton Window and changing the national conversation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


MSNBC reporting very large turnout on both sides, especially in the college towns.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Tea party is done. It's rabbit season and I want my fucking brace of conies.
posted by clavdivs at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, all it takes to change how the caucuses are held is to get yourself (and plenty of like-minded others) delegated up through the caucuses and conventions to the state level where they make the rules. Because clearly someone who is having problems with caucuses as they are will have time for that.
posted by ckape at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I also realize maybe people here aren't familiar with the term "brogressive" and think I invented as a name to slur Bernie supporters or something, because it has caused this weird derail that I didn't intend. So, sorry for that. It's a pretty common word, though, at least among my social circles, so I'm surprised by all this.

A "brogressive" is like the folks on Reddit, who seem pretty liberal until you get to an issue of women's rights, or race, and then they just don't get it (at best). They're Paul-type libertarians who have recently begun using some language of liberalism but really... aren't progressive at all, in most ways. It's NOT another name for Bernie supporters, the vast majority of whom are actually progressive. However, some guys like that HAVE become vocal Bernie supporters, in my experience and in the experience of many people out there - for whatever misguided reasons they have.

By bringing them up I'm saying I believe they're a problem that the Bernie campaign will have to deal with more, in the future. As will other candidates who begin using the internet more and more, I think. They've spoken against them but it's doing to continue to be a difficult and interesting problem to manage.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


some Hillary people think that Bernie supporters are over-privileged white dudes who like feeling awesome and pure and don't really have to worry about whether he's viable, because they're not the ones who are going to be screwed if the Republicans win.

The suggestion that Bernie Sanders -- a 40-year career Socialist -- doesn't have a passionate, committed, and diverse base, or is beholden to a few very-late coming bros, is a lot of political spin. I am a woman and I am 100% comfortable putting my rights, including reproductive, equal,pay, and mat/pat leave, in Bernie's hands.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]


The most fascinating thing about all of this to me is how Bernie vs. Hillary seems to be a proxy for the class vs. identity schools of progressivism, only there's no real debate just counter accusations of shitty behavior.
posted by echocollate at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Ah, Democrats. Is there no Republican candidate so vile you can't find a way to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
posted by Justinian at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Even though deep down I'm totes self-aggrandizing and self-important"

Yeah, you do come off exactly that way, starting with calling people who disagree with you 'little boys', and then leading into weird references to 'dogmatic bolsheviks'.
posted by zipadee at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thats the New York Review of Books, not the NYT. The New York Times endorsed Hillary.

...and ran an above-the-fold page 1 story yesterday prattling on about the many "striking similarities" between Trump and Sanders supporters. The NYT has been in the bag for Clinton since 2012.
posted by Lyme Drop at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Turnout in college towns actually doesn't matter very much on Democratic side, because of the stupid way the caucuses work. But yeah, turnout in my precinct feels really high and very pro-Bernie.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's getting awfully personal in here, you guys.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


(I am referring to the circular firing squad of infighting and not support for any particular candidate. I will happily vote for any of the three Democratic candidates. Even Governor Snoozefest I mean Carcetti I mean O'Malley.)
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Is there no Republican candidate so vile you can't find a way to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Both Clinton and Sanders will have their weaknesses. Who do you want us to vote for?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on February 1, 2016


Ah, Democrats. Is there no Republican candidate so vile you can't find a way to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Maybe if Democrats would stop offering up candidates who crib triangulate their policies from Republicans.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Huh.

The GOP’s ‘tea party’ Class of 2010 is heading for the exits — fast

I dunno, the lunacy they brought with them seems to be hear to stay, and it's not like they won't be replaced by fresh crazies.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016


Can we please not support candidates with track records supporting murder and wanton destruction of entire societies?

I, too, am enraged by the existence of a complicated world over which I can exert but minimal control. To combat this, I daily do my imperfect best to accomplish the good despite the lack of perfection.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


There's not a Metafilter Caucus, but could you fucking imagine?!?!?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


I'm having the amusing* experience of reading this thread on one device and following a mobile game chat on another device at the same time, where I am watching Bernie supporters cheer on their candidate, post dank Hillary memes, and call her gendered slurs.

*not really
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: Like I said, I'm talking about Aelfwine and other's potshots and infighting, not support for Clinton or Sanders. Vote for whomever you want in the primary. And in the general we need to get behind the winner and make sure Trump isn't the next President.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thats the New York Review of Books, not the NYT.

Well daaaayam. My bad. :P
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016


Ah, bro, is there anything you cannot portmanteau (brotmanteau?) it with?
posted by ckape at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


ITYM portmanbro
posted by dersins at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


MeFiBro's?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:47 PM on February 1, 2016


The reality is Clinton will be the nominee baring a wierd run by Sanders. This isn't 2008 and Clinton isn't going to be out manuevered with the ground game. Sanders needed Iowa and NH by strong enough margins to convince SC African American voters and that doesn't seem likely to happen.

On the Republican side baring a major Trump meltdown he's the nominee even though he's a disaster for the general election and the party.

Hopefully everyone in here can accept valid differences of opinion and accept the process even though its horribly dated and antique.
posted by vuron at 4:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


/has profound doubts about what you can tell from a mobile game chat failing to deviate from it's usual discussion level.
posted by Artw at 4:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


MSNBC reporting very large turnout on both sides, especially in the college towns.

This should favor Bernie.
posted by zipadee at 4:49 PM on February 1, 2016


Terms such as "Bernie Bros", "brogressives", "femservatives", "feminazis" are helpful to derail discussion. Using such a term without clarification and then later saying, "well, I meant *this* subgroup, not all the supporters of $candidate" perhaps should be paired with an apology to the larger group.

If the only male Sanders supporters worthy of mention are also worthy of epithets, does that make people like me beneath mention? I have supported abortion rights, affordable housing, and a host of other egalitarian, uplifting ideas for decades!

edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Are re really seeung a waning tea party? That seems like wishful thinking.

The Tea Party has been waning since its explosion in 2010. In 2012 it lost around 20% of the seats in the House that it had gained in 2010. Except for a few notable upsets (Eric Cantor), almost every Tea Party candidate lost the 2014 primaries or elections.

The fear since their surge in 2010 was that they would "primary" any candidate who dared oppose them, but it's now clear that they don't have the power to do that any more. The remnants still exist and exert influence, but they are no longer the driving force of the Republicans.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2016


Dank memes are super fun. I might even duck into the breeding ground for dank memes this evening but even then I will probably avoid the dreaded /pol/
posted by vuron at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2016


Spread love not dank memes.
posted by Talez at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Radiophonic Oddity, you're right, and that's why I said I was sorry and clarified what I meant. I'll be more clear in apologizing for any bad blood I've stirred up, as I honestly didn't mean to start a derail. It's been such a common term in my circles since well before this election, that I didn't think it would be a controversial word to use.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Republicans really don't seem to have become any saner as a result.
posted by Artw at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016


College turnout really only helps bernie to a limited degree based on the crazy ass caucus algorithm. A primary has issues but holy shit caucuses are crazy awful.
posted by vuron at 4:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can we please make an effort to not name call?

Would them darned wholier-than-yow zarkenites please stop trying to spoil all the fun. <rimshot>
posted by sammyo at 4:53 PM on February 1, 2016


edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.

I've been hearing it for quite a while now, actually. Usually in reference to libertarians.
posted by palomar at 4:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Would them darned wholier-than-yow zarkenites please stop trying to spoil all the fun.

:)
posted by zarq at 4:56 PM on February 1, 2016


When people say that libertarians are progressive by what standard are we speaking? Because it seems like you can be pro legalization while being horribly reactionary in other areas.
posted by vuron at 4:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wait, people are calling libertarians progressive?
posted by Artw at 4:58 PM on February 1, 2016


Ohhh... pot.
posted by Artw at 4:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Hi guys! Turnout is high! I'm taking deep cleansing breaths in an attempt not to pass out! Have I mentioned that I really hate crowds?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all?

Obviously I can't speak for everyone everywhere, but speaking for everyone that I know personally: Hell yes.

That said, I will be very pleased if a guy who describes himself as a socialist actually makes it into the White House.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


CNN is having a grand time walking remote cameras down the lines entering a couple caucuses highlighting extremely high turnout.

**Burning Brogressives for The Bern**
posted by sammyo at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016


wait...
posted by sammyo at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Based on entrance polling (unreliable): first wave data has Republicans too early to call, indication of a Trump lead. Dems also too early to call, indication of a Clinton lead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016


(Not you guys. The actual fucking caucus.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think there's actually a really interesting conversation to be had (probably later, probably elsewhere) about the difference between using the ongoing useful term "brogressive" in a more niche activist circle and the use of it to describe (abusive and otherwise) "Bernie Bros" by more mainstream political operations.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


First entrance polls of the Republican caucuses show a Trump lead with Rubio and Cruz in the next two spots (in no particular order) and the Democratic caucuses show a small Clinton lead over Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016


Pot and anti-war. I remember seeing a lot of Paulites saying something similar to what some...particularly enthusiastic...Sanders supports had been saying in this thread: if you don't support Paul you're a statist shill who supports war and violence.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


NBC reports Clinton also had the same early entrance lead in 2008, where she went on to come in third.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wait, people are calling libertarians progressive?

No, but some libertarians are calling themselves progressive... thus why a bunch of feminists came up with the word "brogressive" a few years back. And, well, here we are today. Fun times.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all?

Fuck yeah ... Lessig as well.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:50 PM on February 1 [3 favorites +] [!]

The term has been current on the left for quite some time, sort of like the related term "macktivist." It's leaking out into the mainstream now because many men with bad politics on everything except for class have attached themselves to the Sanders campaign, and the (refreshing) surprise success of the Sanders campaign in the mainstream has unfortunately made those guys more visible in the mainstream as well.

I will henceforth refrain from referring to the men who use gendered slurs and threats to menace Clinton supporters as "boys," even though when I've had the misfortune to meet people who use gendered slurs against Clinton and her supporters, I have been pretty much immediately certain that the reason why they act the way they do is that they're 20 year old white men who haven't grown out of a particular type of unpleasant boyishness yet — and I say this as a 30-something white man who likewise hasn't grown out of a particular type of unpleasant boyishness yet.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hadn't hung out here recently, but is the prevailing feeling around here that Trump still isn't a serious threat to win the presidency even if he tops Iowa tonight and New Hampshire next? I know I felt that way a long time ago in a thread far far away when it seemed like a non-crazy option like Jeb would eventually get traction and Trump would have served as a nice hearty distraction. But now it feels like tonight's the night where we see the first signs of the light starting to dim before he eventually wins in November.

I also noted a long time ago in a post I can't find, that I thought there would be a last big spurt by the racists and bigots in America, and I think I assumed it had happened and we got past it. Then police, even under watch, just kept on shooting people. Anonymous comments turned to Facebook comments, and racists just kept on posting, now with their faces attached. And now Trump is just riding that wave. I feel like Trump would do his best to destroy the government - because a lot of people in his party have joyously wished for that for what seems like decades now. Currently, envisioning Donald Trump taking office seems like the start of a disaster movie.

On the one hand I hate to be like anti-Obama people who act like the world was ending and their lives were at stake, but on the other hand, if I'm going to do that, I seriously hope my concerns are just as unfounded as theirs were.
posted by cashman at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


On the Republican side baring a major Trump meltdown he's the nominee even though he's a disaster for the general election and the party.

Surely the people behind the Republican nomination care about the fact that a desk lamp would beat Trump in a general election, especially when there doesn't seem to be a clear mandate for the Democrats.

The desk lamp probably wouldn't even have to work.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know about his chances in the general, cashman, but I don't see how Trump is stopped from getting the nomination.
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2016


I hadn't hung around here recently, but is the prevailing feeling that Trump still isn't a serious threat to win the presidency even if he tops Iowa tonight and New Hampshire next?

Nobody knows. He is widely expected to be the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:05 PM on February 1, 2016


Hi guys! Turnout is high! I'm taking deep cleansing breaths in an attempt not to pass out! Have I mentioned that I really hate crowds?

Yeah, I can pretend that my dislike of the caucus is solely just about the economic injustice, but there's no small part that also thinks being able to vote without having to spend time with people you don't want to be around should be guaranteed in the Constitution. Best of luck, ArbitraryAndCapricious and all other caucus goers.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Fox entrance poll of Iowa caucus-goers: 34% are late deciders, compared to 46% four years ago.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm thinking Clinton might not get the 15% threshold in my precinct. Pretty overwhelmingly Bernie here, but this is a student precinct and not really predictive of anything.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's actually not good for Sanders if students are voting in their school precinct rather than their home precinct; it concentrates his votes in a few areas instead of spreading it out for more delegates.

I'm assuming that the Clintonites learned their painful lesson about delegate math in 2008. Obama's team made them look like not particularly talented amateurs.
posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


But there's also a bright side to all this misery: If Trump and Clinton each snag their party's nomination and go to the general election it's a "can't lose for defense stocks."* ... Buy them before everyone else catches on.

(*I am not a/your financial advisor, duh.)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have some ideas about how Trump is stopped in the general but I'll refrain from expressing them to avoid awkward Secret Service visits.
posted by corb at 5:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Some of these kids may be out of state, but yeah: high turnout in student precincts doesn't do much for Bernie. But it is crazy high: higher than in 2008, they're saying.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:11 PM on February 1, 2016


And now Trump is just riding that wave. I feel like Trump would do his best to destroy the government - because a lot of people in his party have joyously wished for that for what seems like decades now.

I believe there was a recent MeFi post about how Trump's views (as much as you can pin him on anything) aren't the same kind of absolutist "small government" rhetoric you hear from people like Cruz. He's expressed support for government programs.

Trump is much more nationalist, protectionist, and xenophobic than he is some kind of True Conservative ideologue.

I'd actually prefer a Trump to a Cruz if it had to be one of them. Cruz is a true believer, Trump seems at least wiling to negotiate.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump Tells Crowd to ‘Knock the Crap Out’ of Protesters, Offers to Pay Legal Fees
There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too.
Next he'll have his own Sturmabteilung.
posted by Talez at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


GOP side - entrance poll says 43% are first timers (vs. 38% in 2012)

# of Evangelicals according to initial data is 62%
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016


MetaFilter: President Desk Lamp
posted by SillyShepherd at 5:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I didn't realize that candidates were allowed in caucuses. Is Donald Trump going to yell at anyone who doesn't want to vote for him?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


CBS is showing Rubio in 2nd place ahead of Cruz right now. That would be huge.
posted by skewed at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The SA seems liberal in comparison to Trump's batshit insane fan base.
posted by vuron at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016


'Brogressive' is a way of describing the exact asshole who will call you a 'femservative' for making women's bodily autonomy a priority.
posted by easter queen at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Who is the girl next to Trump? Not his wife, the even younger one.
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2016


(ie the one young enough to be his granddaughter not the one young enough to be his daughter.)
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2016


I am getting increasingly depressed by 538's coverage that Trump may have been favored by the overwhelming news coverage of him, which means both that "hey look, I'm an asshole!" is a viable strategy, and also that "hey look at this asshole" may have created the monster that is going to tromp all over our hearts.
posted by corb at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Ivanka is in town. Could be her?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016


(Can we not go after Trump's wife's age? Who cares?)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not the family values conservatives, clearly.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


"hey look at this asshole" may have created the monster that is going to tromp all over our hearts.

And if it works this time, just think about what the next election cycle will look like!
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Really, the comments about her being young enough to be his daughter are gross and insulting to those of us in age gap relationships.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump = chaotic evil; Cruz = lawful evil; Clinton = lawful neutral; Sanders = chaotic good
posted by dephlogisticated at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


Hmmm. Twitter seems to be registering lots of Bernie support, not just in the expected places. Interesting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016


Look on the bright side corb. Trump will only lose the general and maybe put the senate in play. It is unlikely that even he could deliver the trifecta of making Pelosi speaker of the house
posted by vuron at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2016


Can we just agree not to bring pointlessly divisive terms like "femservative" and "brogressive" into the discussion at all? It's just trading insults based in broad generalizations with strangers.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


I enthusiastically agree, saulgoodman. One of the things that brings me to metafilter rather than any other of the myriad internet fora for political discussion is how we generally don't adopt that kind of trendy namecalling.
posted by skewed at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I picked a hell of a week to stop drinking.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Can we still call each other ninjas in the grand Juggalo tradition?
posted by Sangermaine at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think I may be the only person on this thread who wants to geek out over the process rather than argue about the candidates.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Okay time to fucking cut it out with the #brogressive shit. Asshole fake progressive bros are not exclusive to any one group. Yes, there are frat kid Bernie supporters who probably hold some hideous bro views. There are also probably BLM "allies" who would never actually support reparations, and men who identify as feminists who are actually pieces of shit toward women. This is not news. We all know this stuff.

Like if you have to bring up "brogressives" are you seriously bringing your A-game? For real? Seriously just consider not writing another word about politics. You are embarrassing yourselves. Just let the grown ups have grown up talk, please and thanks.
posted by windbox at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I agree as well. I just couldn't believe some asshole came in here with the guts to call a bunch of women femservatives and the comment still sits there like a turd.
posted by easter queen at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'd also like to geek out on the process, even though I feel bad about it, since it's supposed to be about issues.
posted by skewed at 5:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I thought he was making the point that calling people who support Sanders brogressives is offensive just like calling Clinton supporters femservatives would be offensive? But the thread goes pretty fast so I coulda missed an earnest one.
posted by Justinian at 5:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'd actually prefer a Trump to a Cruz if it had to be one of them.

Who is the girl next to Trump?

I was just at the Kennedy Library and one exhibit was the seating chart to a state dinner, total glamour intelligentsia crowd. If The Donald gets to have state dinners the glitz, well forget investing in Defense industries, big futures contract on rhinestone suppliers.
posted by sammyo at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2016


Okay, what do you want to say about the process? I thought the general consensus was that the systems are needlessly arcane and shitty.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2016


The candidates get to address the caucuses before voting? That's... weird?

Because Trump is making a campaign speech right now at the caucus place.
posted by Justinian at 5:30 PM on February 1, 2016


Guys, there are O'Malley people here. It's like seeing a unicorn.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [37 favorites]


It's weirder to me that the media gets to live broadcast.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:31 PM on February 1, 2016


Yes, there are frat kid Bernie supporters who probably hold some hideous bro views.

As a Sanders supporter and former fraternity member, I'm offended.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC reporting Democrats first time caucus goers make up 44% right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016


I am torn between being interested in the process and wondering if I have enough alcohol for if Trump actually wins.

It's a real problem even if he loses the general, because it means that it will make his discourse acceptable discourse on a national stage, and even though I feel dirty using the word, embolden people throughout the country who previously thought those views were outdated and could not be shown publicly.

In process-related land, I had no idea that the Democrats had basically a Hugo voting process.
posted by corb at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


How many Abkhazians are even in Iowa, anyway?
posted by indubitable at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Preliminary results are 44% first time caucus goers on the Democratic side. For context, in 2008 (Obama) it was like 56%.
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Apparently roomthreeseventeen's MSNBC feed is about 10 seconds faster than mine.
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton = lawful neutral

Are you even paying attention at all?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Per CBS News Twitter: Dems: 15% are under 30yo; of those, 91% are for Sanders.14% are 30-44yo; of those, 64% are for Sanders

Dems: 36% 45-64 yo; of those, 57% are for Clinton; 36% are over 65 yo; of those, 69% are for Clinton

Not sure where the younger folks are.
posted by bgal81 at 5:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC reporting Democrats first time caucus goers make up 44% right now.

This would actually be significantly smaller a percentage than 2008 which was over 50%.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Are you even paying attention at all?

I agree. Lawful good. She's like Snape after he swore to help Dumbledore.
posted by bgal81 at 5:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I hadn't hung around here recently, but is the prevailing feeling that Trump still isn't a serious threat to win the presidency even if he tops Iowa tonight and New Hampshire next?

I remember when all the serious people said Trump would certainly implode by July, or maybe August. Certainly before the leaves turn. Well, definitely before Halloween. There's no way he'll still be leading in 2016. Okay, well, he made it to 2016, but when the primaries begin, voters will get serious and finally turn to Rubio.

Now we are at "okay, maybe he'll get the nomination, but he won't win the general." I hope he doesn't, but he's defied expectations at every stage of this game so far.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Presumably, though, some of those 2008 people are coming back. Wonder who they're supporting?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, looking at these polls are fascinating - it looks like Democrats over 50 and making over 50k are showing up in numbers and picking Clinton. At least according to entrance polls, but people can change, so who knows.
posted by corb at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016




oh hell i have been all alone on the thread on the grey.
posted by vrakatar at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Er... now 59% of Democrats said its a first time caucus. I'm getting the feeling the "first time caucus goer" results are shall we say highly variable and unreliable. 'Cause it shouldn't swing 15% in 5 minutes.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, the raw percentages of first time supporters doesn't tell you much, because Obama got a lot of people who had previously been eligible to vote to show up, meaning that some percentage of the pool of adults who have never voted (I mean, those who were 18+ 8 years ago) shrank.
posted by zug at 5:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have no doubt whatsoever that Trunp has a serious shot at the presidency and have said so all along, but I might be a bit more cynical about Americans as an outsider than natives here would be.
posted by Artw at 5:42 PM on February 1, 2016


With 8% reporting, Clinton 53% Sanders 46%
posted by Justinian at 5:43 PM on February 1, 2016




Yeah those turnout numbers aren't great for Sanders in comparison to Obama2008. I like Sanders and alot of his policy positions but from an inside baseball perspective he needs way way better turnout in Iowa than that because he's 100% trying an insurgent strategy ala Obama. The problem is of course that Obama charted a novel strategy in 2008 that Clinton wasn't prepared for. In contrast the ground game is pretty much even between Hilary and Bernie.

Also keep in mind that Obama had a massive built-in advantage vis-a-vis the PoC population that Bernie just doesn't seem likely to match. That gave Obama a substantial advantage in some of the upcoming primaries and caucuses that is unlikely to be there for Bernie.

Still it's interesting to see how successful Bernie is going to be because at a minimum his continued success is keeping Clinton from pivoting to the center too early.
posted by vuron at 5:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


With 8% reporting, Clinton 53% Sanders 46%

Holy shit. I'm speechless. We actually have a contest.
posted by Talez at 5:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The term has been current on the left for quite some time, sort of like the related term "macktivist." It's leaking out into the mainstream now because many men with bad politics on everything except for class have attached themselves to the Sanders campaign, and the (refreshing) surprise success of the Sanders campaign in the mainstream has unfortunately made those guys more visible in the mainstream as well.

I don't want to start up any name-calling again here, but to be serious for a moment, can people think a little about this easy reference to 'bad politics on everything except for class'? Class is not another identity category like race, gender, or whatever; in a capitalist society it is the single most significant form through which the structural disadvantages of e.g. race actually happen and are mediated. It is very much the case and growing more the case that if you have money, professional connections, and other forms of class privilege that you can protect yourself from numerous disadvantages associated with structural racism. Within races, there are huge class gaps in incarceration, exposure to police violence, access to health care, on and on. (E.g. in 1999 black men with at least a year of college, a decent class proxy, had one-eighth the risk of death or imprisonment by age 30 that black high school dropouts did, and one-half the risk of death or imprisonment of white high school dropouts...and 1999 was an economic high-water mark compared to today).

Concretely speaking, in a society like ours where class and race are tightly correlated due to historic racism, someone who has 'bad politics on everything except for class' is campaigning for a major redistribution of resources and privileges from whites to blacks. Shouldn't that lead to some desire to build coalitions with someone like that, rather than mock them and insult them? The point of politics is ideally to create a majority for goals you believe in, not to seek out ever more sources of moral superiority to the people around you.
posted by zipadee at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


here we go here we go here we go
posted by vrakatar at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2016


The Kerry discussion looks to be done, but I feel it's worth pointing out that according to basically every model, he outperformed in 2004.
posted by aaronetc at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016


This is exciting. And its only like 275 days to election day!!!
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wow, Steve Schmidt really hates Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, he usually restricts himself to horse-race type analysis (when he's on MSNBC, at least).
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2016


Well the final Des Moines Register poll (the one that has been historically great at predicting Iowa) had Clinton up by 2 points on Sanders. So he's actually "underperforming" at the moment (it doesn't mean anything except small towns that finished up quickly like Clinton, which we knew)
posted by zug at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have no idea how to interpret the early results coming in. Are there big differences between parts of the state that report at different times, or should we take these as representative of how the whole vote will go?
posted by zipadee at 5:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC is only reporting 3% in. Who has 8?
posted by futz at 5:52 PM on February 1, 2016


17% in, Clinton 53% Sanders 46% Admiral Yawn 1%.
posted by Justinian at 5:52 PM on February 1, 2016


Smaller towns are probably going to come in first.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:52 PM on February 1, 2016


With like 3% reporting, it looks like Cruz is ahead of Trump by a nose, Rubio sadly trailing at 14%. I don't know how to interpret this.
posted by corb at 5:53 PM on February 1, 2016


Why is O'Malley still lurking out there? Running for VP?
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have no idea how to interpret the early results coming in. Are there big differences between parts of the state that report at different times, or should we take these as representative of how the whole vote will go?

Smaller towns, which are demographically very different from larger towns/cities, are done first because there are simply fewer people. This is extra true for the Dem caucus, where they actually argue with each other out loud about who to support.
posted by zug at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


That the Republican party is split between 30% fascist, 30% fundamentalist and 30% corporatist (divided among several candidates). Which we already knew.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


The C-SPAN live coverage is fascinating. I've got the sound on for the Democratic caucus (in Des Moines), and they just finished calling names of people who didn't complete their registration forms. I picture their neighbors giving them a hard time on Facebook...
posted by booksherpa at 5:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Decision Desk HQ has a good constantly-updating map of results as they come in.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:57 PM on February 1, 2016


Why is O'Malley still lurking out there? Running for VP?

Yeah. Seems pretty obvious to me, especially since he's been noticeably complimentary of Clinton.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Keep in mind that unlike a primary a smaller town doesn't necessarily get represented with a smaller percentage of the delegates with the caucus formulas because delegate distribution is based upon historical numbers rather than current numbers.

So a ton of new voters could in theory come out for Bernie in a limited number of precincts and he wouldn't get a corresponding boost because in effect those urban and college voters are clustered in districts that have proportionately less delegates.

Yes it sucks but that's more or less the system. Which combined with the fact that Iowa and NH are hardly the most representative populations (particularly in regards to urban populations and African Americans and Latino voters) tends to make the whole process sketchy as fuck.

But gotta have that old school retail politics like shaking hands and holding babies in rural Iowa has any real probative value on how good someone will be as a President.
posted by vuron at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


kissing hands and shaking babies. Or is it the other way around?
posted by Justinian at 6:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


26% in, Clinton 53% Sanders 47% o'smalley 0%.
posted by Justinian at 6:00 PM on February 1, 2016


I'm voting for that baby
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure Trump could eat a baby and still get 30% of the Republicans to vote for him.
posted by vuron at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can someone explain the 26% in but the actual number of votes still being below 200 per candidate?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016


I think it's the number of delegates?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yo, MSNBC, this is not interesting watching one guy read ballots.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016


Santorum won Iowa in 2012. He's currently last place.

Regardless of my own political leanings, that's honestly astounding to me.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016


Trump is the man in the grey suit. The faceless man represents the media, the GOP, and Trump's own nutjob fan base. The "overman" spoken of is the rest of the nation and the body politick.
posted by vrakatar at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016


Kissing babies, or as Ted Cruz interprets the tradition, terrifying children.
posted by koeselitz at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016


O'Malley actually is a pretty decent running mate because he has plenty of executive leadership and has a technocratic wonkishness that will appeal to some voters. Plus he's also got a bit of Biden in him which seemed like a good mix for Obama.

On the other hand both Sanders and Clinton probably need some help locking down the Latino vote so I expect that someone from the southwest will get vetted as a possibility.
posted by vuron at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Santorum won Iowa in 2012. He's currently last place.

At least Bush is ahead of someone.
posted by sammyo at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


O'Malley is from a state that will vote Democrat anyway, most likely, and he is horrible with people of color. I don't think they are going to ask him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Concretely speaking, in a society like ours where class and race are tightly correlated due to historic racism, someone who has 'bad politics on everything except for class' is campaigning for a major redistribution of resources and privileges from whites to blacks. Shouldn't that lead to some desire to build coalitions with someone like that, rather than mock them and insult them? The point of politics is ideally to create a majority for goals you believe in, not to seek out ever more sources of moral superiority to the people around you.

Great comment. People on the online left have a tendency to be carrying around a lot of that class privilege in their own invisible backpacks. It's a major, devastating, blindspot.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


On the other hand both Sanders and Clinton probably need some help locking down the Latino vote so I expect that someone from the southwest will get vetted as a possibility.

Bill Richardson? Latino former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under former president Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Read elsewhere that the AP is calling it for Hillary in the Dem race which seems crazy early.

Bill Richardson? Latino former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under former president Clinton.

She already has one Bill who has trouble keeping it in his pants, she doesn't need another.
posted by bgal81 at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I would love to be a fly on the wall in JEB! central tonight. I feel bad for the guy. He's gotta be wondering how it could all have gone so wrong.
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


MSNBC made a good decision just airing that guy counting ballots on air. Riveting television.
posted by Small Dollar at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


is there somewhere you can watch this live if you don't have cable?
posted by Sangermaine at 6:08 PM on February 1, 2016


Google's results

D 26% reporting
Clinton 51.8%
Sanders 47.6%
----------
R 12% reporting
Cruz 29.8%
Trump 27.3%
posted by nickyskye at 6:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why is O'Malley still lurking out there? Running for VP?

MSNBC's caucus ticker has a bug that makes the fonts look weird if there are only two candidates, so they convinced him to stay on.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


from Nate Silver:
Jeb Bush is currently projected to win about 2,600 votes in Iowa, or about 2 percent of the overall turnout. That would work out to one vote per $25,000 in spending by Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise.
posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


http://www.msnbc.com/now
posted by zug at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016


NYT Youtube has a Livecast. It's actually kind of confusing to figure out what's going on.
posted by FJT at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC made a good decision just airing that guy counting ballots on air. Riveting television.

It was worth it for Brian Williams breaking in to pretend he was F. Scott Fitzgerald for a second.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I would love to be a fly on the wall in JEB! central tonight. I feel bad for the guy. He's gotta be wondering how it could all have gone so wrong.
I lived under the Jeb regime in Florida or eight years. What went wrong? Don't get me started
posted by robbyrobs at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Results from precincts with a democratic nominating process:

Clinton: 0%
Sanders: 0%
O'Malley: 0%

Cruz: 0%
Trump: 0%
The rest of the gang of idiots: 0%
posted by tonycpsu at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Iowa City going to be very heavy for Sanders. I have no idea if that counts.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016


I'm really wondering how O'Malley's supporters are going to end up splitting (I'm guessing he's not going to shoot drastically over 4% and thus won't have viability). It might end up making a difference.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016


MSNBC requires a cable log-in.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016


O'Malley only has 2 state delegate equivalents so far, compared to 210 to Clinton and 194 for Sanders. So his support is a non-factor thus far.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


538 has Sanders closing, 48 to Clinton's 51.5
posted by corb at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016


>MSNBC requires a cable log-in.

Weird. I don't have cable and I'm watching it now. It just loaded for me.
posted by zug at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016


Lots of people have the results. C-SPAN has cameras inside a Des Moines caucus, on both the Democrat and Republican side. I'm used to walking in a booth, pulling levers, and leaving - call it 5 minutes. Watching the Democratic caucus happen feels like watching an election in another country.
posted by booksherpa at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016


tonycpsu: "Results from precincts with a democratic nominating process..."

Yep, let's say it again: the Iowa Caucus is an idiotic, absolutely stupid thing that should not happen.
posted by koeselitz at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


CNN chryon right now: "Close Race Between Trump, Cruz and Rubio"

...Rubio is 13 points behind Trump.

Stop it, CNN. Just... stop this.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016


lol wait - JEB!'s superpac is called "right to rise"?! that's...well, i mean...at least it's honest, i guess.
posted by nadawi at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Keep in mind that if Clinton and Sanders split the caucus delegate count roughly 50/50 she will still win the overall count pretty handily with something like 26 delegates to 18. Because she has all 8 Iowa superdelegates in her corner. Dunno if that will matter to the narrative though.
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016


That Rubio is on the board at all means he'll stay alive for other states.
posted by sammyo at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


"One of them is wearing a cape."

I love you, America.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Update: my leg has fallen asleep. No idea what's going on: Hillary people have been banished to hall.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


NPR has live results: http://elections.npr.org/
posted by booksherpa at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016


That Rubio is on the board at all means he'll stay alive for other states.

He could come in nineteenth behind Ted Nugent and Cthulhu and the media would still keep fluffing him as if he was in the top two.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


MSNBC is saying that in Iowa City Hillary might not even end up with a viable 15%.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016


Jeb! is gonna bring it in NH.
posted by vrakatar at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016


Stop it, CNN. Just... stop this.

Stop watching CNN. What value are you getting from doing so, honestly?
posted by Jimbob at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Actually, I guess the Democrats have 52 delegates so a 50/50 caucus split would end up more like 30-22 in Clinton's favor.
posted by Justinian at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016


Oh my god, Republicans, count faster!
posted by corb at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm not gonna lie... if JEB! handed me $25k, I'd vote for him.
posted by indubitable at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


538: With 19 percent of Iowa precincts reporting, Donald Trump has 27.1 percent of the Iowa vote. That’s not a bad result by any means: Trump trails Ted Cruz by just 3 points and could very easily win the state. Still, a case can be made that (contra the pundit conventional wisdom at the time) Trump was mistaken to have skipped last week’s debate. Trump stood at 31.1 percent in our Iowa polling average on the night of the debate, so if he finishes at 27.1 percent, he’ll have lost 4 percentage points since then.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've vote for JEB for as little as $1000. Even in the general. I live in Texas; nothing I do matters.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh my god, Republicans, acknowledge global warming!
posted by uosuaq at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I would take a night at Sardi's or something.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


50% in on the Democratic side and its still holding at 51-38 for Clinton. O'Malley is sitting between 0 and 1% which essentially means 0% because of the process.
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 1, 2016


(That should be 51-48, FYI)
posted by Rhaomi at 6:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


...what? NYT liveblog has 48% reporting - 51.2% Clinton, 48.2% Sanders
posted by flex at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I didn't fix it with the typo fixer so that I dont get yelled at by Team Mod.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


MSNBC isn't reporting anywhere near 50%.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016


But it was an actual, literal typo, right?
posted by dersins at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I changed to CNN during the Guy Counting Marco Rubio's Votes fiasco.
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016


I didn't mean to rustle anyone's jimmies! Typo! Typo!
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN
posted by Justinian at 6:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Rubio is going to be propped up by the desperate beltway pundits because they know full well that Cruz and Trump would be awful for both consulting and lobbying. They are basically forcing the Rubio is a viable candidate meme out of self-preservation.

What's funny is that they aren't wrong but Trump and Cruz have shown that crazy has a strong plurality in the Republican electorate. It's a totally unelectable plurality but that's what happens when you combine economic desperation with racist appeals to nationalism.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 1, 2016


THE TYPO IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE CAUCUS.
posted by vrakatar at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think you mean sprinkles.
posted by bgal81 at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


There are probably some Iowa City precincts where Hillary won't get 15%, but they aren't going to be high delegate count precincts.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016


Not easy to read, but this API link direct from the Iowa Democratic Party has the results updating in real-time. Look for the WinPercentage field and multiply by 100.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


NPR: 53.5% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING (900 OF 1,681)
51.3% (Clinton)
48.3% (Sanders)
0.5% (O'Malley)
posted by booksherpa at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016


Ooo, down to 2%.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I like Bernie Sanders. I expect Clinton will win the nomination. If so, I will vote for her and I expect Clinton will win the presidency. But something bothers me - Clinton is very much tied to Debbie Wasserman Schultz' DNC, which has proven itself unable to win down-ballot elections. I'm afraid a Clinton win will entrench the Wasserman Schultz bunch in the DNC. That could mean Clinton, even winning handily, will show limited coattails for moving the numbers in Congress and the state houses and another failure in the next mid-term elections.
posted by tommyD at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


This is realtime near as I can tell, and very easy indeed to read.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


But isn't Cruz secretly Canadian?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016


Results from the IA GOP: https://www.iagopcaucuses.com/#/state
Results from the IA Dems: https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state
posted by Theiform at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016


So I see 51.1 Hillary, 48.3 Sanders, right now.
posted by zug at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016


Wait... I'm no genius... but 51.3+49.3+0.5 = too high
posted by Justinian at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016


It's really, really uncomfortable to watch the reports in the actual caucus. Leave the people alone.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I swear the Bernie person was just trying to bribe the O'Malley people with pizza...
posted by booksherpa at 6:30 PM on February 1, 2016


I've gotta admit, I love Trump's "He's an anchor baby for Canada." line.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


On CNN, Steve Harvey just called it for Martin O'Malley.
posted by uosuaq at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Wait... I'm no genius... but 51.3+49.3+0.5 = too high

Iowa taking a page from the Chicago playbook?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016


anyone have a tip on a good live feed to watch?
posted by skewed at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016


ahaha they said fuck on national tv
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ka-boom! Look at Jacob Silver's face!
posted by ob1quixote at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Very, very young woman let out an f-bomb on MSNBC, claiming she's a veteran who hasn't received benefits in three months.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


MSNBC just put the camera on what appears to be a group of teenagers with the best fake IDs ever arguing over who read the most believable talking points on reddit.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think bribing with pizza is kosher, although nobody here is doing it. There may be some Girl Scout cookies circulating.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016


YES A COLLEGE KID DROPPED AN F-BOMB LIVE ON MSNBC!!!!!
posted by Small Dollar at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


But isn't Cruz secretly Canadian?

He's hardly made a secret of it. Did you miss the whole ceremony where he swore allegiance to Her Majesty, The Queen?
posted by indubitable at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016


Sorry, another typo. Fixed it within the edit window. It's still over by .1 - rounding error?
posted by booksherpa at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2016


In alternate world, Cruz and Clinton both win the nomination. Then Cruz is derailed for citizenship and Clinton is arrested for directing people take the classifications off things to send on an unsecured fax. This leaves only their VPs, both sensible governors from swing states as each party's nominee. Everyone triumphs.
posted by corb at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


If Cruz manages to hold on to his lead over Trump (30% to 27% right now), I think this is going to have to be recorded as a pretty strong upset. Every poll, including Des Moines Register (which didn't have the weekend) and Quinnipac (which did) had him trailing Trump; and the RealClearPolitics poll average had him losing ground over the past two weeks. It'll be interesting to see what the explanations for this will be.
posted by mhum at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders appears to be closing, 48.5% to 50.9%, with 68% reporting. Not sure how the demographics of the reporting precincts look, though.
posted by zug at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


My mom supports Hillary and one of my best friends from high school supports Sanders. As for me, right now I'm supporting Hillary, but with Sanders recently getting attention I'm giving him a second look.

For me personally, one reason for my support for Hillary is her relationship with Obama. They've competed against each other, worked together, and apparently Obama sees something about Clinton and is kind of hinting towards supporting her more than Sanders. In addition, she's also pretty much accepted and embraced that part of her campaign is "Obama's 3rd term". And seeing them both grow in the last eight years is a pretty cool thing.

From Sanders, I'm getting more conflicted feelings (mostly from his supporters but a little from him as well) about how they see the last eight years. And I don't think it's intentional on his part, but when Sanders does something like roll out his single player plan, (again, personally) it does feel a little like he's rejecting President Obama and kind of saying he just didn't try hard enough. It's like "Ouch, I am feeling the Bern, and it's on my back."
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


FUCK YEAH CAUCUSING!
posted by vrakatar at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC just put the camera on what appears to be a group of teenagers with the best fake IDs ever arguing over who read the most believable talking points on reddit.

Do you mean that young veteran upset about the shameful state of the VA?
posted by dialetheia at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The DNC is typically pretty mediocre overall in regards to down ballot races but the DSCC and the Representative one is typically better. Not that 2010 redistricting din't pretty much fuck over Democrats in a whole heap of states.

But that's why the Koch's pour so much money into state races, the cost-benefit ratio is way way better than pissing away millions supporting a Presidential candidate and most billionaires have a least a limited degree of cunning so investing in the sure thing is a better return on investment than the long shot.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


It'll be interesting to see what the explanations for this will be.

I think the explanation is probably established already. Whenever Iowa polls are wrong they are wrong in the same way: an underestimation of the evangelical right's vote. Which would make sense if Cruz's vote is higher than polled as that is his base.
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton just took the lead in one of the Iowa City precincts, one she held only third place in 2008.

Everything's scattered across the board obviously, but while Sanders seems to be holding strong against Clinton, Clinton appears to be doing vastly better than she did eight years ago.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:36 PM on February 1, 2016


Did you miss the whole ceremony where he swore allegiance to Her Majesty, The Queen?

In human or reptilian form?
posted by acb at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Le sigh. I'm not ever going to vote for Clinton, so it's going to be a long year.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


i admit that i'm not entirely pleased about framing the (potential) first woman president as being bill or barack's third term. she's not a conduit through which a man will really be leading.
posted by nadawi at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Clinton's lead is down to an even 2%.
posted by zug at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016


Anecdotally, my caucus is still out, and I think all our delegates are going to go to Bernie. I would guess late caucuses are ones with unexpectedly high turnout, meaning Bernie.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hopefully, it'll be a long eight years.
posted by bgal81 at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


A Clinton supporter was trying to get the O'Malley caucus leader and ended up in a debate with a Sanders supporter that looked like he was maybe 13. I'm not sure I'd want my primary to look like this, but it's awesome to watch.
posted by booksherpa at 6:39 PM on February 1, 2016


So, is it an open secret that Bill and Hillary are separated now? I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign, he hasn't been stumping for her, which just seems kind of weird to me.
posted by zug at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


In human or reptilian form?

It was a nauseatingly moist, fleshy meat puppet. I'm tentatively going with "human form".
posted by indubitable at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2016


Bill has been stumping for her. He was in NH not too long ago.
posted by bgal81 at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Rubio is on his way to a great night. He's my new GOP NH pick. GHak wrong thread.
posted by vrakatar at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Justinian: "I think the explanation is probably established already. "

Maybe. Although, I could also see a "who had the better ground game" argument. I kinda wish I knew more about the primary contest for Cruz's Senate campaign where he pulled off one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. Also, that was the only election he's ever won.
posted by mhum at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016


he hasn't been stumping for her,

I've seen him campaigning more than her the past two weeks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, is it an open secret that Bill and Hillary are separated now? I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign, he hasn't been stumping for her, which just seems kind of weird to me.

Um, what? He's been the opening act (along with Chelsea) for a couple of her speeches this week, and has definitely been on the road for her campaign.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016


Looks to me like it's going to be Cruz and Trump and Rubio very close for 2nd/3rd. Will Trump take his ball and go home a LOSER?
posted by Justinian at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bill's been campaigning hard for Hillary. He's been all over Iowa and New Hampshire.
posted by lilac girl at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016


Although, I could also see a "who had the better ground game" argument.

I think it's the same argument. The evangelical right's vote gets underpolled because their organization is underestimated.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign
I heard on NPR that not bringing him out until the last month or so was a strategic move. That her campaign in 2008 was too shaped/overshadowed by his presence. So this time, they kept him in the background (like many candidate's spouses) until her narrative could be more established as her own voice. Then, they'd bring him out just to smaller local events.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wasn't watching the Republican side of things (because fuck that party), but Cruz is doing way better than I expected. Which just adds a whole new level of nausea to the proceedings.
posted by uosuaq at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


My loathing for Cruz and Rubio is near-complete, but man, it would be so great if Trump came in 3rd here then spit the dummy in true infantile Trumpian fashion, took his ball and went home. Even better if he then turned around and ran 3rd party.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


bill has been fundraising for her in their home state and they campaigned here for the dnc together last year.
posted by nadawi at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016


Calling it now: Sanders edges out a microscopic lead in the popular vote. Clinton retains a large lead in delegates. Both sides declare victory.
posted by fifthrider at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, is it an open secret that Bill and Hillary are separated now? I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign, he hasn't been stumping for her, which just seems kind of weird to me.

They showed a clip of him in Iowa campaigning for her this morning on CNN literally an hour ago. Where on earth did you hear this "open secret" and maybe don't take any stock tips from them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


On the republican side, it's starting to look like Cruz is going to take it. Which is probably good news for democrats - Cruz is pretty unelectable and by all accounts hated by literally everyone who meets him.
posted by zug at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Trump loses, the headlines should be: IOWA SEZ: YOU'RE FIRED
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Cruz and Rubio are bad news for Clinton. She'd like to run against Donald. Donald would like to run against Bernie.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's 69% in on the Democratic side and still holding at about a 2% difference. I assume it's the big counties still out, though, which seems like something that favors Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016




First big election year in a long time that I haven't worked in news and it feels great.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Cruz I could see being a problem for Clinton but Rubio? He's nothing but a pretty face in a nice set of heels.
posted by bgal81 at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016


RCP is a joke.
posted by bgal81 at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016


Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now.

That's like polling Sanders in a general; neither Cruz nor Sanders are well enough known among the general population to make general election polling particularly meaningful. (Also I note that the RCP average is Cruz +1 primarily because FOX NEWS has it at Cruz +7.)
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton. They will groom anyone to look like Mr. Rogers.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016


Justinian: "I think it's the same argument."

In effect, you're probably right. There's an abstract argument to be made about how much of the turnout could have been previously predicted and how much was extra good due to better-than-expected turnout machine, but it's probably just splitting hairs at that point.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in NH where the polling gaps have been much, much bigger (like, in the +20 range). I think I'm going to stick by my previous prediction of Cruz taking IA (admittedly made while he was on top of the polls) and Trump taking NH, SC, NV. SC and NV are still kind of a crapshoot because of the sparse polling.
posted by mhum at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2016


RCP is a joke.

Sure, but they link to actual polls. I agree it's too early, but Ted Cruz has a decent shot at the White House if he and Clinton are the people running.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2016


You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton.

You underestimate how much the GOP hates Cruz.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Better real-time Democratic results from idpcaucuses.com. 1.8% margin now...

edit: 1.6%!
posted by Rhaomi at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am really really enjoying Drew Gentsch, the Des Moines Democratic Precinct #43 Caucus Chair.
posted by booksherpa at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016


Well, yes, in a two person race one of the two candidates will win.
posted by bgal81 at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


We are apparently now trying to convince individual people to come to our side, and I am glad I am not one of them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


My first response to hearing RCP was like, what? Avakian is running polls?
posted by corb at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton. They will groom anyone to look like Mr. Rogers.

When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the haters. You will always find people who are hating."
posted by curious nu at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [43 favorites]


The precinct head on MSNBC can't report the totals to HQ because her battery died. That is a dumb thing.
posted by Justinian at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016


MSNBC now interviewing an old lady who can't report the precinct numbers to the State Chair because her phone battery died and okay that's sort of adorable.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cruz and Rubio are bad news for Clinton. She'd like to run against Donald.

I actually disagree. I think she'd rather go against Cruz for the simple fact that he can't pull off the populist shtick Trump does, and he's so hated by his own party that they spent way more money going after him. And dumb, sociopathic shit like this will go over like a lead balloon in the general. Trump would probably also be nice (as would Rubio, who comes off as a lightweight who can't debate outside of his limited talking points), but Cruz's dickishness is a huge negative outside the GOP base.

Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now.

Hahaha, no. They're giving a Fox News poll serious weight, which is a quarter of all the Cruz leads they've shown.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: "Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now."

National polls are pretty meaningless at this point.
posted by octothorpe at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is going to be a nail-biter on the democratic side.
posted by zug at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


But the delegate count! It's gonna be 30-22 for Clinton!
posted by Justinian at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2016


DecisionDeskHQ, for what it's worth, just called for both Clinton and Cruz.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:57 PM on February 1, 2016


Even if Bernie doesn't win, I'm really happy that we've just got a contest on the Democratic side. Compared to the scorched Earth politics being played on the R side it's a god damn tea party in the D campaign with an issues driven campaign. It's so nice. It's just so fucking nice. I wish all politics could be like this.
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]




Governor O'Malley is going to suspend his campaign in the next hour. He gets called "Governor O'Malley" now because he is coming back to reality.
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Exciting news for those of us who had them picked for the poll!
posted by bgal81 at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


How many party members in the state voted?
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016


I think the "narrative" is going to matter a lot more than the raw delegate counts - if Sanders can pull off an upset here, I think he'll begin to be viewed as a more viable candidate, causing more people to seriously consider him.
posted by zug at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


CNN reporting O'Malley will suspend campaign tonight.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rubio is now within 3 points of Trump for 2nd. This is way closer than folks were calling, which gives me hope for the Trump-free future.
posted by corb at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Still waiting to see if Hillary gets any delegates. This process is crazy.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


i'm honestly just excited that huckabee is doing so poorly.
posted by nadawi at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The delightful Drew Gentsch mentioned to his caucus that he needed to do the numbers by hand because the "app was not working properly".

I love that they are finishing the rest of the meeting after like 95% of the people left.

Also, there are very tired (I'm guessing) children fighting in the background.
posted by booksherpa at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


we are at 75% of precincts of the Democratic Iowa Caucus reporting - Clinton 50.4%, Sanders 49.0%
posted by flex at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton. They will groom anyone to look like Mr. Rogers.

You underestimate how much the GOP right now is like a swarm of rats trapped in a room and eating their own. The Trump candidacy is a big 'ol red flag about their ability to hold their message together. And Cruz is a big, sweaty, shifty-looking mountain to climb in terms of grooming.
posted by emjaybee at 7:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


she's not a conduit through which a man will really be leading.

That definitely makes sense, and I do consider both Clinton and Sanders as candidates of their own.

I do think the "third term" or "being in the shadow" is a 'thing' whenever someone runs for president and they were a major part of the outgoing administration. In 2000 Gore chose to distance himself from Bill partly because of this:
Gore aides, however, see the distance as a must. ''He said at the convention, 'I am my own man, vote for me.' That's real,'' said Mark Fabiani, the deputy campaign manager. ''It's not some kind of facade where behind it he's seeking Clinton's counsel every day.''
posted by FJT at 7:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The GOP is more like 10 gallons of rats trapped in a 5 gallon bag.
posted by Justinian at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


The Bernie people are forcing multiple recounts, which is shitty, because they're mostly young, and several of the Hillary people are elderly, using walkers, etc. I think we're going to lose some of our people just because they can't stand up much longer.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


That's a jerkish move.
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016


Brian Williams with that "And that is the saddest picture in politics today" as they showed O'Malley's darkened stage of a celebration venue, that's just cold. I cackled like that cartoon witch with the bobby pins flying while she rides side saddle.
posted by cashman at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


roomthreeseventeen: "Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now."

Ahaha. I know that RCP has to have a page for this because people are polling on it but have we all learned nothing about the electoral college over these past sixteen years?
posted by mhum at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I do think the "third term" or "being in the shadow" is a 'thing'

while it might show up elsewhere, the ingrained sexism that follows hillary makes that statement not the same as it would if it were being widely said about a man.
posted by nadawi at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Rubio is now within 3 points of Trump for 2nd. This is way closer than folks were calling, which gives me hope for the Trump-free future.

To be fair, three points is several thousand people. With 75% of the vote in that's going to be a tough leap.

Regardless, this looks awful for Trump spin-wise.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


These live updates are really great!

Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?
posted by zug at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016


MSNBC is now reporting 50% to 49% on the Dem side.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


^ reason 5,646 to not have a caucus
posted by en forme de poire at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cruz might be a problem in the general election in that the Democrats could underestimate him. He's goofy, but a much smarter debater and media presence than than Santorum or Gary Bauer or Pat Buchanan or whoever the religious rights' typical favorite tends to be.
posted by riruro at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


oops that was to Arbitrary etc
posted by en forme de poire at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


So has the caucus system guilt-tripped people into voting for Cruz or Rubio rather than Trump?
posted by Flashman at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


In 2000 Gore chose to distance himself from Bill partly because of this

I'm pretty sure that was a mistake, though.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?

Mathematical witchcraft.
posted by Justinian at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2016


This is much closer for both parties than anyone had guessed.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't wait to take the piss out of all the idiot trump boosters I know, I called it he'd lose and I love it.
posted by vrakatar at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh, boy,now we're going to talk about if Cruz can even run for president. These are strange times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's the data I've collected for the last few minutes:

0.61 50.9 48.5
0.62 50.8 48.6
0.64 50.7 48.7
0.65 50.8 48.6
0.66 50.8 48.6
0.67 50.7 48.7
0.69 50.7 48.7
0.72 50.5 48.9
0.75 50.5 48.9
0.76 50.4 49.0

(Pct reporting, Clinton pct, Sanders pct).

Regressing Clinton on the pct reporting, we get about -3 as the coefficient. With 0.24 remaining, that would mean she will lose another 0.72 points, and Sanders will gain about the same. Which would give Clinton 50.4 - 0.72 = 49.7 and Sanders 49 + 0.72 = 49.7.

Fun night!
posted by chortly at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


How fucking cool is it that Bernie Sanders of all people can go toe to toe with Clinton after the last few decades in American politics? That's really not something I thought I'd see. It's really a shame Dean's plans for the DNC got torpedoed, because if Bernie Sanders can be this serious of a contender, the iron is hot and you need to strike with a full blown 50 state strategy for downballot races.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [40 favorites]


The problem with any Sanders narrative is that the expectations already had her losing NH and possibly Iowa which would've been hard to counter. The current narrative is most likely going to be that neither Sanders or Clinton managed to land a knockout blow. This is unfortunate for Sanders because most analysts feel he needed to win Iowa and NH by convincing margins to negate Clinton's structural advantages. However it also showed that Sanders has more staying power than was initially expected which should help him in NH and possibly some other early states.

I don't really see how either one can really claim a strong mandate other than democrats seem to like both of them. As the establishment candidate Clinton can probably play rope a dope until Super Tuesday but they are going to have to make sure that any Bernie win in NH (and pretty much everyone expects that) is at a margin of victory that prevents any sizable shift in the polls in SC and NV.
posted by vuron at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Back from my caucus about 40 minutes ago.

• Small town, total Dem. turnout 106 people
• Only two undecideds and one O'Malley to begin with. The O'Malley and one undecided went to Clinton; the other undecided to Sanders.
• Final vote 50 votes for Sanders and 56 for Hillary (2 delegates apiece)
• Nobody ever stopped talking when the person in charge started announcing things, which was super annoying (she could really have used a bullhorn, or a shrill whistle, or something).
• Maybe 5-10 of the Sanders supporters were loud and slightly assholish: encouraging vote-switching with "come to the light," once or twice, more cheering and applause. (I was a Sanders supporter and this made me grumpy.) Otherwise nothing remotely resembling conflict between the two sides.
• Not especially confusing or chaotic, everybody seemed reasonably pleased to be there.
• Both sides had roughly equal gender proportions; Clinton maybe slightly ahead on women, but it wasn't like it was divided into all-male Berniebros and all-female Clinton supporters, or even close to that. Clinton supporters also appeared to skew slightly older, but that wasn't a dramatic difference either.
• Very white, but roughly in line with overall town demographics racially. The one (one) obviously non-white person was on the Clinton side and seemed kind of awesome but I don't know because I didn't talk to her. Or anybody.
• The Clinton people had more and better food. (All Sanders had were cookies. They were home-baked, I think, but still.)
• Lots of time that was ostensibly for discussion of the candidates was actually spent just waiting for the time to be up while chit-chatting with whoever was around.
• Everybody wanted to get home quickly. All the procedural votes were unanimous in favor of whatever got us home faster.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


Shorter Iowa caucus-goers: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by tonycpsu at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Democracy: unanimous in favor of whatever gets us home faster.
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]


0.80 50.3 49.1
posted by andrewcooke at 7:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]




Vuron - No expectations I have seen had Clinton possibly losing in Iowa. But you're right - no knock out blow.
posted by tommyD at 7:12 PM on February 1, 2016


78% of MSNBC, Clinton leading by 13 delegate people out of 1100.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Bernie people are forcing multiple recounts, which is shitty, because they're mostly young, and several of the Hillary people are elderly, using walkers, etc. I think we're going to lose some of our people just because they can't stand up much longer.

That seems like ascribing the worst possible motivation to the Sanders delegates, considering how close the vote is.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


Thank goodness Intrade is defunct. I made out like a bandit four years ago, but I would have lost so much money on this cycle I would have needed Sander's to win to afford health care.
posted by skewed at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm watching the meltdown on reddit's r/the_donald.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's funny is that the straw poll nature of the Republican caucus means that the actual delegate totals could shift significantly based upon how many loonies stay til the end of the night.
posted by vuron at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016


I can't help but see this as a huge victory for Bernie Sanders, no matter what the expectation-massagers want me to think. Even two months ago, most "serious" political commentators in this country would have said it would be completely impossible, out of the question that he'd even split the Iowa vote with Clinton, the obvious presumptive nominee. And that's not to even mention how influential he's been in this race, both in terms of pulling Clinton to the left, making a full-throated argument for key liberal policies, and bringing democratic socialism into the mainstream.
posted by dialetheia at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [34 favorites]


The Hillary vs. Bernie fight is interesting, because this is the longest I've ever spent as an undecided voter. Like, up until recently, I thought they were fiction created by pollsters to explain away the shortcomings in their polling methods. However, I've recently come to a decision based on three major axes.

Strategic :
From a strategic standpoint, I think the only useful question is "Will Rubio win the GOP nomination?" Because if the answer is anything other than "yes", then Hillary is our best bet. The other GOP candidates are all really obvious about being dangerously insane. They can't win in a general. Rubio, however, is a Republican in the George W. Bush mold; a far-right conservative who dispenses with just the right number of platitudes such that he appears moderate. If he wins the GOP nomination, I almost wonder if we'd be better off with Bernie. A race between a "compassionate conservative" and a middle-of-the-road Democrat? I think we've seen this movie before. Oh yeah, and Rubio has an advantage in Florida. Yowch. Fortunately, I don't really see Rubio clinching the GOP nomination. He's the one all the Democrats are scared of, but if the polls are to be believed, the GOP could care less.

Qualitative :
I've tried to take a step back and see the Presidential election as a hiring decision. If I were a hiring manager looking to fill the position of President, who would I hire? Well, I think I have a pretty good idea of how Hillary would perform; she'd discharge her duties with competence and professionalism. She may not support all the things I support, but I know she's not going to do a bad job. How would Bernie perform? It's hard to say. He's certainly not as qualified. Furthermore, his campaign promises shed doubt on whether he really understands what can and cannot be accomplished with executive power. Hillary has spent enough time around executive power that I believe she knows what to do with it. Point to Hillary.

Gut Check :
This one is a bit harder to justify, because it's based on me sorta sticking my nose up and sniffing the wind. And I just don't see this as the best year to take a risk on a leftist candidate. You know what would have been a good year for that? 2008. The whole country was in a "throw the bums out" mood, and we swept nearly every election -- gubernatorial, congressional, and presidential. Don't get me wrong, Obama was a great candidate and ran a great campaign, and he was definitely our strongest candidate. But you'd need to have a year like that if you wanted to elect a leftist president, and I'm just not seeing it this year. Nobody's even talking about congressional elections.

... and as for the meta-narrative of Clinton supporters vs. Bernie supporters :

I think the "Berniebro" meme is reprehensible and people need to quit it NOW. It's like, good job, way to antagonize a bunch of well-meaning people whom we're going to need to win over a few months from now.

Finally, I'll note that among my friends (left-leaning, mid-30s, Brooklyn-dwelling) it's trés unfashionable to support Clinton. Like, plenty of us support her, but we don't talk about it unless we know we're among our own. It's kind of hilarious. So I'd say don't look to your FB feed as any indication of who's gonna win this thing. Bernie supporters are very vocal and have somehow captured the moral high ground, but I don't think that's necessarily going to translate to votes.
posted by panama joe at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Interesting that Trump is tweet silent.
posted by nickyskye at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't follow the pundits closely enough to know what the exceptions for Sanders actually were, but it seems to me that a near-tie with Clinton in Iowa followed by a clear win in New Hampshire is good news for Team Bernie. Not that long ago he was expected to be a gadfly at best; now he's a real contender.

I imagine this is causing some heartburn for Clinton, who is now having to fight a second time for a nomination that seemed like it should have easily been hers.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Anything short of winning is a setback for Sanders.
posted by bgal81 at 7:17 PM on February 1, 2016


In other words, what dialetheia said just earlier.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:17 PM on February 1, 2016


Clinton's firewall has always been South Carolina. Pulling off a razor-thin victory or draw in Iowa is probably good enough to maintain that even if she would prefer to be anywhere but in this position.
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


down to 1%!
posted by zug at 7:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anything short of winning is a setback for Sanders.

Based on what?
posted by en forme de poire at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016


"I cackled like that cartoon witch with the bobby pins flying while she rides side saddle."

About Brian Williams or Marty.

If Bernie is calling for recount, that old fart is more deluded then I thought.

I promise you, trump will be back getting exegetical about his hair and bloated bank figures. It's human nature, he's the one with nothing to lose, at all.

And that's his weakness.
posted by clavdivs at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, Sanders needs to win. If he can't pull out a win in a mostly white, rural state with large college towns, he is in trouble.
posted by bgal81 at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Less than 1%!
posted by ian1977 at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC has it down to 11 delegate people out of 1100+.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016


Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?

I'm watching a Des Moines caucus, and it looks like the award on the basis of math. There were 232 people for Clinton and 224 for Sanders, and Drew Gentsch referred to some sort of manual that explained rounding, basically, to award 5 to Clinton and 4 to Sanders.

"Drew, do we need to put back the chairs?"
"C-SPAN would like it if we helped them put back the chairs appropriately. I, uh, am not sure what that looks like..."

"Hold on, we just have one more vote!" (as people put away chairs and the jackets and children are gathered)
"We have another vote?"
There's maybe 2 dozen people there now.

"Do you think they want us to sweep this before we put the chairs back?"
"I have no idea"

The secretary is getting testy with the chair (Drew) as he suggests that a particular person might know how the chairs were set up. She asks him to get their daughter's coat. Yep, they're husband and wife.

Drew just plaintively asked if they could do the final vote. "We just have one more vote... if I could just get you guys for a second?"

Ah, they needed to ratify the slate of delegates and alternates. But no motion to adjourn? My Roberts Rules sense is offended.

It's the Clinton lead pushing about the chairs. She asked again about putting them away or sweeping first.

I kinda love that C-SPAN is still broadcasting from there...
posted by booksherpa at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


By "unanimous in favor of whatever got us home faster," I mean we had stuff like,

"So I've got this letter here from the State Democratic Party that I'm supposed to read but I don't really have to read it, so: all those who want me to read the letter say 'aye.'"
[crickets]
[laughter]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


In other news, 99% of the GOP vote is in:
Cruz 28%
Trump 24%
Rubio 23%
posted by Rhaomi at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


If an independent socialist who most people hadn't heard of nine months ago can wrestle one of the most well-known politicians of our era to a tie in the first primary contest, I'd say that's bad news for Clinton.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]


Rhaomi, where are you getting those numbers?
posted by Sangermaine at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016


Big bad Donald almost can't beat babyface Rubio...oh, sweet sweet revenge....
posted by vrakatar at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anything short of winning is a setback for Sanders.

I've heard a lot of TV pundits say that and I don't understand it. When the underdog comes that close, it is not a setback.
posted by tommyD at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


NBC has called this for Cruz now. On to New Hampshire for him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


NBC and others calling Iowa for Cruz!
posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC calls it for Cruz.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow, Ted Cruz has a much larger lead over Trump than I would have expected. MSNBC just called it for Cruz.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Worse than 2008? Does anyone remember 2008? I swear, sometimes I feel like I am the only one that does.
posted by bgal81 at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016


No, you see, it's bad news for Bernie, y'see because [goalposts slide downfield 20 yards].
posted by entropicamericana at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


No offence, but I'm skeptical of common-sense ideas about things like firewalls...common sense had this as a Bush vs. Clinton election, and yet no matter how many times we're reminded we know nothing, we still say things like "no one has become president in the past five elections without winning both Tennessee and North Dakota!" or some random shit, like five elections constitutes actual data. Vaguely convincing generalizations only count as "good judgment" if you're a high-level manager.
posted by uosuaq at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


lol, just lol at sixth place for Jeb. Sixth place! He got walloped, absolutely slaughtered by Rand Paul and Ben Carson!
posted by skewed at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sangermaine: "Rhaomi, where are you getting those numbers?"

CNN
posted by Rhaomi at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016


Of course, I'm still rooting for Jeb! on the GOP side so what do I know.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016


Okay, now we see if Trump can be a gracious loser and keep his eye on NH or if any loss at all just pops his bubble and everybody who supports him suddenly regains their sanity. So far I got one right in the prediction contest!
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016


MSNBC calls it for Cruz.

Iowa listened!
posted by tonycpsu at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


NYT has it down to 0.9% between Clinton and Sanders now. I honestly, as a Bernie supporter, never thought he'd get this close when the race started. I figured he'd get 30-35% in Iowa max. To see it neck and neck like this after all these months is frankly amazing.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


It's not common sense, it's the fact that Clinton had something like a 35 or 40 point lead in the latest polls in South Carolina. That there is math.
posted by Justinian at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


interesting map + comment (-ve ads)
posted by andrewcooke at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder if this means the wheels falling off the Trump juggernaut, especially how his public identity is tied up, recursively, in being a winner. I'm guessing he is probably sufficiently delusional to gloss over some losses, but beyond that, will deflate rapidly and implode to a point.
posted by acb at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Question: why are the Republican & Democratic votes on such different magnitudes? I assume they're measuring different things -- are the GOP vote tallies measuring the number of individual votes while the Dems are counting only the number of delegates? Surely there aren't only 1,000 Dems in all of Iowa.
posted by lilac girl at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016


Even if Bernie loses tonight, this is good news for those of us who won't vote for Hillary. There are still a lot of people who aren't ready to do that yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


.8%, 84% reporting!
posted by zug at 7:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


lilac girl: The Republican tallies are, yes, individual vote totals while the Democrats are using some sort of delegate jujitsu.

Clinton camp is declaring victory! Is the spin war starting?!
posted by Justinian at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton camp is now claiming victory. Which is... weird.

It would be very stupid to make that announcement without being sure of it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I wonder if this means the wheels falling off the Trump juggernaut, especially how his public identity is tied up, recursively, in being a winner. I'm guessing he is probably sufficiently delusional to gloss over some losses, but beyond that, will deflate rapidly and implode to a point.

Well, just remember that people have been predicting Trump's implosion non-stop for the last 9 months and he's somehow still here. I'd be careful about calling him over yet.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016


Clinton calls it for Clinton.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is way closer than folks were calling, which gives me hope for the Trump-free future.

Cruz and Rubio are no less problematic than Trump. Cruz might well be worse. They can move the Party machinery better than Trump, and also the Dems can kiss the unified Latino vote goodbye.

Trump would make a horrible president, and anyone who's not a Republican knows it. Zero shot in the general. Things get trickier with Cruz or Rubio. They are younger and more polished than either Sanders or Clinton. They are capable of making gaffes, but this is not something to rely on. The GOP is fractured now, but will be in lockstep after the convention - don't let the Primary shenanigans fool you, the Republicans are better at staying on-message and can turn out every last R voter come November.

African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep. Older, established Latinos, especially religious social conservatives, may just well come out for Rubio or Cruz. Only a complete crazypants like Trump could get out the vote for the Dems in the needed numbers, because Obama's not coming back, and the DNC is fucking hopeless.

The best result is a Trump landslide, as it invalidates the Republicans as a party capable of governing seriously, and hands a comfy victory to either Hillary or Bernie, with positive knock-on effects up and down the D-side of the ticket.

The good news is that Trump had abandoned Iowa early when it looked like Cruz stole a march on him. He's aiming for a big win in New Hampshire and momentum in solidly conservative states.

I think coming in second tonight is far more damaging for Sanders' campaign than for Trump's.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton camp is declaring victory! Is the spin war starting?!

When it's this close, there's no penalty for premature declarations of victory.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016


The analysis by just about every democratic pundit and pollster seems to indicate that Sanders needed a 1-2 blow to knock out Hilary because SC and NV are much harder territory for Sanders to win.

Granted a lot of this is built around the narrative that Clinton has much stronger support among African American and Latino voters than Sanders which are a much larger percentage of the SC and NV electorate.

So the dominant narrative is the Sanders has to prove not only do people like him but that he's a better General election candidate than Clinton. A Tie in Iowa isn't strong enough of a showing to really knock out Clinton.

Obviously this result is going to be a dead heat which pushes the decision to NH which is Bernie's all-in position because it's the only early state that is so demographical and philosophical in tune with him. If Clinton can manage NH expectations well then she has way way easier going over the next states and can basically play rope a dope until super Tuesday which requires Bernie to build a ridiculously expansive and expensive organization on relatively short notice.
posted by vuron at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can we just skip using any name that contains '-fem' or '-bro' in it here? I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Oh, the Clinton camp should really wait. Not a good idea.
posted by bgal81 at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016


Clinton is leading by ELEVEN (estimated) delegates at 84% precincts reporting, according to the NYT - that is 579-568 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016


Yeah, the Democrats do delegates. They distribute the delegates not by straight turnout, but by precinct. Before the election, they determine the number of delegates that each precinct gets based on turnout in previous elections. (Not previous presidential elections: all previous elections.) Basically, it discriminates against precincts that have high turnout in presidential years and low turnout in midterms. Which is stupid, stupid, stupid, but the whole process is stupid.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Okay, now we see if Trump can be a gracious loser

lol
posted by triggerfinger at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Huckabee's calling it quits too.

Good. Fuck that guy.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Clinton's campaign declaring their own victory is, FYI, why many people don't like her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


All of that noise about firewalls and 1-2 punches is bullshit when things are this close. Super Tuesday has the name for a reason -- a ton of delegrates are up for grabs then -- and even though recent years haven't had those primaries mean as much as they used to, for a two-horse race, there's no reason to believe that anyone has to get out while there are still so many delegates up for grabs.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016


African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep.

How do you know this?
posted by girlmightlive at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


.7, 84% in... and the GOP site appears to be down.
posted by zug at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the only thing different on the Dem side is that O'Malley is out.

So no real difference. One thing that is for certain, is that Sanders' path to nomination is already looking to be different than Obama's.
posted by FJT at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


He doesn't. Clinton's approval among African American's is gigantic.
posted by Justinian at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Martin O'Malley calls Iowa for Martin O'Malley, starts out victory speech with, "I didn't know we could do that."
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thanks for the feedback! I have to talk with high schoolers tomorrow and am trying to anticipate any weird sideways question I might get thrown.
posted by lilac girl at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016


Trump is the man in the grey suit.
posted by vrakatar at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016


CLINTON BEATS DEWEY
posted by uosuaq at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm thinking there's pretty good odds that Trump starts insulting voters directly if they don't start voting his way soon. Possibly even while throwing a full blown tantrum.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Basically, it discriminates against precincts that have high turnout in presidential years and low turnout in midterms.

Interesting. Does that contribute to the Democrats massive midterms problem?
posted by Artw at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016


African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons

How do you know this?

I'm really curious to know too! Like, really curious.
posted by cashman at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016


NYT says 590-583 Clinton-Sanders. That's SEVEN
posted by flex at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


From Nate Silver:
And yet: There was not yet any proof in tonight’s results that Sanders can expand his performance beyond his base of white and liberal voters, which are plentiful in Iowa and New Hampshire but less so elsewhere. Instead, Sanders’s supporters seem to have been exactly who we thought they were. Sanders did really well among “very liberal” voters and extraordinarily well among young voters, but not very well among moderates, women or older voters.
That's basically my feeling. Sanders' support is deep but not wide. Clinton's is wide but not deep. But wide is better than deep.
posted by Justinian at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ok, just lost my shit when I saw that the CNN race ticker is "Sponsored by Audi". Nothing like blatant capitalism looking to advertise and sponsor even the most hypocritical of events.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


NBC has Sanders 7 delegates behind, now.
posted by gaspode at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016


[Please knock it off with the cutesy-snide nicknames and personal attacks, please. thanks.]
posted by restless_nomad at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


How do you know this?</em

Just got back from our weekly meeting and he's write. The vote was close, but yeah, it's been decided.

posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep.

If you believe this, Trump has a yuge, very strong bridge he'd like to sell you.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have a very hard time believing that black Americans are going to stay home for an election that is likely to feature the most radical GOP candidate in most people's memory. Like, I could believe the moon landing was faked or Mole People live under Manhattan before I buy that.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Just sitting here eating supper and the thought pops into my head:

What if the Donald yells "fix"


Maybe I've been reading too much on Sovereign citizens and have too high an estimate of the loony factor currently.
posted by Trochanter at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


That's basically my feeling. Sanders' support is deep but not wide. Clinton's is wide but not deep. But wide is better than deep
Heh, was just about to post that myself Justinian.

Good news for Clinton, basically, as Iowa/NH are the ideal states for Sanders based on those demographics, as had been assumed. So if he's managing only 50%-ish in Iowa, he's going to get destroyed in the South.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


So the Google results are showing both votes and delegate counts for the Democrats but only percentages for the Republicans. The Republican results tab doesn't even have a column for delegates. Anyone know why?
posted by octothorpe at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016


[on its way home, the Trvmp campaign plane dumped 290,000 dimes over Iowa, damaging crops, tipping several cows and invoking the ire of metal detector enthusiasts in 4 states]
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016


Hillary Just dipped below 50% of delegates awarded in the overall calculation.
posted by persona at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump would make a horrible president, and anyone who's not a Republican knows it. Zero shot in the general.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The public has a short memory, and once the whipping-up-the-base part of the campaign is over, if Trump is the Republican candidate, there is a nonzero chance that, if he moderates his language, replaces some of his hard-right fascist-authoritarian talking points with quasi-leftist populist-paternalist talking points (which go well with a certain type of hard-right politics; look at Mussolini, or the current Polish or Hungarian governments), he might rope in people who wouldn't vote for a typical Republican theocrat/small-government zealot. Including, possibly, some people who would have voted for Sanders but can't see themselves voting for Clinton, with her Wall Street ties and glib, content-free sloganeering.

(None of which necessarily means that Trump has to moderate his actual policies or programmes; again, look at the PiS party in Poland, or Tony Abbott in Australia, both of whom toned down their rhetoric as not to spook the swing voters.)
posted by acb at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


>Hillary Just dipped below 50% of delegates awarded in the overall calculation.

Where can I see this?
posted by zug at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016


Does that contribute to the Democrats massive midterms problem?
I don't think so. I think it's more that the Democrats' massive midterms problem can distort the presidential nominating process.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jesus Christ the Democratic Iowa system makes no goddamn sense.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


What if the Donald yells "fix"

Please don't give him any ideas.
posted by tommyD at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rubio is declaring victory! Third place victory!!!
posted by Justinian at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here comes howdy doody rubio...
posted by vrakatar at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016


zug if you google IA caucus results it has Sanders up over Clinton 20-19, despite trailing slightly in the popular vote (not what I would have expected).
posted by en forme de poire at 7:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Zug, I fixed the link now.
posted by persona at 7:37 PM on February 1, 2016


Rubio: "after 7 years of Obama, we are not waiting any longer to take our country back!"

Except, I dunno, for another year I guess.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think a near win in Iowa and a big win in NH would give Bernie a lot more exposure, leading to better numbers in the coming primaries.
posted by saul wright at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Rubio is declaring victory! Third place victory!!!

Victory over the rest of the establishment types at least. He's a serious contender now, but he better start proving he can win a fight against Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, do I hate Rubio's voice.
posted by octothorpe at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016


"If they win ObamaCare becomes permanent."

Umm.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Rubio: "Hillary Clinton is disqualified."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016


octothorpe: "The Republican results tab doesn't even have a column for delegates."

I think this is because, on the Republican side, the Iowa caucus is non-binding. The delegates aren't allocated until later. Which leads to hilarious things like the 2012 situation where: 1) Mitt Romney was initially declared the winner, 2) until they recounted the votes and Santorum was declared the winner (well after the NH and maybe SC primary), 3) which didn't matter anyways because Ron Paul managed to scoop up most (22 out of 26) of the IA delegates later.
posted by mhum at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


NINE GINS-BURGS! NINE GINS-BURGS!
posted by Small Dollar at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Latest results really underscore the absurdity of taking percentages and multiplying by small numbers and then rounding them off. Way to pointlessly increase the noise in your system.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Oh, how much do I hate this "take our country back" phrasing.
posted by Automocar at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


NYT says 87% reporting, 601 estimated delegates to Clinton vs. 594 to Sanders
posted by flex at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Rubio looks really good here. As much as I hate all things Rubio it's better than Cruz or Trump. I still think the nomination will go to Cruz.
posted by sweetkid at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can the last 13% of precincts please hurry up? I need to take a nap.
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I predicted that Clinton would win Iowa by a hair, and I predict that Sanders will win New Hampshire. The real test will be whether Sanders can win a state that isn't basically all white. I don't think that's likely, but stranger things have happened.

And I think this is a pretty good argument for why we shouldn't have two disproportionately-white states go first.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hillary vs. Bernie vs. groundhog
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can the last 13% of precincts please hurry up? I need to take a nap.

You should try taking a nap while listening to American cable news. I find it gives you the most trippy nightmares.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016


I think a near win in Iowa and a big win in NH would give Bernie a lot more exposure, leading to better numbers in the coming primaries.

That's the pro-Sanders case. Once Iowa and NH establish him as a credible candidate, other people consider him more seriously. AKA the Obama strategy. He doesn't have the same level of easily gained minority support Obama did, but it's not ridiculous to think Sanders gains momentum from a strong early showing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The real test will be whether Sanders can win a state that isn't basically all white.

People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is Rubio always this bad at talking?
posted by jesourie at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016


Clinton just dropped below 50% overall, .5 pct ahead of Bernie.
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump 2012
posted by Artw at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Has anyone noticed that the Rubio campaign typography is pretty much a ripoff of a DC pizza chain.
posted by peeedro at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.

No one is ignoring it. They are saying if Bernie pulls this out tonight, he will by all historical precedence win the Democratic nomination. No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016


NBC: 88% reporting 620-614 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016


Hillary vs. Bernie vs. groundhog
Here in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania (close by actually) the forecast calls for partly cloudy, so it's a toss-up.
posted by tommyD at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I still can't believe Rubio used "A New American Century" as his slogan.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Polk County is gonna hold the state for Hillary, but only by the smallest of margins.
posted by Justinian at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016


Is Rubio always this bad at talking?

Yes. Remember his weird water break in the middle of his 2013 State of the Union response?
posted by Sangermaine at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Rubio repeated himself and is tripping balls.
posted by vrakatar at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016


Rubio has a problem with cadence, though he appears more sincere then say Cruz.
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016


Is Rubio always this bad at talking?

*awkwardly gets a drink of water*
posted by saul wright at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think this is because, on the Republican side, the Iowa caucus is non-binding. The delegates aren't allocated until later.

Didn't the RNC change the rules this year to make the delegates binding, mostly to avoid the Ron Paul shenanigans? At least, that's why Colorado doesn't officially have a Republican caucus this year.
posted by lilac girl at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe he bought a Camelbak.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.

No one is ignoring it.


I haven't seen a lot of support for Bernie among minorities, like at all. That's what I'm talking about. I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers, and worrying about the minority vote is like silly or wait your turn or something, we've got something happening here.

"no one is ignoring it" is just not at all true.
posted by sweetkid at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


No declared candidate has ever not won Iowa, NH and gone on to lose the nomination.

Yeah ... and Missouri used to be considered "the bellweather state" until it voted against Obama twice.

Presidential elections are a shockingly small sample size, especially considering the changes the country has gone through in just the last hundred years or so.
posted by panama joe at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


As much as I hate all things Rubio it's better than Cruz or Trump.

It's better in the same way that having your face chewed off by a golden retriever versus a poodle versus a lab. Results are the same, it's just the sound of the bark that changes. They're all batshit crazy with equally horrid ideas.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.

Edmund Muskie.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.

Tea-leaf reading. That sort of cargo-cult statistics is true right up until the moment that it isn't.
posted by figurant at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


89% reporting, Clinton ahead by .3%
posted by flex at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


zero point three percent
posted by Rhaomi at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


How do you know this?

He doesn't. Clinton's approval among African American's is gigantic.


The Michelle Alexander book is a thing that's out there and very well known. It's a hard, hard thing for Hillary to get over - and Bernie is coming across as a white New Englander, who neither knows nor cares how to reach southern and urban African American voters. This is probably a matter of perception, an artifact of having to invest so much in campaigning in a pair of very white states early on, but it's a really damaging one at the moment. The local NPR radio show had an hour long segment on it today with African American journalists and political commentators, and it backs up what I've been reading and hearing elsewhere. Polls during the primaries are one thing, turnout in November another. Enthusiasm is not high.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


All eyes in America currently on @realDonaldTrump's page, fingers frantically hitting F5 again and again and again.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Rubio needs a massive amount of arm twisting to get Bush/Christie/Fiorina etc to drop out of the race prior to NH otherwise he's going to have significant issues.

He basically needs to solidify the NOTTRUMP and NOTCRUZ vote asap and preferably before NH because Trump still looks dominant there (although Trump's support seems illusory at best). The best hope for that is that the big money donors see the writing on the wall and band together to support Rubio instead of the two sociopaths.

If one or more billionaires fails to cut off Christie or Bush before NH then things could get interesting because OMG the knives are going to be out for Cruz like crazy.
posted by vuron at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie

Wait really? I feel like literally the #1 thing I've heard from forecasting-type pundits over the last few months is that his campaign's biggest problem is how he's polling among PoC, and that the states where he's doing the best are the ones with the highest concentration of white liberals.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


david wasserman's suggesting neither sanders nor rubio will make it.

0.2% as i edit this...
posted by andrewcooke at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


For some reason Rubio reminds me of Novak's character in Inglourious Basterds. So I'm gonna start calling him "Little Man".
posted by FJT at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016


Here comes Trump!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016


lilac girl: "Didn't the RNC change the rules this year to make the delegates binding,"

Oh shoot. I think you're right. Wikipedia has Iowa listed as a binding caucus. So I dunno why they aren't showing the delegate counts.
posted by mhum at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016


Clinton by .2%!
posted by flex at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016


Now I'm remembering what we're in for with the next six months of primaries...night after night of staying up late reloading the internet to get results that *don't really settle anything*. Sigh.

Trump is looking a lot more vulnerable now though. He needs to separate from the pack in NH or the bubble will start deflating...
posted by zipadee at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


david wasserman's suggesting neither sanders nor rubio will make it.

Yeah, I guess he's seeing the same thing I saw. Most of Sanders' best precincts have come in. The remaining counties are split at best.
posted by Justinian at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rubio always comes across as a high school kid who is wearing his Dad's suit for his first speech in the auditorium.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Remaining precincts I mean.
posted by Justinian at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016


I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers

That's true, but I think that's another way of saying that Sanders' early support is from well-educated, financially secure people who have enough interest and spare time to pay attention to a new figure on the national scene. In America, those people are disproportionately white. I don't think that necessarily means Sanders couldn't pick up minority support. Clinton was leading Obama among minorities early in the primary season, too. (I think I remember that correctly--I'm having a hard time Googling a relevant poll from February 2008.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


That said, it's down to 0.2!
posted by Justinian at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"no one is ignoring it" is just not at all true.

I've seen people talk about race in every conversation about Bernie I've read since the Black Lives Matter protestors confronted him.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


NYT Live stream of Trump speech here.

Trump says he's "honored to finish second".
posted by FJT at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016


Is there a place to see the remaining precincts?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016


BY THREE DELEGATES according to the NYT - 628-625 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]



People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie

Wait really? I feel like literally the #1 thing I've heard from forecasting-type pundits over the last few months is that his campaign's biggest problem is how he's polling among PoC, and that the states where he's doing the best are the ones with the highest concentration of white liberals.


My comment is pretty specifically about people who think he'll win it all because he's winning in majority white states. Also, yes it doesn't seem like he's doing much to bring in African American voters (PoC is a different thing in my opinion).

It's really just the ARE YOU DUMB BERNIE'S STARTING SOMETHING GET ON BOARD which I have only seen from white people, a lot of whom think about African American or PoC issues only secondarily.
posted by sweetkid at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump's pretty subdued.
posted by octothorpe at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016


Buy a farm, Donald.
posted by peeedro at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Arbitrary: https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state

Mouse over the counties and it tells you how many precincts are left to resort. For example, 27 left in Polk with 173 total left outstanding across the state.
posted by Justinian at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016


Most of Sanders' best precincts have come in. The remaining counties are split at best.

But it's a 0.2% difference with 11% of the state left to report!
posted by saul wright at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016


It's really just the ARE YOU DUMB BERNIE'S STARTING SOMETHING GET ON BOARD which I have only seen from white people, a lot of whom think about African American or PoC issues only secondarily.

This is both unfair and untrue.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


That might be the most rational and level-headed Trump speech since ever.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


do you have proof? it seems completely true to me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Uh, okay. I'm not going to argue the point.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016


I see a lot of "Sanders' campaign's biggest issue is its lack of appeal with PoC/black voters" from people criticizing it, and not a ton from people supporting the campaign about how to make it more appealing.

But that's my relatively narrow, personal-social-media-feeds perspective. So YMMV.
posted by sciatrix at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016


It kind of makes me sad. Bernie may not be perfect but he's been the best chance of getting a real social democrat in a real position of power in a generation. None of this third way bullshit.
posted by Talez at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


The last burst of Sanders' votes was the rest of Johnson County (Iowa City) coming in, which I think was his last really big amount of precincts to rack up, which left him a couple short. But we'll see.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I dunno, justinian. There are a bunch of precincts still out in Linn County, which seems to be doing well for Bernie. That's where Cedar Rapids is.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Buy a farm, Donald.

You called it!
posted by vrakatar at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016


(fwiw I am pro-Sanders, along with basically 80% of my feeds, but everyone on said feeds is pretty clear about throwing their weight behind whoever wins the primary. I haven't seen a lot of "I will not vote for that Dem candidate but I would vote for this one" perspectives off of MeFi, and even here those perspectives are pretty limited.)
posted by sciatrix at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


rebound to 0.4%
posted by andrewcooke at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2016


From David Wasserman at 538:
Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton. According to our targets at the Cook Political Report, Bernie Sanders would have needed to win twice as many delegates as Clinton in Iowa to be “on track” for the nomination. He’s nowhere near that tonight.
posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh yeah, no matter how the primaries come out, I'm voting D in November.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah I don't get people who won't vote for a D. I don't like that economic inequality won't be a huge part of a Clinton administration but I'm not about to cut my nose off to spite my face.
posted by Talez at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


David Wasserman of 538 says:
"To my eye, the outstanding precincts on the Democratic side slightly favor Hillary Clinton. Statewide, only 13 percent of precincts are left outstanding. But 21 percent of precincts are outstanding in Clinton’s best large county, Polk, and 23 percent of precincts remain to be counted in Dubuque, her other best large county. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has 23 percent of Story County (Ames), but that’s smaller. All but 7 percent of Johnson County (Iowa City) is in."
posted by markkraft at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016


Also, yes it doesn't seem like he's doing much to bring in African American voters (PoC is a different thing in my opinion).

Not to argue, but have you seen his lengthy discussion with Killer Mike? It's some of the least condescending outreach I've ever seen from anyone in the Democratic party. He's also been stumping with Dr. Cornel West and has dedicated outreach at HBCU. His criminal justice platform is the best in the Democratic party according to Deray Mckesson's Campaign Zero. I don't say this to be argumentative at all, but I just don't think it's quite fair to say he's not doing much to earn the trust of African American voters
posted by dialetheia at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [39 favorites]


dunno, justinian. There are a bunch of precincts still out in Linn County, which seems to be doing well for Bernie. That's where Cedar Rapids is.

You're right, but until Polk finishes coming in I don't see how the last 0.3% gets made up. Polk is huge.
posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016


Well, as huge as it gets in Iowa. Which is not very huge.
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 1, 2016


A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton.

Not at all. There is no world in which Sanders should have come close.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


It's all anecdata. I'm gay and a PoC and I've supported Bernie from day 1 as have many of my gay and my PoC friends. I also have friends who are gay and straight, black, brown and white, who support Hillary.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton.

Cool, thanks for clearing that up
posted by Automocar at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't like that economic inequality won't be a huge part of a Clinton administration

Oh, I anticipate it will be a huge part, given her donors.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


do you have proof? it seems completely true to me.

"Do you have any proof of innocence to counter my presumption of guilt?"
posted by Behemoth at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm probably slightly pro-Sanders, but I'd happily for for Clinton if she wins the primaries. I'm mainly glad that Sanders is dragging the Democratic discussion leftward. Heck, I'd vote a Satan/Sentient Ebola Virus Democratic ticket if I thought they would adhere to the party platform and it would keep the GOP out of the White House.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [37 favorites]


Honestly, I'm going to vote straight party ticket for the Democrats no matter what (hopefully there are no ballot initiatives on the November election because then I actually have to read) and honestly I have things I like and dislike about both Clinton and Sanders. Seriously though I can't even imagine not voting for the Democrat regardless of whoever is the eventually even though Texas will inevitably vote for some disgusting Republican regardless and my vote will be drowned out in a sea of nativism and racism and classism and at least a little misogyny.

I really do urge liberals regardless of your current preference for Clinton or Sanders to work together to support the democratic nominee in either case because no matter how awful you think Clinton is or how obnoxious some of the Sanders supporters are both candidates are vastly superior to the alternatives and futhermore neither one seem likely to support a massive rollback in civil rights for your fellow americans. Yes hold your nose if you must but realize that there is a vast gulf of difference between Sander or Clinton and even the most sane Republican candidate.
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee. It'll be interesting to see how many others there are out there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


There's lots of actual demographic and opinion data out there about Sanders and Clinton supporters. No need to rely on anecdotal impressions gleaned from Reddit or Facebook or your circle of acquaintances.
posted by chortly at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


There are also 6 precincts out in Story County, which is where Ames and Iowa State University are.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016


I don't think that necessarily means Sanders couldn't pick up minority support. Clinton was leading Obama among minorities early in the primary season, too.

The problem is that the Clintons aren't really that comfortable catering to black voters. Their original claim to fame was attracting white southern voters back to the party... and Hillary's recent off-hand comment about "reconstruction" shows just how awkward that territory is for her. She's already been drawn left but would dearly like to pivot towards the "center," but the "center" for, say, law enforcement is pretty far away from what black voters need to hear. If she has to campaign against Bernie for black votes she is in a very difficult position.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016


(Polk County is currently 151 out of 177 reporting, 53.6% Clinton - 45.7% Sanders, just FYI)
posted by flex at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016


I'm mainly glad that Sanders is dragging the Democratic discussion leftward.

This so much. Just getting his economic inequality stuff onto the agenda as things in front of and shown as important for Democratic voters.
posted by Talez at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Traditionally, social democrats or even socialists have had a tough road into national politics, even local, I can only recall a few. It's just not conducive to business.

TRUSTED

That's sometning Rick Grimes yells to glen after a raid gone bad.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




do you have proof? it seems completely true to me.

"Do you have any proof of innocence to counter my presumption of guilt?"


I'm not saying anyone's guilty. I'm saying minority voters have good reason to be nervous about Sanders, despite agreeing overall with his policies. Saying no way that isn't happening and here have some stats is like, exactly proving my point.
posted by sweetkid at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just don't think it's quite fair to say he's not doing much to earn the trust of African American voters

Yeah, it's more accurate to say he isn't accomplishing much. He has been making serious effort since he was confronted on it, but it's not easy to do when you are against someone people are much more familiar with.

I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee. It'll be interesting to see how many others there are out there.

I'm not voting for Clinton, but there are not many of us. She is going to win
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016


The Hillary campaign HQ in Iowa suddenly burst out into a great fit of cheering. Not sure why, as yet. Watching the results at WHOTV. com and following the results as they are posted to the Des Moines Register.

It's really close, but it looks like she's run the gauntlet, and that the remainder of the vote should favor her.
posted by markkraft at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016


https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/county/19153

I'm not so sure Polk being out is a huge win for Hillary.
posted by zug at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016


*fistbumps as a liberal Texan with vuron* MORE VOTING. All the voting! Even if it's hopelessly ineffectual given how gerrymandered all to hell we are, well, it's a good habit to be in. You never know.
posted by sciatrix at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sorry if I missed it, but what happens to MoM's 7 delegates?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016


And in terms of African-American community leaders: TNC is apparently in the Clinton camp, but Cornel West has been stumping for him. Guess what, the community is not a monolith.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


From 538 blog:
Counties with 100k+ registered Democrats:
Polk County – 85 percent reporting – Clinton 54, Sanders 46 so far.

50-100k registered Democrats:
Linn County – 86 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 48 so far.

25-50k registered Democrats:
Scott County – 88 percent reporting – Sanders 51, Clinton 49 so far.
Blackhawk Country – 85 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 47 so far.
Dubuque County – 80 percent reporting – Clinton 53, Sanders 46 so far.

<25k registered Democrats:
Woodbury County – 81 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 46 so far.
Marshall County – 89 percent reporting – Sanders 52, Clinton 48 so far.
Story County – 86 percent reporting – Sanders 58, Clinton 42 so far.
Warren County – 83 percent reporting – Clinton 56, Sanders 44 so far.
posted by jpdoane at 8:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


91% precincts in - NYT & NBC are both reporting 636-632 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 8:05 PM on February 1, 2016


Thanks Despicable Asshole, Ted Cruz. You just won me 35 dollars!
posted by codacorolla at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton.

This is like when some internet buddies insisted the Broncos blew out the Patriots, because the Patriots lost by two points instead of won by three touchdowns. Stats nerdery sometimes goes too far.

This close, and Sanders has effectively won, from a campaign standpoint, as it will fundamentally alter the direction of the campaign in other important states. If he wins outright, things will be rocky for Clinton, in terms of gaining endorsements, building her ground game and fundraising.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


sweetkid: I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers

Pater Aletheias: That's true, but I think that's another way of saying that Sanders' early support is from well-educated, financially secure people who have enough interest and spare time to pay attention to a new figure on the national scene. In America, those people are disproportionately white.


"What do you think of this town you're moving to?"

"I don't know. I like it, but I feel out-of-place there. It's overwhelmingly white."

"Well, that's just another way of saying the people there are all well-educated and financially secure!"

"Oh, okay! Well, now I feel super welcome!"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


I'm voting Not Having a Republican Pick the Next Supreme Court Justices, that's what I'm voting.

Also I actually like Hilary and I will second that the Bernie types (on my FB) are kind of being assholes about it, on occasion. But I ain't voting for whatever pile of ichor in a suit gets the GOP nom, so.
posted by emjaybee at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


That there is a good old fashioned Iowa squeaker!
posted by vrakatar at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016


This close, and Sanders has effectively won, from a campaign standpoint, as it will fundamentally alter the direction of the campaign in other important states.

I'm pretty sure the point people are trying to make here is that it won't.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


rocky for Clinton, in terms of gaining endorsements

Maybe? But she's currently trouncing him in endorsements, 465-2. Not that I think those are all that important, really.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:08 PM on February 1, 2016


Solon and Thanks, I don't think that's a fair characterization of my point, but I'm not going to recap it here.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I do of course certainly want Hillary to win in the general (and I expect that she will prevail in the primary). I probably won't be voting for her as I live in deep blue Illinois and my voting decision matrix is: Vote Green if a Green candidate is available unless there is a tight race between (D) and (R) in which case vote Democratic; don't vote for judges at all as I in principle think judges should be isolated from public opinion. (I never voted for Obama either although I think he's done a damn good job given what he had to deal with.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


What's happening with that half a percent or so of O'Malley supporters still on the boards? I thought they were supposed to have been redistributed by this point.
posted by fifthrider at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016


Trump still all over the headlines even if he loses, of course...
posted by Artw at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee.

I don't understand this. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But for the first eight years of my adulthood, the White House was held by George W. Bush, and I'm entirely baffled by anybody old enough to have lived through that who isn't goddamned terrified of eight years of somebody who's even worse.

We're going to get punched in the face. Refusing to opt for it being done lightly instead of hard is bizarre.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]


Maddow says this is a victory for Sanders, no matter what.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I thought they were supposed to have been redistributed by this point.

Not if they hit 15% in their precinct, and some precincts did.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016


"I don't know. I like it, but I feel out-of-place there. It's overwhelmingly white."

That's how I felt about moving to the New England suburbs. I'm used to quarter asian, quarter latino. Also, half the south of the border minority over here fala português instead of español.
posted by Talez at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016


Daily Kos reports that Trump got "schlonged" by Cruz, and except for the terrible mental picture it gives me, I found that pretty funny.
posted by emjaybee at 8:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Clinton back over 50% with 91% reporting.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just want to note that JEB! got (relatively) clobbered by Rand Paul. My schadenfreude gland is close to bursting.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]




Maddow says this is a victory for Sanders, no matter what.
That seems totally indisputable to me. Whether it's a victory that's going to matter in the long run is, I think, very much an open question.

Anyway, I think that having a real contest is good for the Democrats, so I'm happy about it. We don't have to worry about the Hillary-coronation problem anymore.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Already getting mail from the DCCC about how Ted Cruz winning could be the "end of the Republican Party as we know it". That expression could go two ways though...
posted by thefoxgod at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016


Yeah, I am a black woman and I pretty much will never vote for Clinton. I think it is gross the way people get on Sanders's case about hypothetical things when Clinton was behind some of the worst depredations actually committed against black Americans since the Civil Rights era. But more than that: As a New Yorker who knows how terrible it was when someone blew a hole in my city, I will never, ever support someone who used that event to do the same thing to other people. If you can't learn that lesson of empathy, well, I don't want you.

(PS: OMG YOU WILL LET REPUBS WIN commenters, I live in New York. Who I vote for doesn't actually matter.)
posted by dame at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [55 favorites]


The African American community is certainly not a monolith and while it is reliably democratic in the general election it can definitely influence primary races. Hopefully the Latino vote can also become as instrumental in defining the democratic primary process although that generally hasn't been as reliable outside of the southwest.

Long term the success of failure of the Democratic party depends on a stool of young voters (because who you vote with in your first election is a big determinant of future behavior), African-American and Latino voters.

Continued support of LGBTQ issues by Democrats will of course be critical in maintaining that part of the big tent and honestly I'm willing to lose some conservative southern voters (white or PoC) in order to continue pushing for increased support of LGBTQ issues.

The Asian community is unfortunately underserved in terms of electoral politics mainly because many states in which the Asian community is a large percentage of the electorate are already dominated by democrats but it would be good if more Asian democrats could get national exposure so that it's not just Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley on the Republican side.
posted by vuron at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's long past time to move Iowa out of first and go to some kind of rotation. We shouldn't be beholden to the narrative of who won the Des Moines dog sled and mayonnaise eating biathlon every single presidential cycle.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I understand the punditry's point that this is demographically one of the better states for Sanders (whiter, more liberal) but I think they're underestimating the differential between Beltway familiarity with Bernie Sanders and the average Democratic voter's familiarity.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]



Anyway, I think that having a real contest is good for the Democrats, so I'm happy about it. We don't have to worry about the Hillary-coronation problem anymore.


Agreed.
posted by sweetkid at 8:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Anyway, I think that having a real contest is good for the Democrats, so I'm happy about it.

Yeah, people on both sides were worried about the contested primary in 2008 hurting in the general, but it really seemed like it had the opposite effect. Democrats were energized, there was lots of coverage/exposure, and Hillary rallied to Obama's cause once the primary was over. I'm assuming/hoping Sanders will do the same (or Clinton if Sanders somehow pulls it off).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


As a New Yorker who knows how terrible it was when someone blew a hole in my city, I will never, ever support someone who used that event to do the same thing to other people. If you can't learn that lesson of empathy, well, I don't want you.

Thank you for framing my thoughts exactly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


posted by dame at 9:14 PM on February 1

Yes!
posted by Trochanter at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


the Des Moine dog sled and mayonnaise eating biathlon

do they... do they eat the dog sled too?
posted by jason_steakums at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


What I'm really hoping for is that whoever loses does what they can to support the winner- severe disunity lasting past the convention could be catastrophic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't understand this. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But for the first eight years of my adulthood, the White House was held by George W. Bush, and I'm entirely baffled by anybody old enough to have lived through that who isn't goddamned terrified of eight years of somebody who's even worse.

We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Not at all. There is no world in which Sanders should have come close.

It sure wasn't supposed to be this way back when the race was starting, and maybe she will finally start running a better campaign.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


With 91.73% reporting, Hillary has bounced back significantly.
Hillary Clinton
50.15%
Bernie Sanders
49.32%

That should be game over.

Given that Obama won Iowa by about 9%, and Hillary came in a distant third... well, Hillary is doing pretty well, and obviously won over a lot of people who didn't previously vote for her. The entrance polls showed a LARGE female turnout -- about 56% -- which is really hopeful if this party comes together.

Bernie did great, but he didn't win over the people of Iowa, which were demographically and liberally ideal for for his campaign. Had this been a primary, she would almost certainly won by several additional points, as the caucus process is notoriously difficult for the elderly, the disabled, etc.

But yes, Sanders needed to win by a margin larger than Obama to be anywhere near on track for victory, and to counter Iowa's superdelegates, all of whom favor Clinton, I believe. By the time those are tallied in, Hillary will have won a strong victory in Iowa.

A huge female turnout and a lot of millennial activism would be a win for everyone who wants to keep the GOP out of office.
posted by markkraft at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.
posted by sciatrix at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.

"The lesser of two evils is still evil" is only insightful when there's a third, non-evil possibility. In anything resembling the forseeable future, there isn't.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton’s Support Runs Deep

Clinton holds a commanding lead among nearly every major subgroup of potential Democratic primary voters. Some of her strongest showings are among women, nonwhites, those in lower-income households, those with less formal education, and Southerners
.

Gallup Election Review, Oct. 2007.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


And I'm another black woman who is leaning towards Clinton but can be convinced to vote for Sanders. I'm just put off by the "dudebro" vibes of the Sanders supporters.
posted by ramix at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


An anchorman on a Des Moines station just said "Ted Cruz was so hammered in those ads...uh...ha ha...I mean, for those ads."
posted by Beardman at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.

Did you start reading this thread at the comment you quoted?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016


There is for people outside of swing states. If you're in NYC, for example, you can vote for whoever the fuck you want and it's not going to tip NY to a red state.
posted by corb at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016


Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.

No.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


And by disunity, I do actually mean the kind of acrimonious disunity that would hurt a Dem candidate post election.
posted by sciatrix at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


'caucuses'.

*snicker*
posted by mazola at 8:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think that people are just vastly overestimating The Narrative™ with this. There is nothing that is going to prevent the Democratic Caucus from ending at this point with Clinton and Sanders both walking away with 15 delegates.

I agree with Maddow that this is a victory for Sanders, but it's a victory in the sense that his campaign didn't literally end tonight with a 10-point loss.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


A huge female turnout and a lot of millennial activism would be a win for everyone who wants to keep the GOP out of office.

Problem is the age splits, Sanders won the youth voter overwhelmingly. Hilary is going to have an enthusiasm problem keeping those young voters engaged and fighting Republican suppression to vote for her.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Santorum won Iowa in 2012. He's currently last place.

You're saying Santorum ends up on bottom?
posted by peeedro at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.

No, polls have shown both Sanders and Clinton have extremely high favorability among Democrats (in Iowa it was like 87%/88% for Clinton/Sanders I think).

There are a few vocal people on Metafilter, but very few overall in the country.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Perhaps if I lived in a reliably blue state I would feel differently, but living in Ohio where we are always so, so close to having any sort of civil rights or social progress taken away from us has guaranteed that I'm 99.9% of the time going to pull that level for a Dem.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


(and now i'm imagining o'malley singing "i'm removing myself from the narrative...")
posted by nadawi at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is for people outside of swing states. If you're in NYC, for example, you can vote for whoever the fuck you want and it's not going to tip NY to a red state.

Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.
I'm not seeing it. I have definitely run into a few "I would never vote for Clinton" Sanders supporters, but I suspect that they'd never vote for any mainstream Democrat. So it's more that they're third-party voters who are temporary Dems because of Sanders than that there's any unusual disunity among Democrats. I think there's pretty overwhelming opposition to everyone in the Republican field, for one thing.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Anyone have a conservative dogwhistle bingo card?
posted by asockpuppet at 8:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"

That's a perfectly good outcome.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


And by disunity, I do actually mean the kind of acrimonious disunity that would hurt a Dem candidate post election.

No, people who support Bernie are the left wing of the party. They are among the most reliable Democratic voters because they are the most fearful of the country shifting right. Disengaged people in the center are the wishy washy types.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


My concern is that with HIllary younger people will stay home, and with Bernie African American voters will stay home. I still think it will be Hillary though.
posted by sweetkid at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Are god, glory, and creator all different bingo squares?
posted by Beardman at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I predict that Hillary will not start running a better campaign, nor be a better president, for all of this.
posted by uosuaq at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Joy cometh in the morning." - Ted Cruz.

Listen, Cruz, what the hell did you do to the groundhog.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


That's a perfectly good outcome.

Wow. Wooooow.
posted by sciatrix at 8:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Watching Rubio and now Cruz speak, I seriously feel like Republican voters and Democratic voters are actually living in culturally distinct nations. This will not indicate civil war, since no money is involved, but it will mean a dysfunctional federal government, probably for decades to come.

Globe: are you ready for the United States of America to become Belgium?
posted by Automocar at 8:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


but it will mean a dysfunctional federal government, probably for decades to come.

We've already been there for a while now.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?

Or you could not be rude and consider that other messages are sent. I vote for leftists, so if the Dems ever get their shit together, they know how many leftists votes there are. ALSO if you live in New York, voting for other parties (or for Dems on the other parties' lines, like Clinton on Working Family) gets those parties state money, so actually, yes it does more than let people vote their conscience. But also also, there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience and being snotty sure isn't going to get me to side with you. Actually addressing your candidate's flaws, like rolling around in Goldman Sachs money, might.
posted by dame at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Wow. Wooooow.

I am truly sorry if you are offended by everyone's right to vote.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.

"The lesser of two evils is still evil" is only insightful when there's a third, non-evil possibility. In anything resembling the forseeable future, there isn't.


The point is that the Clintons are in deep with the evil. I don't even really care that they are corrupt, but that their political career is based on selling out the country to Sauron Wall Street. If you think things in the US are the way they are because a plutocratic elite is systematically looting the country, then the Clintons are dedicated to making that worse.

I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you click on the counties in the idpcaucuses.com map, it shows you which precincts have not yet reported. Those familiar with Iowa political trends might be able to glean information from that.
posted by booksherpa at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016


Looks like it will end up being Clinton by about .7-1% and the delegate count about 30-22 in her favor.
posted by Justinian at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016


I seriously feel like Republican voters and Democratic voters are actually living in culturally distinct nations. This will not indicate civil war, since no money is involved, but it will mean a dysfunctional federal government, probably for decades to come.

Not just culturally, but also as it regards simple facts about the world. We inhabit different realities. It's a very difficult situation and I don't know how to solve it.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I seriously feel like Republican voters and Democratic voters are actually living in culturally distinct nation

Parallel universes, actually.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


We've already been there for a while now.

Well yeah, obvs. But it's not getting any better.
posted by Automocar at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016


Clinton speaking now, declaring her own victory.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016




I'm watching "Tailgunner" Ted Cruz on my TV right now and I have to say that he honestly frightens me more than Trump.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The true winner tonight on the Democratic side is Ann Selzer.
posted by bgal81 at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016


I really don't see how any Dem stays home when you are looking at a possible Pres. Cruz or Pres. Trump. People are working to become US citizens just so they can vote against Trump. And surely the chance to have the first woman president (or even a historic first Jewish president) would stir up some fervor.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Jay Smooth, don't know where you've been, but I'm going to need you back making videos.
posted by cashman at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm actually offended by your casual dismissal of the prospect of achieving anything with your right to vote, but whatever.
posted by sciatrix at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hate to say it but Metafilter is not even remotely representative of the Democratic tent as a whole. Not that I would change it at all because I like having an oasis of liberal and progressive thought that isn't incredibly shouty but the truth is Metafilter is considerably left of democratic center in aggregate.

Which is good because honestly we need activists that are willing to challenge the political classes to move that ole overton window back to the left.

Which is also why I really like that Sanders has been running even though his path the nomination seems quixotic at best. I like that there is a sizable plurality of liberals that is saying "I'm not ashamed to be called liberal and neither should our candidate" because that makes for a stronger candidate come November.

The reality is that our military industrial complex will probably continue to be the tail that wags the dog and that the vested interests of finance, technology companies, etc will continue to exert undue influence over public policy but I do think that the messaging of Sanders campaign and the relative success of it shows that no we don't have to surrender our democracy to Super PACs and billionaire donors.

For better or worse that even seems to be happening on the Republican side as electable candidates supported by big donors seem to be falling flat.
posted by vuron at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


That's because Trump is a blatant opportunist while Cruz is a True Believer. Fanatics are scary motherfuckers.
posted by Justinian at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


dame for President.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?

Huh? I live in Chicago which is a one-party Democratic city and lots of those Democrats are corrupt and racist as fuck. In other parts of the country, you can pretty much figure that voting for the Democrat is going to be the best viable option. Here, they're GOING to win and it's just a matter of casting a protest vote against the more egregious ones and turning out to support the actual progressives.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah, I am super excited to see Cruz's policies get actual sustained attention. He is a serious wackjob, and would be worse for this country than Trump.
posted by skewed at 8:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm a Bernie supporter, but this is a good speech by Hillary.
posted by skewed at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


is there anything more boring than a "you're using your individual vote wrong" argument? it just makes everything super personal and raises the heat in the room and isn't all that instructive.
posted by nadawi at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'm watching "Tailgunner" Ted Cruz on my TV right now and I have to say that he honestly frightens me more than Trump.

Trump is a big city Republican. I've worked for people like him before. They are (to me) pretty awful politically, but I understand them. At the end of the day, it's all about selfishness, getting a good deal, paying low taxes, and enforcing the existing power structure.

Cruz is a radical who has a vision. Infinitely more scary to me, I don't understand people like that at all, or even know any personally other than the parents of a friend of mine who were extreme bible thumpers.
posted by cell divide at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I really don't see how any Dem stays home when you are looking at a possible Pres. Cruz or Pres. Trump.

We have really low voter turnout. It's scary but completely possible that people will stay home. They stay home for midterms all the time and that's how we get this horrific Congress.
posted by sweetkid at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


dame for President.

Fuckin A.
posted by Trochanter at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016


I just truly don't understand how any self-proclaimed Democrat, regardless of whatever level of upset at tonight (if any), can watch Rubio and Cruz's speeches, and then be watching Clinton's now and not be, at the very least, thinking "okay, yeah, she'd be better than either of those two."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


I'm inclined to agree Cruz would be worse. Trump is horrible, but he's mainly a narcissist. Cruz is a true believer, and remarkably stubborn. I don't know exactly what Trump would do; but I do know what Cruz would do, and it isn't pretty.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I wonder what it's like to be so secure in your own privilege that you don't care if a Republican gets the WH and to name the next Supreme Court Justice.

I believe most of us have already told you we live in New York.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am truly sorry if you are offended by everyone's right to vote.

Tell us more about your free speech.
No but seriously, *come on*. That's just nonsense right there, and I'm sure it was a kneejerk reaction, but let's all try to avoid that in future.
posted by uosuaq at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gross. Cruz oozes...
It's like he was taken over by a parasitic wasp and is trying so hard to act human.
He just makes my skin crawl.
posted by futz at 8:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'm actually offended by your casual dismissal of the prospect of achieving anything with your right to vote, but whatever.

I am not sure who you are talking to here, but I am not casually dismissing it. It pisses me off to no end that I have never — and likely will never — have an actual say in who governs me. Between the electoral college, bullshit gerrymandering, these primaries shenanigans focusing on nonrepresentive states, the lock the Democratic party has on my city and state, and the frankly preposterous campaign finance laws, I have no fucking hope at all at seeing anything like my values represented. I am incandescent over it. But I also know it to be true, so, you know, at least my conscience is squeaky and I am not shilling for the candidate funded by banks, weapons manufacturers, and the insurance companies that steal all our money.
posted by dame at 8:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


You know, roomthreeseventeen, as one Sanders fan to another, it's that air of condescension that is really hurting the campaign. Could you maybe pull your nose out of the air and talk to those of us mere mortals not lucky enough to live in NYC?
posted by sciatrix at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


I vote for leftists, so if the Dems ever get their shit together, they know how many leftists votes there are.

The Dems don't give a fuck about us beyond yelling at us at the merest suggestion that they aren't entitled to our votes. The only thing the Democrats see when they see votes for leftists is traitors who need to shape up. The idea that they need to give us anything in exchange for our votes wouldn't occur to them.

Actually addressing your candidate's flaws, like rolling around in Goldman Sachs money, might.

She's not "my candidate", she's just the one I think is more likely to result in positive outcomes. The instant you buy into the idea that the person you vote for should be the one you agree most with, you're already buying into the system.


The point is that the Clintons are in deep with the evil. I don't even really care that they are corrupt, but that their political career is based on selling out the country to Sauron Wall Street. If you think things in the US are the way they are because a plutocratic elite is systematically looting the country, then the Clintons are dedicated to making that worse.

I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.


Voting isn't a fucking religion. It's about who wins and who loses. There is no non-evil candidate with a chance to win the Presidency. Any comment, idea, suggestion, or action which does not acknowledge that fact is rooted in fantasy and not in reality.


dame for President.

That would be a better world.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm a Bernie supporter, but this is a good speech by Hillary

Because she expressed the exact same positions as Bernie?
posted by ymgve at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do federal laws not apply to NY?

Let's not be obtuse. NY is solid Dem; roomthreeseventeen staying home won't hurt Clinton in the least because electoral college.
posted by Jpfed at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.

Wow. It's starting to smell a lot like 2000 in here.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


clarity for dame: I am exclusively talking to roomthreeseventeen with my response. I actually don't have a problem with your comment.
posted by sciatrix at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


“The next president of the United States will not be chosen by the media, will not be chosen by the Washington establishment, will not be chosen by the lobbyists but will be chosen by the most incredibly powerful force where all of our sovereign power resides … the people.”

Cruz with a subtle sovereign shout-out?
posted by saul wright at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


bgal81: "Do federal laws not apply to NY? Man, that must be cool. No wonder New Yorkers are so proud of their hometown."

I think they mean not voting for Clinton in New York won't have any effect on the presidential contest. She ain't losing the state.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Johnson County Iowa democratic caucus: our precinct was held in a University Art building. Clinton supporters took the auditorium seating, Bernie supporters told to go downstairs and stand in the lobby. O'Malley people were off to the side in a little room. Bernie won.
posted by fraxil at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


sciatrix, yes, okay, I apologize. I do not appreciate being policed about how to vote. But I am sorry.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2016


I think Cruz would probably be worse than Trump; but Trump has the chance of being either somewhat better or much, MUCH worse. Not sure whom I'd choose if there were a gun to my head. Probably Cruz if only because he's a huge asshole who would alienate his own party leaders in Congress?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2016


Maybe we need to get some kind of protest vote cap and trade market going where people in New York and other stone-cold lock Democratic states agree to cast protest votes for the people in purple states who can't stomach the thought of casting a lesser-evil vote.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe we need to get some kind of protest vote cap and trade market going where people in New York and other stone-cold lock Democratic states agree to cast protest votes for the people in purple states who can't stomach the thought of casting a lesser-evil vote.

I think the last time I heard someone talk about that it turned out it would be illegal. Dumb though, straight up selling votes should be legal. Money is just speech after all, paying for votes is just being very persuasive.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie within 0.2% again.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


>> That's a perfectly good outcome.
> Wow. Wooooow.


This must be your first election on MetaFilter. They get pissy and unpleasant.

My advice is that before you start arguing with someone find out if their individual vote will make any difference or not, based on the state they vote in. (I live in Massachusetts, so mine doesn't.) If not, then ask yourself what concrete result would be achieved by changing their mind and whether it's worth your effort to try to.

If I ran this place people who participate in political threads would have to have a little badge next to their name, like the 'moderator' badge, that says whether or not their state's electoral votes are actual up for grabs.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Hey, the bombs won't be dropping on you, right?

Ted Cruz quipped his solution to the Middle East would be to carpet bomb everyone. It didn't seem like was joking all that much. If you are a committed pacifist voter, FEWER dropped bombs is the goal, not MORE.

I mean, sure, staying home in November will send a message - That it's OK for the Republicans to trump up a war against Iran. Or worse.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you live in a reliably Red state (Oklahoma I'm looking at you) or a reliably blue state (New York come on down) then yeah I can totally understand tossing in a third party vote and I would even suggest that this might be a good year for "unofficial" vote trading with people who live in actual battleground states.

That way you can vote your conscience and you can still be relatively certain that Armageddon won't be coming in the next 4 years.

Yeah I think it's kinda hinky and wouldn't participate in it but if you absolutely want to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote if Sanders fails to get the nomination I'll understand but please please please if you live in a place where your vote actually matter think twice before casting a protest vote.
posted by vuron at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


It must be like still living and paying taxes in a country that perpetrated those crimes so you can still reap the privileges of said country.

What, you going to Canada if Cruz wins?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wait, is Cruz campaigning for Cruz or Reagan?
posted by telepanda at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


whoa, the vote just jumped DOWN on NBC back to 655-652 from 671-661!

WTF??
posted by flex at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016


Not sure whom I'd choose if there were a gun to my head.

"I vote pull the trigger."
posted by emjaybee at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I just remembered that upthread I agreed to sell my vote to JEB for $1000, so you'll see me at the smallest party in town when the Texas primary happens.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because she expressed the exact same positions as Bernie?

Actually, umm... yes. It's a very effective speech, not just in the rhetoric, but in cutting off Bernie's pitch to non-fanatic voters.

Clinton's biggest and dumbest mistake this whole previous year has been appearing condescending to Sanders. It perpetuated the "coronation" argument, and it furthered Sanders' image as the outsider trying to fight the giant establishment monolith. The moment Clinton started actually debating Sanders, she looked better. By approaching Sanders as an equal and expressing more willingness to continue a competitive campaign against him, she looks better. Sanders, like many other outsider candidates, runs heavily on a "let's tallk about the issues" campaign. Clinton saying "okay, cool, I look forward to talking about the issues" sort of removes a huge cudgel for Sanders.

Clinton is a very, very good politician.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


> What, you going to Canada if Cruz wins?

I thought that meant Canada was coming to us.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton "won" by a half a percentage point. Sanders has rising momentum. If he places in South Carolina it'll start to really shake things up!

I'm predicting that this it the high point for Cruze.
posted by sammyo at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh yeah that is an option as well I guess.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016


If I ran this place people who participate in political threads would have to have a little badge next to their name, like the 'moderator' badge, that says whether or not their state's electoral votes are actual up for grabs.

A groundswell of interest in Nader in places where the vote wasn't up for grabs, especially large urban centers with money and manpower to put behind the effort, enhanced the Green's reputation nationwide and swung voters his way, not just in "safe" states. We saw what that lead to in FL.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


It pisses me off to no end that I have never — and likely will never — have an actual say in who governs me.

I've always subscribed to the view that a good compromise leaves EVERYONE ANGRY. So, someone must be doing a good job.
posted by FJT at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Jesus fucking Christ, I'm having 2000 flashbacks. Can people stop acting like Sanders voters are going to personally usher in the apocalypse, especially when most people here aren't in swing states?
posted by corb at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


You're not exactly a political prisoner suffering in jail for your beliefs.

You do know a lot of us went out and protested right? And risked jail? And some people wound up there? You know all about the Republican convention? You know about those of us who were on the streets mere days after Sept. 11 calling for peace? Sure, people draw their lines different places and sure I pretend all my tax money goes to the things I believe in, but not being perfect doesn't make it wrong to dislike Clinton for being a warmonger.
posted by dame at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


Clinton will probably win, but it's still too early for a victory speech if the numbers I am looking at are accurate.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'd totally support Justin Trudeau for President but somehow I think Trump might object to that.
posted by vuron at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, I've just returned from the caucus (and some beers and burgers after), in Johnson county.

I get that a lot of the country is sick of the Iowa caucus stuff, and much has been made recently about how the caucus doesn't matter and that Iowa doesn't represent the country.

And I get that, I do. But the thing is that, whatever the media makes of it, the Iowa caucus is about us, about the parties in Iowa, about our neighbors and friends, and not about some great prediction of the race. Tonight I spent a few hours with nearly 800 folks from my neighborhood, folks I don't see that much. I got to reconnect with people, talk about the race, talk about the snow that doesn't get cleared from the alley. We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song. And we debated and cheered and were counted by our friends and neighbors.

I was there to support Bernie, but we all sat next to one another, laughed and cheered together, an old stalwart of the neighborhood sang a few songs upon request. We had a great time. We had beers and now we're getting ready for the storm. This is what the caucus is for us. We aren't trying to decide the election; we're just doing what we've always done in Iowa.
posted by Lutoslawski at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [58 favorites]


(Full disclosure: I voted for Nader in NY and regret NOTHING, because Florida wasn't our fault.)
posted by corb at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I thought that meant Canada was coming to us.

Woo! Bring smoked meat!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


All this "throw away my vote" talk makes me wish we either had a single-transferable vote/insta-runoff system, or even just a runoff for the president.
posted by dw at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I still think Trump isn't seriously running for president and this is some bucket list thing of his. He's a secret dem op that will drop out at the last minute, endorse the democratic candidate and leave splintered repub party that will nominate the least smelly of their candidates and most of their voters will stay home out of pure spite.
posted by asockpuppet at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I loved seeing a woman shouting about running the country.
posted by sweetkid at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Tonight I spent a few hours with nearly 800 folks from my neighborhood, folks I don't see that much. I got to reconnect with people, talk about the race, talk about the snow that doesn't get cleared from the alley. We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song. And we debated and cheered and were counted by our friends and neighbors.

I mean, it's great that you enjoyed that, but it sounds like hell to me. I'm glad I don't have to go through that to vote in the primary here in California (assuming the Democratic primary still has any meaning by then).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song.

You guys got songs? We didn't get songs. I feel cheated.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm not caucusing this year. My experience in 2008 was loud, messy, and generally left me feeling disheartened by how Seattleites treat each other when their candidate isn't winning.

I don't want to deal with that in 2016 when a bunch of Bernie and Hillary people go at each others' throats next month.

And I say that as someone who'll support either of them over that shitshow on the Republican side.
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016


singing This Land is Our Land

I want to go to there.
posted by uosuaq at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


[ bgal81, you're responsible for an unreasonable percentage of the snide remarks in this thread. Knock it off. Thanks.]
posted by restless_nomad at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


*kicks rock*
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016


Maybe we need to get some kind of protest vote cap and trade market going where people in New York and other stone-cold lock Democratic states agree to cast protest votes for the people in purple states who can't stomach the thought of casting a lesser-evil vote.

Some Nader supporters tried to do this in 2000 (the "Nader Traders") but it's possibly illegal at least in CA?
posted by en forme de poire at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


or even just a runoff for the president.


SANTORUM
posted by Artw at 8:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Caucus is definitely a super strange experience. I had to vote that way during my stint living in Maine. It was fun in a circuslike way, but it is a big time commitment. Ours was also very chaotic - not at all well organized. It seems like a very old-timey thing appropriate for small communities and for people who have all day to pontificate 18th or 19th century style but that scales extremely poorly.
posted by Miko at 8:49 PM on February 1, 2016




Some Nader supporters tried to do this in 2000 (the "Nader Traders") but it's possibly illegal at least in CA?

Oh, it definitely is very illegal, and impossible to enforce because we don't get a receipt showing who we voted for (precisely to avoid this kind of transferring / selling of votes) but if it keeps 2000 from happening again, I'm all for it.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 PM on February 1, 2016


This is just low level fighty.

I can totally understand though it's like having a football game where you really want your team to win but secretly you think the other team is pretty good and as long as there isn't a ton of fouls and everyone competes to the best of their abilities you are going to let the decision be settled on the field.

When it gets to the general that's grudge match time where you actually wouldn't mind your team's ultras showing up and scaring off the opposition fanbase. Even then at this point in time I think I'd tend to feel sorry for some percentage of the opposition fanbase because yeah I completely disagree with them on virtually every issue but I also feel kinda sorry that their party has been hijacked by extremists even if they've been courting those selfsame extremists as a way to GotV for the last 5-6 elections and schadenfreude is also kicking in.
posted by vuron at 8:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hey, there's a question. Is there any point in going to caucuses when delegates are being chosen by primary vote? I'm thinking of heading to a Republican caucus to stand off the Trumpocalypse.
posted by corb at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why is it that Bernie's going last, don't the winners usually wait until the losers have given concession speeches?
posted by skewed at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016


Everyone was perfectly well-behaved at our caucus. I totally hate the process and feel that it was designed specifically to torment me, personally, but nobody that I observed was rude to the opposing side, and the Bernie people definitely could have been very gloat-y if they had wanted to be.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


This is just low level fighty.

Yeah, I suspect most of us on the blue team are saving our ire for any sort of PUMA / (whatever the equivalent of PUMA for Bernie is) movement that may develop after the nomination.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016


One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry. It's a feeling I get myself at times. But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?
posted by great_radio at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


I assume Hillary's campaign wanted to try and catch more people awake and agreed to go first.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016


Oh, it definitely is very illegal

At the federal or at the state level though? I think it might be state by state, but that article is super old so idk what might have changed in the last 16 years.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016


AHHHH so that numbers-drop explained! Check it on 538
Michael McDonald @ElectProject
Clinton's lead now again down to +0.2 points, so there you go. Change happened with no Polk precs reporting

Joseph Lenski @JoeLenski
.@ElectProject there was a reporting error in Dallas County - too many state delegates were being reported and that has now been corrected.

Chuck Todd @chucktodd
@JoeLenski @ElectProject an error in Sanders favor?

Joseph Lenski @JoeLenski
.@chucktodd @ElectProject correcting the error in Dallas County narrowed Clinton's lead by 6.76 state delegate equivalents
posted by flex at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh, it definitely is very illegal, and impossible to enforce because we don't get a receipt showing who we voted for (precisely to avoid this kind of transferring / selling of votes) but if it keeps 2000 from happening again, I'm all for it.

Require a cell phone video of the voting process before payment is released. We'll use the Uber model regarding the illegality. Just ignore it and say the word "Disrupt" a lot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I voted for Nader in NY and regret NOTHING, because Florida wasn't our fault.

Precisely. NH, and FL however . . .

Elections are not personal purity tests, they are machines that select the next politician to serve in that office.

1934 election:

"When the votes were counted, Upton Sinclair got 37% of the vote, the Republican candidate got 48% and a third-party progressive candidate took another 13%."

German 1925 election:

Paul von Hindenburg 48.3%
Wilhelm Marx Centre Party 45.3%
Ernst Thälman Communist Party 6.4%
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?

Yeah, I think I can, actually. I think about it a lot because I know how bad the media has been to her, but I also recognize she's very flawed, and flawed specifically in ways Sanders isn't flawed.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry.

Well, she did just make a clarion call for universal health care when she spent about 15 minutes in the last Democratic debate calling it unrealistic.
posted by Automocar at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Can anyone at this point?

I can. Every time she talks about "working with Silicon Valley" to "fix" encryption.
posted by fifthrider at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Dashy: "You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?"

I meant to add it to my comment, but I would agree with that assessment. She was the best Secretary of State in recent memory.

I abide by my stance that her support for the Iraq war would be problematic for our foreign relations (as head of state).
posted by schmod at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016


Hilary was just trying to be sympathetic to her aging voter base ;)

I kid because it's true!
posted by vuron at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016


'Iower'. I loled.
posted by asockpuppet at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]



One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry. It's a feeling I get myself at times. But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?


I don't think we can. I thought Obama was the better candidate in 08 but it took me a while to decide. I was mad at Hillary about the Iraq vote but, we're continuing to wage war there. Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.
posted by sweetkid at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


So here's what I wanna know -- what's up with the 7 delegates who went to O'Malley? Did they like owe him a favor or something? Or are they just diehard contrarians?
posted by panama joe at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016


Yes, my dislike of Clinton has everything to do with her policies not with her personality. I don't think any politicians are particularly likable, though she kinda reminds me of my mom, who is a badass. I just wish she turned her badassery on policies I support.
posted by dame at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry. It's a feeling I get myself at times. But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?

I have to check myself on this too, then I remember that she really doesn't have a record of accomplishment aside from surviving scandals. Everything else is generally notable for being done "while a woman".
posted by fraxil at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016


have given concession speeches

proportional allocation states, this shouldn't apply

everybody take their delegates and go to the next pony show
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


No one's hands are clean.

No one? ;)
posted by cell divide at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016


but I also recognize she's very flawed, and flawed specifically in ways Sanders isn't flawed.

I have a feeling that's going to change if he becomes the frontrunner. Someone, somewhere will dig something up or make it up. And after 8 years of Obama, he's looking a little "seasoned" too, y'know what I mean?
posted by FJT at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.

Obama has faults, but I can't blame him for failing to close Gitmo when it was Congress who prevented him from doing that. US Presidents can only do so much alone, as the Republicans have proven over the last five years.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


when she spent about 15 minutes in the last Democratic debate calling it unrealistic.

Wasn't she talking about single payer then? Did she say single payer or universal this time, I missed the speech. The two ARE NOT the same thing at all.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.

He really tried though. This one isn't his fault.
posted by futz at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Everything else is generally notable for perhaps being the only option stopping a GOP candidate taking White House for the remainder of this decade.

If this isn't important for you, well, let's say we just have our differences about that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


538 reports that all of these results are "preliminary", because they're being reported via the Microsoft app, but will have to be counted for real on paper. Which matters when you're talking .2 percent.
posted by corb at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I know she said 'universal'. I'm not sure how you get there in a meaningful sense without single-payer though.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton 49.8; Sander 49.6 with 94% of precincts in.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Germany and Japan and other countries have universal coverage without single payer. The answer is government regulation.
posted by thefoxgod at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Silly Bernie. Evangelicals don't care about the earth they leave their kids because they think climate change is the fasttrack to being raptured.
posted by asockpuppet at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Uh, hey, guys?

The fact it's Cruz/Trump/Rubio as the OTHER option means that, uh, I'd be more comfortable that my like-minded neighbours don't break out the circular firing squad quite yet.

November's a ways away.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Bernie is killing it in this speech.
posted by futz at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


538 reports that all of these results are "preliminary", because they're being reported via the Microsoft app

I've read a lot of awful things in this thread, but that's about the worst.

It's been nice knowing you all.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.

He really tried though. They one isn't his fault.


Right, so it's important to remember midterm elections, especially when Presidential candidates are promising great things.
posted by sweetkid at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's theoretically possible for everyone to afford coverage, especially with publicly-mandated plans with subsidies for the most in need, which would get you universal without single payer.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, that's basically what other countries do. Heavy regualtion on plans and pricing, wiht subsidies and a mandate. It works, but Obamacare didn't do much of that. It was a start but we need more. Not single payer, though.
posted by thefoxgod at 9:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




If I could get one political wish granted America would ditch this crazy self-defeating political system and move to a unicameral parliamentary structure. It'll never happen, but it would be loads better than perpetual gridlock and an 18 month long presidential election campaign.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can totally understand why people think Hilary is insincere and power-hungry and while alot of that narrative has been shaped by the overall narrative directed at her and her husband I don't think it's entitely fictional.

However I also feel like Clinton has been the target of an insane amount of misogyny and borderline slanderous charges over the years and ultimately I think that any female politician is pretty much held up to a ridiculous standard and in this regards I think that Clinton while flawed has done exceptionally well.

Overall I have sympathy for both the legitimate concerns about her and the very legitimate concerns that she's being held to an impossible standard based largely on her gender. I think it's possible to hold both narratives up simultaneously and while there is inevitable leakage between the two narratives I hope that it is possible to be fair to both narratives.

Personally I'd like for the next president to be something other than another white guy (yes Bernie is very much an outsider based upon his religious and ethnic background) but my desire for that is tempered by the desire for the next president to also be the most electable individual possible and if Bernie can prove through the nomination process that he's the most electable democrat I'll gladly support him because while First Jewish President is probably less ground breaking than first female President it's still a pretty decent accomplishment.
posted by vuron at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


It's true that you can get to universal without single-payer, but as long as you're funneling the money through for-profit entities, you're not going to do better at controlling cost.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


I remember that she really doesn't have a record of accomplishment aside from surviving scandals. Everything else is generally notable for being done "while a woman".

You may disagree with her politics and the outcomes of her actions but she is an incredibly accomplished person by any measure, regardless of her gender.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


For the past three years I've worked at the same company, and in that time we've had three totally different insurance plans, and so I have had to change doctors three times. This is... not ideal.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Anything I ever saw about Obama wanting to close Guantanamo involved merely relocating the vile unaccountable torture den away from Guantanamo and continuing the vile unaccountable tortures.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016


That's not really true tonycpsu, the government can definitely limit pricing on both plans and procedures, which is how they do it elsewhere.
posted by thefoxgod at 9:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie: "Beginning a political revolution"

I admit that my jaw always clenches a bit when politicians say "revolution". It just kind of makes me think of disorder and chaos. I thought the same thing with the "Ron Paul: REVOLUTION" stuff and I still get the same feeling. I'm aware Americans have a positive connotation of the word (e.g., "American Revolution") but it reminds me more of stuff my grandparents fled from.
posted by FJT at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


For what it's worth, and I say this as a Sanders leaner, his legislative record isn't exactly filled with giant trophies to put on his wall. He's been a reliable lefty vote, a good floor debater, and has championed a couple of causes, but Hillary's brief legislative career and cabinet experience put her at least on equal footing with him.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


If I could get one political wish granted America would ditch this crazy self-defeating political system and move to a unicameral parliamentary structure.

As I've gotten older I've become more skeptical about the idea that "the system" is the problem and if we just change that we could get more sensible results.

Most embarrassingly, I certainly used to think more clearly ideological parties with stronger discipline and fewer people breaking ranks would help things and I am so not enjoying it now that it's here.
posted by mark k at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Single payer would also best address medical debt and bankruptcy, which are still huge problems.
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


However I also feel like Clinton has been the target of an insane amount of misogyny and borderline slanderous charges over the years

She has; but then again, her husband was subjected to numerous slanders and investigations before being impeached. Obama is said to be a Kenyan socialist Muslim who hates America. I'm not sure that what H. Clinton has been subjected to is noticeably worse than what the GOP has flung at the recent Democratic presidents. It's just what they do.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jim Gilmore got 12 votes. 12 votes! I wonder if he had campaign volunteers and now knows they didn't vote for him.
posted by skewed at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Right, so it's important to remember midterm elections, especially when Presidential candidates are promising great things.

Of course. But that has nothing to do with what you originally said. But yes, everyone should vote at their local level. Democrats suck at this.
posted by futz at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016


Palin is a real asset, isn't she?
posted by Artw at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016


Just to remind you.

In 2008, Barak Obama won 37.6%, John Edwards 29.7%, and Hilary Clinton 29.4%, the rest o other candidates and "uncommitted" This resulted in delegate split of:

Obama: 16
Edwards: 14
Clinton: 15

(Hilary won the 5th district, which had 4 delegates, which is why she had one more than Edwards.)

Yep. After all was said and done, Obama beat Clinton by 8% and got *one* net delegate for that.

That's what will happen here. One of them will get 23, one will get 22, and all this sound and fury will result in somebody being up one delegate.

I told you Iowa doesn't matter. Whichever one of them walks away with 22 will say "It's still early yet, blah blah blah," heck they'll probably claim they actually one because of X. The winner will assert it was a mandate.
posted by eriko at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


That's not really true tonycpsu, the government can definitely limit pricing on both plans and procedures, which is how they do it elsewhere.

Yeah, at some point that approaches a publicly-regulated utility model, which can work, but I still don't see the point of for-profit entities in the middle.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


it's important to remember midterm elections

Esp 2020 because there will be another round of redistricting.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just my experience, but I don't know any Dems, or liberals, or Sanders supporters whose opposition to Hillary has anything to do with her personality, real or perceived.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


tonycpsu: "It's true that you can get to universal without single-payer, but as long as you're funneling the money through for-profit entities, you're not going to do better at controlling cost."

Not to totally derail, but organizations like Kaiser Permanente are fairly concrete examples of the best parts of single-payer and private healthcare working well together (even in the US).

If we're not going to get single payer, we could at the very least encourage incremental improvements to the system, focusing on some of the small successes that we have. The current model of small medical practices made sense if you were living on the prairie in the 1800s – but we should really know better by now.
posted by schmod at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The biggest hurdles for me to warm to Hillary are her repeated votes for the Patriot Act and the aforementioned call to 'fix' encryption with a "Manhattan-Project"-style endeavor. One tier down are her allegiances to the parasitic portions of the corporate world and her tenure as a board member of Wal*Mart. While she did work toward gender equity as a board member, I can't find anything she did that redressed inequity between labor and management. I trust generally that she'll work to redress gender inequity, but I don't think that she'll work the end the drug war or the mass imprisonment of young black men, which are among the larger issues of racial inequity.

If it looks close in my state, I'll vote Clinton, just like I did with John Kerry in 2004. But she has never proposed anything that spoke to my heart or my interests, so I see her as my firewall against worse things.

Sanders has been speaking to me like no other politician since I was stoned and watching C-Span in the 90s. Now that I have to keep disabled relatives afloat financially to stave off homelessness and defaulting on student debt, this health care and college shit is getting really personal.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


I pay so much money for a plan with an impossible to meet deductible that I would be better off with an old-school catastrophic plan at old-school rates and socking the difference into a private account. I have friends rushing off to surgery on Dec 30 so they can make it before the deductible resets. Sure making it so that plans have to accept everyone is not nothing but the subsidies are so low that plenty of people in high COL areas bear the full burden when they can't really and just oh the ACA is a flaming pile of poop where I am compelled to give my money to for-profit entities with pretty much no protection. Sob.
posted by dame at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, my understanding is that in the German model, plans are so tightly regulated by the government as to approximate single-payer in terms of general costs and benefits. In which case I don't really see why they don't merge them together to cut admin costs. I suppose that the ACA framework could be regulatorily tightened to approximate that model, but I continue to think that the better path forward is to have demonstration / pilot single payer projects at the state level, like Vermont tried to do and like Colorado will be considering in a referendum this fall. Not to mention the continuing experiments with reform to existing public payers like Medicaid.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Of course. But that has nothing to do with what you originally said.

That's not true. I voted for Obama based on promises of things like closing Guantanamo. That didn't happen because Congress. When people actually get in office lots of things happen. I don't think anyone at the national level can walk away clean.

A bunch of people copy pasted just the Guantanamo part of my comment and some winky stuff about Bernie.

So I added more to my point. So not "nothing to do with" - Can we stop with this stuff?
posted by sweetkid at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can totally understand why people think Hilary is insincere and power-hungry

But it's not that. I have no idea whether she is a bad person. It's that she works for Wall Street.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Last comment on the universal coverage: universal without single payer is not some theoretical thing. It's being done all over the world. The point is you get a better mix of choice and cost.

It is also slightly more politically feasible than single payer in the US, although nothing will happen on either front without a Democratic Congress.

Universal coverage is a shared goal amongst most Democrats, including Clinton. Single-payer is one way, but one that many don't think is the best (obviously including me).
posted by thefoxgod at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016


The French Health care system IIRC manages to achieve universal coverage without single-payer and does a pretty decent job of constraining costs. I know that trying to get anything based upon a French anything in the current political climate is probably even more unpossible than single-payer but it's obviously another model.

I do tend to agree with the assessment that there is no political capital to do much with ACA other than tinker around the edges though. I'm not saying that we should quit working towards a better solution than ACA but if we have a Democratic president in 2016 I strongly suspect that healthcare reform will not be a major priority for congress regardless of whether it's Sanders or Clinton.

Instead I suspect we'll have the endless game of whack a mole where the house tries to repeal ACA and the president has to veto (or the Senate has to filibuster).

2016-2020 is going to suck for legislative progress but fortunately there is room for improvement in the judicial and administrative sphere. Hopefully in that period we can get enough business types to see the advantage in pursuing a cap and trade system but I kinda doubt it.
posted by vuron at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016


667-664 Clinton-Sanders with 1604 out of 1683 precincts reporting
posted by flex at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie did great, but he didn't win over the people of Iowa,

c'mon man, this dismissal of an avowed "socialist" getting 50% is pretty lame. Iowa isn't a single person to be "won over".

Just like the nation is split nearly 50-50 GOP vs. the not-insane, the not-insane vote is also split among people with different outlooks and preferences.

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

-- Upton Sinclair (and yes, I got two books on him from the library this weekend)
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


Another incremental path I've seen toward single-payer includes progressively lowering the Medicare age (currently 65) and/or allowing people to buy in to Medicare.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hilary isn't a bad person. She has good policies, a strong record (although with some very notable issues), and practically a lifetime of experience. The problem is that she keeps bowing to the same calls to lean rightward that have been the Democrats' biggest problem for ages now. I am sure that she believes, in her heart, in many of the same things that I do, but I also think she'll tack to the "pragmatic" angle and compromise certain values along the way.

There's an argument that you have to be pragmatic in politics, and I've heard that most often as the reason why we, as voters, should be pragmatic and vote for her. But if nothing else comes of this election season, I hope it's at least the lesson that some of what we think of as "pragmatic" is really just a way to weaken your own position and compromise your own values. If nothing else, I hope we're upending at least a part of the traditional narratives about how politics should be conducted, just from seeing so many surprises Left and Right.
posted by teponaztli at 9:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


Do we have an idea of how many people total voted in the Republican vs. Democratic caucuses? And how has that ratio shifted from '08 and '12?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2016


Hillary doesn't bow to calls to lean right, she leads them. She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.
posted by chaz at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


but Hillary's brief legislative career and cabinet experience put her at least on equal footing with him.

Equal? Maybe it's my big state bias talking, but Sanders has been a mayor of a town of less than 50k and the Rep and Senator of a state of about of 627k. He's never really been stress tested with a big organization/constituency or on the national stage (until now). And he's doing very well with his campaign now, but that's still an issue in my mind.
posted by FJT at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


As I've gotten older I've become more skeptical about the idea that "the system" is the problem and if we just change that we could get more sensible results.

Also from my Upton Sinclair reading:

"The longer I live, the more I am convinced that the common people are doomed to be diddled forever.” -- H. L. Mencken
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.

FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.
posted by dersins at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Considering that Hilary and Bernie have basically the same numbers...how can you say that with a straight face?
posted by futz at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016


" There is nothing that is going to prevent the Democratic Caucus from ending at this point with Clinton and Sanders both walking away with 15 delegates."

Except for Iowa's superdelegates, who will feel pretty comfortable after tonight supporting Clinton.

"Problem is the age splits, Sanders won the youth voter overwhelmingly."

Polls indicate that the split is a lot less severe outside of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where it still feels safe to support Clinton. He is definitely not going to rack up these kind of margins among young voters in Nevada and South Carolina.

Both Nevada and S.C. demographically "look" a lot more like America than either Iowa or New Hampshire, which Nate Silver & Co. showed as the 2nd and 3rd best states, demographically, for Sanders.
posted by markkraft at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016


Equal? Maybe it's my big state bias talking, but Sanders has been a mayor of a town of less than 50k and the Rep and Senator of a state of about of 627k. He's never really been stress tested with a big organization or on the national stage (until now). And he's doing very well now, but that's still an issue in my mind.

The size of his state and his mayoral career has fuck-all to do with his legislative record, which is the comparison I was making.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.

Well, it's getting there. Hope us, millennials!
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, THIS: If I could get one political wish granted America would ditch this crazy self-defeating political system and move to a unicameral parliamentary structure.

The USA was at the cutting edge of democratic experimentation 200 years ago. We were Modern Democracy 1.0. And now we're at version 1.5 or so while other countries have leapfrogged us. We just have too damn many veto points, too much diffusion of responsibility and too great a mismatch between perceived responsibility and actual effectiveness. (Example quoted above: closing Guantanamo.) We need to be able to elect a government that is clearly responsible for a program, has the power to carry it out within meta (constitutional) limits, and can be democratically judged by the electorate at the end of its term.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Do we have an idea of how many people total voted in the Republican vs. Democratic caucuses? And how has that ratio shifted from '08 and '12?
'12 isn't relevant on the Democratic side, because it was a foregone conclusion. I'm hearing that statewide, Democratic turnout was lower than '08 but higher than '04. Some precincts in Iowa City are reporting higher turnout than in '08, which has taken everyone by surprise.

The outstanding precincts seem to be some sort of problem with the app in Polk County.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2016


And he's doing very well with his campaign now, but that's still an issue in my mind.

I don't really give a crap about that. The office is much bigger than the man, er person.

Who they pick to run the administration is much more important, and even that is gated by the career service + the "Deep State" that runs autonomously.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




Oh, and there were supposedly three delegates assigned by coin toss, because of ties. Hillary won all of them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


The right wins if people don't care enough to vote. Bush won twice that way.

Obama won because he got people fired up to vote.

Clinton risks most by being boring and safe. Low turnout is the Repub strategy. It works well for them. They don't have to be better than her, just least worst. They know negative campaigns work.

Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls. If Clinton doesn't steal a good chunk of his strategy and put some policies out there that people can believe in she risks being buried by compromise and scandal. "Can't do better today " isn't a slogan to win with.
posted by bonehead at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Bernie Sanders has far more legislative experience and executive experience than Barack Obama did on January 20, 2009.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.

I think what a lot of republicans think is left wing is centrist Democrats.
posted by sweetkid at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hillary doesn't bow to calls to lean right, she leads them. She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.

That's really a myth, though - if you look at the policies that people actually support, the vast majority of the country supports things that we would consider left-wing. If anything, the country is becoming less conservative as demographics shift, at least on certain angles. And that's the thing - conservatism isn't a unified bloc. There's a huge variety of positions on social, economic, and other issues, and support for one doesn't guarantee support for another.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that by tacking to the right, Democrats create a self-fulfilling prophecy: they undermine their own policies and create something that's unappealing to the Left and the Right. When their numbers aren't strong, they assume it's because they need to tack more to the right to appeal to conservatives, who continue not supporting them.

The way people on the left talk about politics, you'd think they're an island of sanity surrounded by a seething mass of neo-Nazis. If anything, the Democrats have an inflated sense of how right-wing the country is.
posted by teponaztli at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


We need to be able to elect a government that is clearly responsible for a program

We also need ~half the country to turn their sign around and "Get a brain!"
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:31 PM on February 1, 2016


> Oh, and there were supposedly three delegates assigned by coin toss, because of ties. Hillary won all of them.

posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious


eponyblahblah
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


In 2008, people were big jerks to each other around here during the Democratic primaries. At least I felt that way. I felt unwelcome as a Clinton supporter

People are nicer to each other now and I think that's really wonderful. I appreciate the positive ways that the Metafilter culture has changed in those 8 years. A lot of hard discussions about privilege and tolerance and tighter moderation have really changed the culture, in my opinion. I'm not here as much as I used to be, but I feel better about it when I'm around.

Anyway. I've admired Hillary Clinton since I was in elementary school and she was First Lady. The vast majority of Americans agree with me; she's been the most admired woman in America for two decades. I think she's going to be an incredibly effective President and I can't wait to vote for her again.
posted by Kwine at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


I wonder how many GOP members will be out by New Hampshire. Fiorina. Santorum. Gilmore. I don't see much point in continuing on now.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls.

I know this is a typo, but now I have the image in my mind of Edina sloshing her drink out of her glass as she stands in front of a rally audience and slurs her way through a speech about Harrods.
posted by teponaztli at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]




Carly Fiorina no-showed her own Iowa party

Abort! Abort!
posted by Artw at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think ultimately Clinton adheres to the incrementalist view of public policy, i.e. that incremental changes around the periphery of established policies are less risky than going for broke and trying to achieve something big and revolutionary. Thinking back to her failed attempt to do health care reform under Bill Clinton was definitely instrumental in shaping her public policy strategies ever since. She tends actually be fairly successful because she goes with incremental approaches.

Unfortunately the polarization of the legislative branch combined with extreme gerrymandering has made the incremental approach less and less reliable because only a small percentage of congress critters live in competitive districts and most Republicans are more scared of a primary challenger from the right than a democratic challenger in the general election. This has led to an impressive level of ideological purity on the right and the changes to pork barrel appropriations have largely curtailed one of the more reliable ways of twisting the arms of legislators.

Ultimately I doubt either Clinton or Sanders would be particularly successful legislatively in the current climate with a revolutionary or incrementalist stance and personally I think the bully pulpit is dramatically overrated (witness Obama getting approximately nowhere on gun violence) so the majority of the power either would have is in the administrative power of the Presidency. That is actually fairly considerable but I really don't know how either one would really be in that regard as neither has a ton of executive leadership.
posted by vuron at 9:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.

triangulation is a bit more involved than that. Mainly, there are more voters to the right of Clinton than to the left, and the left have nowhere to go other than throwing the election to the GOP, which most sane voters consider a not-good outcome.

and triangulation pushes the GOP further from the center in their opposition, too.

Whether they're taking the electorate with them is the interesting question.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Carly was too busy repurposing text from old HP termination letters for her staffers.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I know this is a typo, but now I have the image in my mind of Edina sloshing her drink out of her glass as she stands in front of a rally audience and slurs her way through a speech about Harrods.

"Sweetie, sweetie darling, don't disappoint me."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


"The country" is not the same as voters. I should've said voters.
posted by chaz at 9:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure that what H. Clinton has been subjected to is noticeably worse than what the GOP has flung at the recent Democratic presidents.

Well, it's certainly different, in the way that the racist shit Obama got is slightly different than the misogynistic shit she gets. And both of them are experiencing a different kind of bile than Bill himself did as our last white Dem president.

Oh and also she's been in the national GOP crosshairs for what, 30-40 years now? Obama was not known until his presidential campaign. Sanders has gotten a lot of "Pssh! Socialist!" from the right but nothing that in any way compares to the hellstorm that has engulfed Clinton since the day she appeared on the scene.

Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.

So no, I don't think it's the same as "what other Democratic presidents" have experienced. None of them has been a woman. It's a Big Fucking Difference.

You certainly don't have to agree with her policies, but I have a hard time thinking of any man who has weathered and triumphed over the level and duration of targeted, out-and-out hate that she has.
posted by emjaybee at 9:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [57 favorites]


Clinton adheres to the incrementalist view of public policy, i.e. that incremental changes around the periphery of established policies are less risky than going for broke and trying to achieve something big and revolutionary.

You're not wrong, but she has to stop giving "No we can't", "think really, really small", art-of-the-possible messages in stump speeches. That isn't a strong voter draw, either to get already committed people to the voter's booth, or to win new hearts and minds.
posted by bonehead at 9:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I agree with vuron. What we need to see from the candidates is an, uh, candid acknowledgement that not much will be possible legislatively unless an unforeseen thing happens that throws the House back to the Democrats. And so they each should be articulating how they are planning to use the Executive to push progressive policy forward. That would be a great debate and I think it would give us a good sense of their priorities and the level of realism that they would bring to the presidency under the conditions that hold right now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


What we need to see from the candidates is an, uh, candid acknowledgement that not much will be possible legislatively unless an unforeseen thing happens that throws the House back to the Democrats.

Honestly, this is my biggest regret about Sanders. I'm glad he's pushing the conversation to the left but I really just want more people like him in Congress, where they can do the most good, not running for President.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


"Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls. "

...assuming you don't count, y'know, like women. Entrance polls in Iowa showed a big, huge turnout of female voters. About 57% of the total vote.
posted by markkraft at 9:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that Fiorina was always just angling for a VP nomination which considering the general antipathy female voters have for the Republican party might be a decent strategy but I suspect the knives would come out full force if that happened because she cost alot of very powerful people alot of money during her tenure at HP and people have long memories about that shit.
posted by vuron at 9:44 PM on February 1, 2016


Entrance polls in Iowa showed a big, huge turnout of female voters.

Is that really surprising, historically? Women voted at +12% over the final level in 2012 for Obama. The gender gap between Democrats and Republicans was 20% in the final vote, so more women than men voting democratic would follow the usual trends would it not?
posted by bonehead at 9:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.

This is absolutely the case - not that I'm a fan of her policy stances across a whole range of issues, but holy fuck. It's been brutal.

And can you imagine if the same vitriol had been directed at, for example, Barbara Bush?

In my mind, if I strip out the problems I have with her politics, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be important in that it would demonstrate the ability of the US to elect a woman as president.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.

I visited some elderly relatives in ~2001 whose bathroom reading material was entirely anti-Hilary. You really can't overestimate the hatred some people have for her.
posted by brundlefly at 9:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


lmao someone in that reddit thread has already copied the cspan video to 10 USB drives
posted by mannequito at 9:51 PM on February 1, 2016


"the majority of the power either would have is in the administrative power of the Presidency. That is actually fairly considerable but I really don't know how either one would really be in that regard as neither has a ton of executive leadership."

...except, perhaps, being considered "extraordinarily experienced ... wicked smart and knows every policy inside and out... she can govern and she can start here, day one, more experienced than any non-vice president has ever been who aspires to this office" by the current POTUS, having close relationships with all the leaders of her party, having strong ties with the DNC, who could apply leverage on Democrats who stand in the way of changes, and, of course, having a former POTUS as her husband / proxy / close personal adviser.
posted by markkraft at 9:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Holy crap Iowa finish those fucking precincts already I need to go to work tomorrow and I'm not tolerating any Florida 2000 recount bullshit
posted by vuron at 9:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Coin toss? Are you fucking kidding me?
posted by corb at 9:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


JFC I'm still here refreshing shit! - ummm, I mean, 1636 precincts out of 1683 are in, so that's 97% reporting with 683-680 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 9:57 PM on February 1, 2016


Hey you guys, just so you know ...

O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!

... anybody? ... anybody?
posted by panama joe at 9:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I suspect Clinton knows how to govern administratively but keep in mind that this congress has been willing to basically hold up virtually every cabinet nominee with endless procedural obstacles so I'm not entirely convinced that Clinton or Sanders will be able to get their nominees confirmed.

Yes a decent amount of administrative functions take place lower than the cabinet heads and other confirmed positions but if the Democrat has difficulty in confirming cabinet heads that's going to be problematic.

Which is further confirmation of how fucked up the current environment is because blocking every nominee to the extent the Republicans have blocked Obama's is completely unprecedented.
posted by vuron at 9:59 PM on February 1, 2016


Coin toss? Are you fucking kidding me?

Given that this could ultimately decide who holds the nuclear football, it's either folksy or frightening.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Coin toss? Are you fucking kidding me?

See, this is what dithering/error diffusion were invented for.
posted by Jpfed at 10:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Really, though, I just like the idea of some delegate out there seeing the neck-and-neck nail-biting Clinton-vs-Bernie suspense, and at 11:59PM CST, says, "You know what? Fuck it. I'm going to O'Malley. Yeah, that's right, O'Malley. Whattaya gonna do about it?"
posted by panama joe at 10:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Where are people finding the precinct-level delegate counts? I'm only finding state-level delegates and raw %.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016


Wait, now there's going to be a do-over?
posted by Artw at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016


He got that eighth delegate like an hour ago, but it's a compelling narrative
posted by flex at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


...except, perhaps, being considered "extraordinarily experienced ... wicked smart and knows every policy inside and out... she can govern and she can start here, day one, more experienced than any non-vice president has ever been who aspires to this office" by the current POTUS, having close relationships with all the leaders of her party, having strong ties with the DNC, who could apply leverage on Democrats who stand in the way of changes, and, of course, having a former POTUS as her husband / proxy / close personal adviser.

Jesus markkraft, we get it. Hilary can do no wrong. Your evangelism is really off-putting.
posted by futz at 10:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


Seems like 90 precincts failed to properly record their results: "Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing."

https://twitter.com/WPJohnWagner/status/694397961757810688
posted by pinsomniac at 10:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apparently the coin flips were for county delegates not statewide equivalent delegates. Still pretty funny.

So here's to more dank memes especially now that Cruz has proven that in fact you can Stump the Trump
posted by vuron at 10:10 PM on February 1, 2016


So, these chads, they're... hanging?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:11 PM on February 1, 2016


Unfortunately the polarization of the legislative branch combined with extreme gerrymandering has made the incremental approach less and less reliable because only a small percentage of congress critters live in competitive districts and most Republicans are more scared of a primary challenger from the right than a democratic challenger in the general election.

Indeed, if you subscribe to Krehbiel's "Pivotal Politics" model, (and you should; his point is well proven,) shooting for incremental change actually actively prevents real change from taking place, because it reduces the number of representatives who are far enough from their ideal points to go for a more radical position.

To pose an extremely exaggerated hypothetical, if the status quo was an official policy of Literally Eat the Poor, even relatively right-wing Congresscritters would sign on to a comprehensive social welfare package, just to get away from that position. They would also sign onto a milquetoast neoliberal package, for the same reasons. Once the milquetoast neoliberal package is the status quo, however, they would be impossible to persuade to vote for the comprehensive reforms.

Of course, all this is contingent on the counterfactual of "Literally Eat the Poor" not being a major party plank.
posted by fifthrider at 10:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm totally confused by this 90 missing precincts thing. I think I'm going to go to bed and wait until tomorrow for the scuttlebutt. None of the people I trust are saying anything about it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am confused too - there's only 19 precincts left to report according to the https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state site and NBC is saying 692-689 - I feel like I am at the end of my ability to even
posted by flex at 10:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, in highschool there was this guy named Chad who always had boogers. Always. So of course we called boogers "chads". Some of those boogers would be attached to a single nose hair, hence, hanging chad.
posted by futz at 10:18 PM on February 1, 2016


Sticking with my prediction from last September. But it's 6:19am here in England, and despite this being the best election night since November 4th 2008, and twitter really being made for Eurovision and rural state caucuses, this Englishman needs his sleep.
posted by Wordshore at 10:21 PM on February 1, 2016


With 99% reporting, Clinton is still up by .2% and I'm going to bed. The total difference between Clinton and Sanders will be less than O'Malley's support, which makes it possible that his candidacy, minor though it was, decided the winner here.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


"So, these chads, they're... hanging

Yeeeah. These coins...they're clanging.

This Cruz lays the stump.

Right to the chin of this chump Trump.

But sorry we sent him down there.

Though the Ted woke the sleepin' lib'rul bear.

Rubio can't speak without takin' a sip?

Sheeeeit.

Iowa makes the call on that last flip."

Peace out. Canada sends the love.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:24 PM on February 1, 2016


Oh, crap. Now it's tied. I might not sleep just yet.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:25 PM on February 1, 2016


It sounds like there may have been problems with some of the precincts that have reported: possibly they weren't staffed correctly or some procedure wasn't followed. At this point, I think we should probably call it a tie, move on, and consider switching to a different system in the future. Maybe just paper ballots at a caucus like the Republicans do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Latest precise result from that API link upthread:

Clinton: 49.765%

Sanders: 49.651%

0.114% margin
posted by Rhaomi at 10:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Democrats are denying any problems. They say they just need to contact a few precinct chairs, but nothing is missing or wrong.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:30 PM on February 1, 2016


O'Malley's bowing out is perhaps the biggest change in the race, really. He got a really small percent of the delegates, due to caucus rules, but he polled between 2 and 7 percent, and has endorsed Clinton in the past.

A lot of the reason this is so close probably has to do with O'Malley getting under 15% and then having his voters go over to Sanders' camp. Previous polling suggested that nearly 2/3rds of them in Iowa favored Sanders as their second choice... but Iowa is Iowa, and Sanders has more support there than most of the country.

If he endorses H. as most every Democratic politician has done, it could make it harder for Sanders to be the beneficiary of his former supporters elsewhere. It could also reduce the extent of a likely Clinton loss in New Hampshire.
posted by markkraft at 10:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pretty much anything that potentially ends the caucus process is a net positive in my book. Personally I'd also like a rotating primary calendar so maybe some years Colorado is the first primary and other years Oregon is first, etc. But then again I might just hold out for a unicorn because that might be more doable.
posted by vuron at 10:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Holy crap, they're tied!
posted by joedan at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016


18th century voting processes just aren't up to the task of really, truly discerning voter intention below about 1% difference. People make mistakes, get fuddled, forget stuff.

When races are this tight, they should just call it a tie and have a hotdog-eating contest or go bowling or something.
posted by bonehead at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seems like 90 precincts failed to properly record their results: "Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing."

This could be a non story but if you find Debbie Wasserman Schultz cackling behind Hilary's backdrop curtains you should probably investigate further.
posted by futz at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Not clear if this is related to those 90 precincts stories or not, but the Des Moines Register-Guard is reporting that more than a dozen precinct results are simply missing.
posted by dialetheia at 10:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


When races are this tight, they should just call it a tie and have a hotdog-eating contest or go bowling or something.

This would be an outstanding amendment to the US Constitution. But you know Walter Sobchak would be out there flashing his piece on the lanes if it got close.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


markkraft: "O'Malley's bowing out is perhaps the biggest change in the race, really."

Also important: we now get straightforward one-on-one debates between Clinton and Sanders going forward. O'Malley's a good guy with good ideas, but his go-nowhere candidacy took up a disproportionate amount of time and attention in all the debates he was in.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, only 279 days till the election proper now, folks. #GettingClose
posted by Wordshore at 10:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Huh. I wonder if that just means that the chairs have gone to bed and aren't answering their phones. If the reporting app didn't work, they may not realize there's a problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


How about the Republican results? Does Rubio come out of this the winner, in a sense, because he's now without a doubt one of the top 3? It's really hard to see Cruz going far in this election, and while Rubio seems like a lightweight, perhaps finishing almost tied with Trump here will give him more support?
posted by cell divide at 10:39 PM on February 1, 2016


I'd be interested in a Trump/Cruz/Rubio debate without the rest of the clown car. I think a large amount of Trump's support actually comes from how he destroyed Bush and how enjoyable that was for the audience. He isn't nearly as impressive swinging at other targets.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I think Rubio is the big GOP winner. The establishment was already consolidating around him, and now he seems viable.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Instead of deciding the remaining the districts via hotdog eating I think they should settle it with the Hawkeyes and Cyclones being proxies for a game of football or basketball. Coin toss gets to pick the school that you want representing you and the other person gets to pick the sport. Winner gets the remainder of the delegates.
posted by vuron at 10:41 PM on February 1, 2016


I'd be interested in a Trump/Cruz/Rubio debate without the rest of the clown car.

Even if they just said you need 10% national support to be in the debate, I believe it would be those three.
posted by cell divide at 10:43 PM on February 1, 2016


> I wonder if that just means that the chairs have gone to bed and aren't answering their phones. If the reporting app didn't work, they may not realize there's a problem.

A bunch of the responsible parties probably have to get up at 6:30 in the morning and go to their Real Jobs.
posted by bukvich at 10:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well, we appear to have stalled out with 12 precincts left to report (maybe they are those missing ones?) and the count at 696-693.
posted by flex at 10:44 PM on February 1, 2016


Well, at 10pm EST my linear extrapolation gave an projected tie at 49.7 each. And now, with 99% reporting, it's Clinton 49.8, Sanders 49.6. Surprisingly accurate! -- especially given that the projection blithely ignored all precinct demographics.
posted by chortly at 10:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Reports are that GOP turnout was way up from 2012: 180,000 compared to 120,000 last time.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The odds on who will be the Republican POTUS candidate have changed somewhat in the last few hours (in other words, a lot of money is being bet).
posted by Wordshore at 11:00 PM on February 1, 2016


To pose an extremely exaggerated hypothetical, if the status quo was an official policy of Literally Eat the Poor, even relatively right-wing Congresscritters would sign on to a comprehensive social welfare package, just to get away from that position. They would also sign onto a milquetoast neoliberal package, for the same reasons. Once the milquetoast neoliberal package is the status quo, however, they would be impossible to persuade to vote for the comprehensive reforms.

You do realize that this kind of reduces to "Sorry, poor, you're just going to have to agree to be eaten for a little while longer because we're waiting for comprehensive reform," don't you? An easier position to hold if one is not the one being eaten.
posted by dersins at 11:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


That's what will happen here. One of them will get 23, one will get 22, and all this sound and fury will result in somebody being up one delegate.

You're forgetting the Iowa superdelegates. It'll either be 30-22 or 29-23 for clinton, probably 30-22.
posted by Justinian at 11:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


coin toss????
posted by yueliang at 11:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie Sanders has far more legislative experience and executive experience than Barack Obama did on January 20, 2009.

Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, had more legislative experience and executive experience than the top 4 finishers on the GOP side tonight.

Maybe experience is overrated.
posted by dw at 11:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Please explain the nature of these apparently-legal "stickers".
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


In robert's rules, which governs many organizational elections, a tied election results in a coin toss/lots or re-vote, at the discretion of the electoral officer.

Even better, some provinces in Canada use a coin toss for a provincial election, as was done in PEI in May 2015!!
posted by chapps at 11:55 PM on February 1, 2016


I'm a Bernie supporter. Have been since there was word he might run. I've loved him for 15 years now. And yet I seem to spend most of my time in political discussions defending Hillary from scurrilous attacks from fellow Berners.

Hillary will most likely win the presidency. She'll be a good president, just as Obama has been. But until she is nominated, I'm supporting Bernie. (Now, I've ditched the campaign, as I couldn't stand the misogyny from those involved. But I'm one hell of a small donater and Facebook liker.)
posted by persona au gratin at 12:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]


With 99.94% reporting and only 1 precinct outstanding in the entire state, in a Sanders-friendly section of Des Moines, precinct 42:

The race is at:
Hillary Clinton
49.89%
Bernie Sanders
49.54%

It is now safe to say that Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa Caucus, the first woman to have done so in U.S. history.
posted by markkraft at 12:44 AM on February 2, 2016


It is now safe to wonder why some Clinton supporters are declaring historic victories, when, given the conventional wisdom repeated ad nauseum for months past, she should have won this by a much larger margin. Sound kinda Pyrrhic to me.
posted by CincyBlues at 1:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


So, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton tied in Iowa.

Assuming the computers are trustworthy, she is in trouble. There's no way she can move left, and now Bernie has shown that it's a real contest. I think it hinges on the ground game in South Carolina. ( if the tabulating computers can be trusted, though with my background in auditing, that's a big if, so at the end of the day, I expect the status quo to continue...)
posted by mikelieman at 1:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


NPR is reporting:

Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa caucuses, according to the Iowa Democratic Party.

Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 695.49
Outstanding: 2.28
posted by markkraft at 1:42 AM on February 2, 2016


Throwback Thursday Tuesday, from my 2012 GOP Iowa caucus post:
"...perennial laughingstock Rick Santorum [...] with 99% of the vote counted, is separated from Mitt Romney by four votes out of ~120,000 -- by far the closest result in caucus history. "
Of course, Santorum ended up winning the finalized count, so there's still (symbolic) hope for Sanders yet. Also, it will be interesting to see if the party releases the raw vote totals as the Sanders campaign has been demanding -- caucus math advantages Clinton's more even geographical support vs. Sanders' college town strength, so he may have actually won the popular vote after all.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


All the coin tosses going the way of Clinton...
posted by colie at 2:06 AM on February 2, 2016


I find it an interesting side effect of majority rule that a finish this close can be said to have a winner and loser:

Hillary Clinton
49.89%
Bernie Sanders
49.54%

Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 695.49
Outstanding: 2.28

I suppose in a way it's not that different from a runner who wins a race by a tenth of a second, but on the other hand we're talking about governance and representing the will of the people, and so forth.
posted by not that girl at 3:58 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think Clinton can work with this result. Now she can claim the underdog spot which is a really useful media narrative.
posted by betsybetsy at 4:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


How can she claim the victory spot (as she did long before the count was over) and the underdog spot at the same time? Oh, wait, this is politics...
posted by tommyD at 4:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Maybe experience is overrated.
posted by dw at 2:52 AM on February 2

It is. For Republicans who don't remember what they didn't like about Obama during his first campaign.
posted by emelenjr at 4:30 AM on February 2, 2016


caucus math advantages Clinton's more even geographical support vs. Sanders' college town strength, so he may have actually won the popular vote

Yeah, it looks based on the results that Sanders did win the popular vote (and would likely have won it more handily if there weren't such a huge time barrier to entry). Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership NEED to tap into that stream of younger, more leftist supporters for the general and for elections beyond 2016. That is going to mean, I think, some changes that will be hard.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 AM on February 2, 2016


How can she claim the victory spot (as she did long before the count was over) and the underdog spot at the same time? Oh, wait, this is politics...

She can't even claim victory this morning. The press won't call the race for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's my perspective, coming from someone who likes both Democratic candidates and loathes all the Republican candidates.

On the Democratic side, in terms of narrative, Iowa can credibly be painted as a good thing by both Clinton and Sanders. Clinton because she actually won, Sanders because he did better than predicted, so both can claim they came out looking good. (O'Malley is, of course, now out of it.)

By actual, strict numbers, of course, it was effectively a tie. This is, I think, probably better news than Clinton than it is for Sanders; Iowa is one of the states where he had the best chance of doing well. If things play out like this in the rest of the states, with Sanders doing better than his current polling by about this much, Clinton will take it.

Of course, that isn't necessarily the way it will play out. If Sanders wins in New Hampshire, as expected, there's then a long pause between that and Nevada / South Carolina / Super Tuesday. A tie plus a win will keep him a credible candidate during that period, which will keep wavering voters from abandoning him and give him the chance to make a case. Win/win would have been even stronger, but tie/win isn't nothing. (Of course, he hasn't won in New Hampshire yet, and Clinton performed better than expectations there four years ago, but I'm pretty comfortable saying he'll probably win it.)

Nonetheless, I'd still give the edge at this point to Clinton. Sanders needs to get his numbers up quite a bit to come out the other side of Super Tuesday still in this. While that's possible, it's an uphill climb.

On the Republican side, the ones who can spin this into a narrative victory are Cruz and Rubio. Rubio performed better than expectations, and Cruz performed better than expectations and won. Trump underperformed and didn't win. (And the rest of the candidates are at this point either out of it or irrelevant.)

I suspect what's going on is that anti-Trump voters are being spurred to come out; my guess would be Evangelicals who don't think Trump is really with them are leaning to Cruz, and anybody-but-Trump people went to Rubio, but possibly also to Cruz as well since he looked like the most credible alternative. Which means that now that Rubio has put in a credible showing, he *might* continue to gain some of those as people who hate Trump but aren't thrilled with Cruz move his way. This is, of course, an overly simplistic narrative, since ground game is very important in Iowa and supposedly Cruz's was good and Trump's was practically nonexistent.

However, in real numbers, Trump came in second, meaning he's realistically still a force in the race -- especially if ground game was a big factor, because Cruz isn't going to have that ground game advantage in every state. If a considerable number of people are going to Trump when his opponent has a big tactical advantage, those numbers might go up when his opponents don't.

I suspect New Hampshire is going to be pretty important here. If Trump wins, even if not by a lot, he's still in it strongly and still looks like the likely winner. If Trump underperforms again and doesn't win, he starts to look like a paper tiger with poll numbers that don't reflect his actual popularity, and then has a few weeks to explain why he's a winner who can't win anything. Cruz winning would make him start to look like the popular choice, but the Iowa win means he's still in it even if he doesn't. Rubio outperforming his current poll numbers again keeps him in as a candidate that could be rallied around down the line, and if he wins it then it starts to look like a Rubio vs. Cruz battle.

It's still a three-person race on the Republican side, but I'd give Trump a little bit of an edge; I think he's most likely to take New Hampshire and come out swinging again. But if he doesn't, the race suddenly looks very different.
posted by kyrademon at 4:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


It was an interesting night.

It answered the question, "does Trump need a real GOTV effort and other conventional campaign tools?" with a resounding "yes". The happiest people today are the ground game consultants who aren't committed to Cruz or Rubio; they were worried about becoming unemployment, but Trump is about to back dump trucks full of money to their houses.

It also made very clear that Sanders, if anything, under-polls and that his support is not old white hippies but broad. Clinton is in real trouble -- New Hampshire won't bail her out like in 2008. Her next moves are going to be a real test of her character and creativity as we roll into states with a much less educated much more variable turnout propensity Democratic electorate.

I also want to observe about general elections that people turn out because they want to vote FOR someone not AGAINST someone. I worked very similar electoral districts in 2004 and 2008. Among Democrats, there was no one who disliked McCain more than they had disliked Bush, the difference was they loved Obama and were blah about Kerry. Among Republicans, the opposite. In 2004 at least, Bush was their boy -- strong feelings of affinity for religious or cultural reasons, lingering post-9/11 leadership admiration, etc. McCain 2008 -- blah: no affinity for social conservatives, a squish to economic conservatives and strong partisans.
posted by MattD at 4:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I don't think New Hampshire is a huge problem for Clinton. She is largely expected to lose by a large margin. The real tests will be in the Nevada caucus and then South Carolina.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 AM on February 2, 2016


Don't often find myself agreeing with Ezra Klein, but agree with this:

If the caucus results ended in a tie between Sanders and Clinton, then the speeches turned the night into a win for Sanders — he made a detailed, thorough case for his candidacy in a way Clinton simply didn't. His speech felt like Obama's primary-night speeches in 2008. Clinton's felt like, well, Clinton's primary-night speeches in 2008.

From: Bernie Sanders's tie should be the biggest story of the Iowa caucuses
posted by mediareport at 5:36 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]




Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee. I think that's probably true. Sanders has shown that there is strong appeal from a the genuinely liberal wing of the party. Warren would have had most of his advantages, plus she's younger, had more name recognition, and doesn't have whatever (negligible) baggage the "socialist" label brings. Given the surprising strength of the Sanders campaign, the counterfactuals are interesting.

Regardless, I think a hotly contest primary is going to be a good thing for the Democrats, whoever the nominee will be. Close contests and an interesting race will keep the candidates in the media spotlight and get their supporters engaged in the process early. It certainly had that effect in 2008.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


"poll numbers that don't reflect his actual popularity"

I've long suspected that the things people say when questioned by a pollster bear almost no relation to how they end up voting.

A pollster's question carries no consequences whatsoever, amounting simply to an invitation to shoot your mouth off in whatever amusing or cathartic way takes your fancy. Actual votes carry actual consequences, so people take that decision much more seriously - and may reach a very different conclusion as a result.

Pollsters are reluctant to consider this charge for the obvious reason that it would undermine their whole operation. Journalists are equally reluctant to consider it because polls provide such a useful source of copy. Tempting as it is to be seduced by the excitement and hype polls generate, though, we'd all do well to remember that their predictive power is severely limited.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:51 AM on February 2, 2016


At this point I have to say that I really hope Bernie refrains from getting on any small planes.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


any fun press headlines re trump? the guardian had "the ego has landed" last night as a sub-heading (not sure that works for americans - "the eagle has landed" was a popular thriller in the uk, at least, back in the day).
posted by andrewcooke at 5:58 AM on February 2, 2016


"The Eagle has landed" is well know to Americans, since it is a quote from Neil Armstrong at the first moon landing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


oh god i feel dumb. right.
posted by andrewcooke at 6:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


No matter who eventually wins the nomination, I think Sanders will have moved the conversation leftward (within the Democratic Party, anyway), and that is a Good Thing.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever they are, because I don't want a Republican choosing Supreme Court Justices.

All that said, I would like to see Sanders get the nomination, because I honestly believe the country would benefit from the national discussion being about single payer and unions and minimum wage increases vice gay marriage destroying hetero marriage, planned parenthood selling baby parts and all those damned immigrants stealing jobs.
posted by Mooski at 6:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Pater, I think we need Warren, and more like her, in the Senate, where she's been for a whopping two whole years. It's partly my state's horrible experience with John Edwards talking, but I'm totally soured on one-term senators with presidential ambitions that can't wait. Warren is making the smart long-term move by not running, and is exactly where the USA needs her to be for the foreseeable future.

We need the Senate back this year. If we get that, then even a frothing lunatic like Rubio will only be able to do so much damage.
posted by mediareport at 6:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


any fun press headlines re trump?

Well, there is the New York Daily News, might be too subtle though.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ya gotta love that Trump's twitter account has been oddly silent since 7:34 last night. Might be the longest stretch of no tweets in a while for the schmuck.
posted by mediareport at 6:06 AM on February 2, 2016


James Lyden on Twitter re Trump:
@mtaibbi I love how it's gone from "we've never seen anything like this!" to "Oh, right. He's Pat Buchanan, but orange."
posted by graymouser at 6:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Seriously: Bernie supporters. You have a shot at winning this thing, but you need to stop using totally misogynistic language about Hillary, and you need to stop implying that black and Latino people support her because they're stupid/ uneducated/ swayed by "favors." If something sounds like it could be said by a Republican front-runner, pause and think for a minute before you say it. If you would like people to support your candidate, do not try to convince them by insulting them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [44 favorites]


(oops, Warren's been in the Senate for 3 years now, not 2)
posted by mediareport at 6:14 AM on February 2, 2016


[A few comments deleted. Please a) flag dumb comments, b) refresh the thread before responding to dumb comments. As asked earlier, "please knock it off with the cutesy-snide nicknames," and this includes all the not-so-clever "evil woman" insulting cliches for Clinton. We're seriously not doing this.]
posted by taz at 6:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


This piece at The Baffler about the erasure of the left feminist critique of Hillary (and the erasure of left feminist women from the "Berniebros" discussion in general), linked early in this thread, is probably worth linking again.
posted by mediareport at 6:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


This was a win for Clinton, because, well... it *was*, in fact, a win.

If she had lost, then the argument that Sanders' people had that their success would get the superdelegates to change their support might have traction... but those superdelegates are all longtime Democratic Party members, many of whom have a strong history with the Clintons, and most of whom have no love lost for Sanders, who has spent most of his career badmouthing them. If they have a good excuse for voting for Hillary, they will take it... and by not winning last night, Bernie gave it to them. And while a 23-22 delegate difference doesn't matter much, 30-22 absolutely does. Making up those kind of deficits without a reliable pool of superdelegates will be HARD, especially without the demographic advantages that Obama had.

People will come to see the race as it really is -- a battle for delegates -- and that is one framing of the race that Sanders has already lost.

New Hampshire is Bernie's back yard, and Hillary will handle expectations appropriately. She might even exceed expectations, just like she did in '08... though not enough to win, most likely.

Pollsters like Nate Silver have made it pretty clear that New Hampshire comes only second to Vermont as far as states he should have a demographic advantage in.

The real battle is in Nevada and South Carolina... and I think it's very likely Sanders has already lost South Carolina. Why? Well, for one, you would have had to already register to vote in the primary. Sanders just doesn't have his ground game there up to speed yet, while Clinton has really consolidated her support, which means that most of those who have registered are likely Clinton supporters, many of whom can already cast their ballots... and absentee voting is especially easy to do if you are over 65. For many South Carolina voters, this will be the narrative many will have paid attention to before they cast their ballot... not New Jersey, and not necessarily even Iowa. Certainly, most will vote later, but not enough to prevent a substantial percent of the vote locking in at a 25 point margin for Clinton.

I saw the same thing in '08 in California, where Obama was leading by five points in the polls, only to lose by about 8. All the evidence suggested more people went out to vote for Obama on the day of the election, but the winning majority was already banked with voting intentions set before weeks of hard campaigning. This is why Clinton actually won the popular vote in the '08 primaries, despite losing the delegate count.

Nevada is a caucus and Bernie's best chance to rewrite the narrative somewhat... but South Carolina will be the defining race going into the South in Super Tuesday, and I don't personally see how he can change it enough to beat expectations. Rather, he will likely see the polls tighten somewhat before the race, only to underperform the polls due to early voting... and that will definitely impact how the press views things going into Super Tuesday.
posted by markkraft at 6:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]




So Hillary wins if she beats expectations but loses NH, but Bernie loses if he beats expectations but virtually ties IA?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm not all that convinced that Bernie supporters will vote for Ms. Clinton in November. It'll be very interesting to see what happens if this trajectory continues.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Clinton internals should be seriously worrying:

And the results showed again that she is failing to inspire young voters, who have to come out in large number for a Democrat to win the presidency. In polls, she lost 18 to 29 year old voters to Sanders by 84 to 13 percent. Clinton also displayed continuing weakness in connecting with voters. The quarter of Democratic voters who want a candidate who “cares about people like you” preferred Sanders by three to one. Those who wanted a candidate who was “honest and trustworthy” preferred Sanders by 82 to 11 percent. These kind of concerns could plague Clinton in the general election.

Bernie has ALL of the youth vote, and Clinton is running a tired looking and expectant version of her 2008 campaign. There's only one thing that matters on the Democratic side, how many marginal voters can you drive to the polls through Republican suppression efforts? If Marco Rubio pulls out the Republican nomination, she's going to be in real trouble. The Republicans are fired up to vote against Obama, regain unified control, and implement their 100-days doomsday agenda once and for all. Clinton right now is not inspiring anything like what she needs to drive turnout against that, all the enthusiasm is for Bernie, who would need to face Trump or Cruz to have a realistic chance.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


I'm changing my mind on the caucuses being a cool thing and putting them in the category of a bunch of shit. And not because my candidate "lost" but because the process is fucked.

Last night in my precinct Iowa for Bernie Sanders had 219 votes to Hillary's 180. There were 8 delegates up for grabs so you needed 60 votes to be viable. This meant Sanders got 4.1 delegates to Hillary's 3.9, but since you can't split delegates you round up for her and down for him. Everyone goes home with a trophy.

You also had over 400 people jammed in a grade school auditorium, and once the process started the Sanders supporters were made to go into the hall. It was stifling hot out there and no on could hear shit. When it came time to do the realignment they would only allow the Sanders "representatives" back in the room to try to sway the Clinton and O'Malley supporters.
I complained that they should be made to leave the room as well, and if they wanted to return that was fine, but by having them all stay in the Hillary room they would become default Hillary supporters. The guy running the show said I was th only one complaining (until others complained), then he made an announcement, "Tell it to the Bernie supporter in the hall that just chewed my ass." I didn't chew his ass. I pointed out something that seemed unfair.

Then after I asked for the actual vote numbers, "Why, are you reporting them for someone?" I said it was for my own edification (I use big words like that). And he rattled off the above, and said I was "welcome to his fucking job" if I wanted it.

So the way I see it Sanders resoundingly trounced Clinton in our precinct, but she goes home with the same prize. Buncha shit. It's like those 40 people don't count (or at least their votes don't).

Then this: Iowa caucus: Hillary Clinton won six delegates by coin toss

By the way, the chances of one candidate winning all 6 coin tosses is about 1.5%.

So now, when Bernie says they more or less tied he fucking means it. I'd love to know how much she and her super PACs outspent Sander's on ad buys in Iowa. Good luck in New Hampshire, Hillary. You're gonna need it.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


The problem with the "Bernie Bros are a media construction" narrative is that anyone on social media encounters a lot of racism and misogyny from Bernie supporters. The only way to deny that is to gaslight a whole lot of women and PoC who aren't having it.
So Hillary wins if she beats expectations but loses NH, but Bernie loses if he beats expectations but virtually ties IA?
No, Bernie clearly won this one. It's not clear whether his win is enough to overcome his disadvantages on the national stage.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


"Bernie has ALL of the youth vote,"

... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.
posted by markkraft at 6:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just talked to my housemate yesterday, who is a black Bernie supporter... and *she* complained about the Bernie bros. They are, in fact, a real thing.
posted by markkraft at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think Clinton's numbers with people under 40 are pretty bad nationwide. We are up for grabs if she is the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Hillary becomes President she should issue a commemorative Iowa caucus quarter with her head on both sides.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


Arbitrary, I'd never say that Berniebros are solely a media construction. But I do think this, from that link I posted, is a point worth taking seriously:

The left feminist critique of Hillary Clinton is being intentionally ignored by high­-profile feminists because its very existence contradicts a thesis they hold dear: that criticism of Hillary Clinton—even from the left—is primarily the domain of misogynistic men who hate to see a strong woman succeed.
posted by mediareport at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa. (Two weeks old, I don't have a link to the final results) Sanders has been doing quite well with money. He is a political outsider, but not a shoestring budget sort of guy. Also, the Republicans have been spending huge amounts in anti-Hillary propaganda which helps Sanders.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The ‘Bernie Bro’ is a Media Myth
It’s been widely-reported that millennials make up the bulk of Sanders’ base. But the truth is, most polls reflect that the majority of Bernie’s millennial support is actually young women. Bernie is even beating out the former First Lady for their support, enjoying a 20 percent lead among women between 18 and 35 years old over Hillary Clinton.

Compare this to his lead among young men, where Sen. Sanders is only beating Hillary Clinton by four percentage points – barely outside the margin of error. Based on these numbers, a young male is actually more likely to support Clinton than a young woman, and her male support is the only thing keeping Clinton’s millennial numbers from being a total disaster...

One reddit user, who identifies herself as a woman of color, explains the Bernie Bro phenomenon as “just basic statistics — There are more young people who support Bernie. More young people use the Internet. So the likelihood of you bumping into a rude Bernie supporter is greater than the likelihood you’ll bump into a Hillary one. Why is it so hard to understand this…”"
posted by flex at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Sanders and Clinton are fighting over two different things. Clinton REALLY wants to be President, and Sanders wants to fundamentally after the soul of the Democratic Party.

These goals are not mutually exclusive. I see a future with a drawn out primary fight, where Clinton racks up delegate but Sanders message continues to resonate. So much so, that by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.

It's usually ignored, but the party platform could be a huge deal this year. With the die hard Sanders delegates in the convention and a general population finally educated and engaged on true democratic socialism, it's a real possibility that Sanders loses the battle for the Presidency but wins the war for the party's future.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [48 favorites]


... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.

and

Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa

See, told you that's what the "loser" would say.
posted by eriko at 6:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


So Hillary wins if she beats expectations but loses NH, but Bernie loses if he beats expectations but virtually ties IA?

Kind of, I think? I mean, the superdelegates mean that if the actual caucus-goers and primary voters remain more or less 50-50 split between the two, or even if Sanders has a slight lead (as he may have had in the popular vote at the caucus), Clinton still has more than enough to secure the nomination. So there's a certain heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the whole business.

For my part, I wasn't caucusing for Sanders because I thought he could realistically win the nomination; I caucused for Sanders because I wanted his message to remain part of the election for as long as possible, and Glibpaxman's scenario is basically what I'm hoping will happen.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 6:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




I think it's better to think of the race without really considering the superdelegates. Any election they tip against the will of the people would lead to some supporters of the opponent really not showing up.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


My reading of the 2008 election is that Clinton had a superdelegate advantage but some of them (enough) shifted allegiance to Obama after he started showing viability in caucuses and primaries. Is that impossible in 2016?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.+

If you think she's doing appreciably better with voters 18-29 elsewhere I'd love to see the numbers. All signs point to a huge age gap, with older Dems for Clinton and voters under 30 massively in favor of Bernie. That's a REAL problem when she's going to have to rely on reforming the Obama coalition to win, especially with Rubio doing at least somewhat better with Latinos.

I think Clinton is setting up to blow it. This may be a great opportunity for a unity ticket, she needs SOMETHING to inspire youth turnout if indeed she secures the nomination. Hilary Clinton 2008 transported to 2016 is not going to do it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are structural issues that support Sanders in NH and structural issues that support Clinton in regards to other primary and caucuses. The question mark is whether Sanders can take momentum from this tie and grow a GOTV organization equivalent to Obama 08 in a couple of months. Personally I think that is an uphill climb but still possible but I think it relies on Clinton 16 being as somnolence as clinton 08. If that proves true then she deserves to lose.
posted by vuron at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2016


I hope I will get apologies from my friends who made fun of me for saying it was ridiculous to fear Trump as President.
posted by agregoli at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2016


There's not a contradiction there, though; criticism of Clinton- even from the left- can be primarily the domain of misogynistic men, while not being entirely the domain of misogynistic men. They both exist, but the misogynist criticism is being considered more important; #notallcriticism and all that.

This can be frustrating if you think the non-misogynist criticism should be taken more seriously on its own merits. It happens all the time- shitty criticism inures people to constructive criticism.
posted by Jpfed at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think it's better to think of the race without really considering the superdelegates. Any election they tip against the will of the people would lead to some supporters of the opponent really not showing up.

Superdelegates for the Dems is the same as a brokered convention for the Republicans, it's a 24hr talking heads narrative that has zero bearing on the outcome.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


You also had over 400 people jammed in a grade school auditorium, and once the process started the Sanders supporters were made to go into the hall. It was stifling hot out there and no on could hear shit. When it came time to do the realignment they would only allow the Sanders "representatives" back in the room to try to sway the Clinton and O'Malley supporters.
I complained that they should be made to leave the room as well, and if they wanted to return that was fine, but by having them all stay in the Hillary room they would become default Hillary supporters. The guy running the show said I was th only one complaining (until others complained), then he made an announcement, "Tell it to the Bernie supporter in the hall that just chewed my ass." I didn't chew his ass. I pointed out something that seemed unfair.
For what it's worth, the opposite happened at my precinct. The Bernie supporters got to stay in the room with the chairs, and the Hillary people had to go out in the hall. The hall was also right by the door, so it was really easy for our people to leave and really hard for the Bernie people to leave. Also, the Bernie people were overwhelmingly college students, and many of the Hillary people were elderly folks from the old folks home. There was nowhere to sit in the Hillary hall, and we were begging old ladies on walkers to hold out a little longer. We had a couple of them bail on us and go home between the first and second ballot. The way they counted the Hillary people is that we walked down a ramp and they counted us as we walked by. It was really close, so the Bernie people insisted that we do two recounts. So the old ladies on walkers, who had been standing there for literally an hour and a half, had to walk down the ramp three times to be counted.

It's a shitty, shitty system which I don't think is going to change because First In The Nation and Tradition. But it's indefensible, no matter what candidate you support.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]


Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa.

As someone that sat through the ads, the reality felt quite different. I think the $4.7 million to $3.7 million for the candidates might be fairly accurate, but how much did the Hillary super PACs spend on top of that? You know the Sanders super PAC money was $0. How much more was poured in on her behalf?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


eriko: The winner will assert it was a mandate.

As long as they don't claim they also have "political capital to spend" I can let it go.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


But it's indefensible, no matter what candidate you support.

Agreed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2016


Capt. Renault: "Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?"

No I'm sorry, there isn't time.
posted by Reverend John at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


"the truth is, most polls reflect that the majority of Bernie’s millennial support is actually young women. "

That's not what entrance polls said yesterday, which had Sanders trailing Clinton 53%-42% among women. While they did notice that Sanders had a 10-point lead among single women and unmarried mothers, that's about half what that article suggests. Unmarried men favored Sanders by a whopping 66%-30%.
posted by markkraft at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump buys a string of factories in Iowa. Closes them. Releases statement "LOSERS".
posted by Damienmce at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016


ArbitraryAndCapricious: was turnout that much higher than expected, that they didn't have room for everybody to stay in the same place? Or are there just no good large caucus sites in your precinct?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:05 AM on February 2, 2016


markkraft, young women != women.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Turnout was massively higher than they expected. It was higher than 2008. Nobody had really focused on the fact that this was the first presidential caucus in a long time when school was going to be in session, which was a pretty big mistake.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey you guys, just so you know ...

O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!


I think you mean "Feel the Optimism!" You can also insert "outlandish" before Optimism.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:11 AM on February 2, 2016


Sanders [...] may have actually won the popular vote

In our little caucus room in Mills County, (one of several rooms) the distribution was 43 for Sanders, 18 for Clinton (0 for 0'Malley). By the rules of the electoral math, each candidate got two delegates from our room. So. there you go. A 70% is a 50%.

I can only presume similar events were happening all across the state. Sanders turnout was remarkable for rural Iowa. Most of the democrats here seem like blue-dog, Clinton democrats. That was not the case.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


On the Republican side, the ones who can spin this into a narrative victory are Cruz and Rubio.

You are very wrong about this. Here's just off the cuff how Trump can claim victory:

"This is incredible. Half a year we were nowhere. Noone would have predicted that we get this far on top in Iowa. Better than Rubio. Better than Christie. Better than Paul. Ten times better than Bush. This is the strongest showing ever by a non-establishment candidate. It's a historical first. It also shows that the good people of Iowa and all over America want change and they want a strong leader. And this is just the beginning... Thank you Iowa! Make America great again!"
posted by sour cream at 7:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]




teponaztli: pragmatism is what got Canadians Trudeau, I think (am sure) for better than worse. I was worried that true believers on the left would bail or pull a Nader when it came down to it, but Harper haters got it together on the day, thanks to a strong strategic voting campaign. The variables are different in this case, obviously, but you guys can do the same if you need to.

It's partly my state's horrible experience with John Edwards talking, but I'm totally soured on one-term senators with presidential ambitions that can't wait. Warren is making the smart long-term move by not running, and is exactly where the USA needs her to be for the foreseeable future.

I don't know, but it seems to me both Warren and Sanders might be more useful as critics and mobilizers, in the short term.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2016


O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!

I was saying O-urns
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 7:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think Clinton can work with this result. Now she can claim the underdog spot which is a really useful media narrative.

* Former First Lady of the United States.
* First woman to be elected Senator in New York State (served 8 years)
* In 2008 she won more primaries and delegates than any other woman Presidential candidate, ever.
* 67th US Secretary of State
* A massive donor network.

And she just tied with the longest-serving independent Senator -- the Junior Senator from Vermont. Who ran a grassroots campaign and whose average donation was $27. Who proudly declares himself a radical and a democratic socialist. Labels that are usually anathema to the voting public.

I'm a Hillary supporter. I like Sanders and will vote for him in the general if he wins the nom, even though I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

But Clinton's no underdog, Not compared to him.
posted by zarq at 7:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


colie: All the coin tosses going the way of Clinton...

She has a
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
magnetic personality

[Shhh, I know US coins are non-ferrous, but maybe they're using some foreign coinage]
posted by filthy light thief at 7:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know why people are shocked, the money has been on her side all along.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Sam Kriss (previously) in Vice: Bernie Bros and Momentum Bullies: How the Powerful Use Internet Trolls to Play the Victim
Because online abuse is real and often very damaging, it can be used to allow those who are actually perpetrating violence to claim the mantle of victimhood. In this upended moral cosmology, calling someone names online is a significantly greater sin than starting a war, and only slightly less egregious than holding your wine glass by the bowl. We saw something very similar last year, during the debate over British military intervention in Syria. As the British state whipped itself into another destructive war, the pro-Corbyn campaign group Momentum was met with widespread censure for "bullying" MPs who supported the bombing, employing such insidious tactics as encouraging voters to make use of their right to petition their representatives, or correctly identifying people who were pushing for war as being warmongers. To kill people with airborne explosives is fine, as long as you do so politely; trying to prevent this with undefined uncouthness is unacceptable. The morality of war is no longer an issue, not while there are bullies or Bernie Bros in our midst.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]


What kills me about the GOP is they are so incredibly two sided. So which is it? American Exceptionalism: USA #1! USA #1! USA #1! or we need to make America great again?

I mean, if you point out that the US doesn't come in first in anything that matters other than blowing shit up and incarcerating people you are a socialist that hates America. If you point out that we suck at healthcare for all except the very wealthy, that our life expectancy, infant morality, and access blow then you are wanting to oppress people with free healthcare. So what would a great America even look like? I bigger military? More God in the schools? What do they even mean by making it great again? When was it great before? Back when there was a robust middle-class and less income inequality? Seriously, nice slogan, but if you really want to make America great again I think you're voting the wrong party.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Pater Aletheias: Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee.

Warren in 2020! (?) She may have a better chance then, thanks to this "set-up" from Bernie.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


pragmatism is what got Canadians Trudeau, I think (am sure) for better than worse. I was worried that true believers on the left would bail or pull a Nader when it came down to it, but Harper haters got it together on the day, thanks to a strong strategic voting campaign. The variables are different in this case, obviously, but you guys can do the same if you need to.

Isn't the main problem in Canada that the left was essentially splitting 65% of the total vote, allowing the conservatives to win? The situation in the US is not remotely analogous, there's essentially a 40-40 tie among likely voters, with a huge pool of uninformed citizens who only occasionally turn out, but overwhelming lean Democratic. The battle is for the remaining 20%, but really, it's for either driving or suppressing the 60% of the population that doesn't reliably vote at all. And the Republicans have really stepped up the suppression efforts since 2008 and even since 2012.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:25 AM on February 2, 2016


Emotional appeals don't have to make logical sense to work. Probably better if they don't, actually. And the Republicans have been working the simultaneous "we're God's favorite country" / "we've fallen from our former glory and God is punishing us because feminism/gay-rights/etc." combination since at least 1988, so it's not like this is something they've come up with just for this election. Trump just came up with a particularly catchy phrasing for it.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:27 AM on February 2, 2016


cjorgensen: What do they even mean by making it great again? When was it great before?

Well, The Greatest Generation, as popularized by journalist Tom Brokaw (today I learned...) was the generation who grew up in the US in the Great Depression, then went on to be involved in WWII, at home and abroad.

But "great again" is a short way of saying "I wish things were like they were before," which reflects a fear of change and bitterness at how things are now. The US (and the world) have changed a lot, and people still cling to American exceptionalism as if the US is supposed to be King of the World, often paired with the vision of the US as a Great Christian Nation (ignoring the whole desire for religious freedom that drove early settlers to America).

In summary: people want a better lot in life, and think they had it (or had a shot at it) in some time before.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:29 AM on February 2, 2016


So what would a great America even look like?

Frustratingly (and certainly deliberately) politicians never define what success looks like.

I would vote for almost any candidate that said, My policy is X; I hope to achieve Y; I will measure that success by Z.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


How the Powerful Use Internet Trolls to Play the Victim

Remember that part up above about gas-lighting women and PoC? Characterizing any complaints about misogyny or racism among progressive supporters to "oh that's just the oppressors crying wolf about bullying" is so messed up. Maybe the media itself is using the "Bernie bro" name for sinister purposes, but seriously, people are giving them fodder to do so.

We're not all on some Clinton payroll, here. Seriously, all Bernie needs to do to convince me to cast my swing-state vote for him is demonstrate convincingly in the coming debates how he'll enact his policy plans from the executive branch. I imagine he'll be able to do that. But his supporters who talk like everyone who likes Clinton is just a slavering dead-eyed robot crying "abuse" so we can just get back to waging war on Iraq, or whatever, are really making any greater engagement in his campaign very hostile to a big group of people. The best thing these guys could do for Bernie would be calling out the vocal minority of their peers who like to use gendered slurs, not lashing out at undecideds who feel unwelcome or talking about how our experiences are just a creation of the media. Several people in this thread have been really clear in drawing a line against misogynistic language, and that's awesome. That kind of action is what's going to win you supporters, not posting more articles claiming bad faith.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


If you think she's doing appreciably better with voters 18-29 elsewhere I'd love to see the numbers. All signs point to a huge age gap, with older Dems for Clinton and voters under 30 massively in favor of Bernie.

Most likely-voter polls won't report crosstabs for 18-29 because, well, they're not likely to vote. The only recent national poll I can quickly find with crosstabs for youngsters is one from Investor's Business Daily, which... well. The error bars for any of the age groups will be really big, and those for young voters especially so.

But anyway it has 18-24 at 61-87% Sanders / 10-34% Clinton. 25-44 were at 33-53% Sanders / 36-56% Clinton.

Crappy data but they don't suggest a problem except with very young people. Even if all the 18-24 year olds who support Sanders stay home in the general election, it's unlikely to affect the outcome of the race.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Twitter tells me Politico is now running an "Hours since Donald Trump last tweeted" clock. Also, this autopsy of Trump's (non-existent?) Iowa ground game is worth a look, if only for this quote from an anonymous Trump ally:

“Can’t wait to get to the South.”
posted by mediareport at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2016


Not wanting to base your worldview on anecdotes is not gaslighting.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Telling someone their personal experience isn't real is.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]


Sanders and Clinton are fighting over two different things. Clinton REALLY wants to be President, and Sanders wants to fundamentally after the soul of the Democratic Party.

These goals are not mutually exclusive. I see a future with a drawn out primary fight, where Clinton racks up delegate but Sanders message continues to resonate. So much so, that by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.


Fingers fucking crossed, man.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:45 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress. I agree with Clinton less, but I believe in her ability to accomplish stuff in this horrifying gridlock more.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Fingers fucking crossed, man.

Yeah. Mine too. We can't take too much more of this shit. But defeating an entrenched oligarchy pretty much requires deftly convincing it to attack itself.
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2016


I think that an 18-24-year-old who is enthusiastic about anyone is more likely to vote than an 18-to-24-year-old who is checked out. Even if some of them would stay home if the eventual nominee were Hillary, I think their enthusiasm for Bernie is a net win for the Democrats no matter who the eventual nominee will be.

Another net win from my very local perspective: when you checked in to the caucus last night, the Democrats asked for your email address. I didn't see anyone refuse to give theirs. Student precincts are a massive pain in the ass to do Get Out the Vote in, because everyone moves in August, so voter registration rolls are out-of-date leading up to November and door-knocking is not effective. (Iowa has election-day voter registration, which is great but means that you never have a final list of potential voters in advance.) I'm hoping that we can start thinking about ways to do GOTV that are more effective with a highly-mobile population like you have in student precincts, and having email addresses rather than just residential addresses should help with that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


And she just tied with the longest-serving independent Senator -- the Junior Senator from Vermont. Who ran a grassroots campaign and whose average donation was $27. Who proudly declares himself a radical and a democratic socialist.

Don't look now, but I think we just accidentally made America great again.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm hoping that we can start thinking about ways to do GOTV that are more effective with a highly-mobile population like you have in student precincts, and having email addresses rather than just residential addresses should help with that.

Unfortunately, I've found that mostly what they do is spam the shit out of you with fundraising emails until you send everything political to the spam folder.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]




Has anyone seen any good reporting about JEB! this morning?
posted by OmieWise at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2016


Not too much substance, but: Jeb Spends $2,884 Per Iowa Vote
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2016


[…] they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.

But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here." Seriously, that's my biggest complaint of the Obama administration. He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent. He could have used the people to do so much more than just come up with a decision on whether or not to get a dog.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


Most likely-voter polls won't report crosstabs for 18-29 because, well, they're not likely to vote.

Very true.

The only recent national poll I can quickly find with crosstabs for youngsters is one from Investor's Business Daily, which... well.

Right now, you cannot trust *any* poll, because the pollsters have a real problem.

1) They used to use phone calls on landlines (to make sure they were calling the right area.) What is the landline? This is a *huge* age bias -- the older you are, the more likely you are to have a landline. Plus, with cellphones, you don't really know if you're sampling me. If you call my cellphone based on my area code and exchange, you're sampling someone who lives 300 miles away, in a completely different city/state, and I am far from the only one like this (why change a cell number when you move?)

2) With the rise of the push poll, more and more people simply hang up on pollsters. It used to be that getting polled was a kind of a big deal -- people treated it almost as a civic duty. Nowadays, the last thing anybody wants to do is answer questions and wonder how that information is going to be used.

3) In general, more and more people don't answer their phone unless they know who is calling. This is a also an age bias, the younger you are, the more likely you are to do so.

4) Gated communities? Can't survey. Immigrants? Many first gen have trouble with the language, plus you need to establish if they're citizens or residents, and many first generation immigrants *will not talk to you* about that status, because they remember dealing with immigration.

5) You can't do automated phone polls -- you can autodial, but a human has to do the talking. Well, legally you can't.

6) The change in the political climate has made neutral questions really hard. We see this time and time again. Poll A asks about an administration policy. Poll B asks a group about Obama's policy. Poll B shows significantly more people against Obama's policy than against the Administration's policy, even though it's Obama's Administration!

This means that their models, predicated on X people answering neutral questions, have real problems. They used to call, oh, 2000 people to find 1000 willing to answer. Nowadays, they have to call far many more numbers to get that, typical response rates are under 5%.

All polls have bias -- that is, they know that they're not getting a representative sample -- and they have to try to model that and adjust the actual numbers from the poll to try to get an accurate representation of the entire population. And, with most of the under 50 set taking themselves out of the polling system completely, the well studied and modeled biases are basically completely wrong. It's also making "likely to vote" very hard, because there's no evidence that likely to vote models are correct for the population who answers polls vs. the population who doesn't.

The biggest example recently of how bad it has gotten was the UK General Election last year. Labour was projected to win by, oh 5%. They *lost*. The only poll to get it right was the BBC poll that was taken during the election at polling places, and they held the result until the polls closed, and announced Conservative 3.1%. They -- and only they -- were close. Everybody else was way off the mark.

But it happens more and more. Polls are becoming unreliable. You tell me a poll says X is done, I don't believe it, unless it's saying something like 85%-15%. And even then, if 75% of your responders are 65 and older, even that could be wrong.

The pollsters are desperately trying to find a way to get better samples, but the core problem is the younger you are, the less willing you are to be polled and the harder it is to even get a hold of you to try and ask.
posted by eriko at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [31 favorites]


No, not much substance, but it's sure interesting it's in The Weekly Standard. Thanks.
posted by OmieWise at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2016


"by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters"

I don't think many Clinton voters have a problem with this, with the exception of Bernie being VP... which, frankly, is probably not a job he should want anyway.

What I do have a problem with is wasting huge sums of money that could actually do the Democrats some good in the general election, tearing down people and left-wing organizations, rather than being aware of what the real threat is.

If there was a clear winner in the caucus, frankly, it was the Republican establishment, which showed itself to be credible, even in a caucus that tends to give extremism more credibility than a popular vote would support. There are signs that they could put Trump behind them... and that leads to the real threat of a candidate like Rubio, who lately has been doing very well against both Clinton and Sanders in head-to-head polling.

We all want a Democratic majority, rather than a bigoted homophobic candidate from the billionaire party, right? Maybe we need to start acting like it, and realize that there will probably be a clear indication of a winner after Super Tuesday, and that maybe a protracted, costly division is not the best alternative for everyone concerned.
posted by markkraft at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress

This is a great point, and, back to sweetkid's point about midterm apathy, highlights the central issue of our messed-up government, which is that no one individual gets things done, no matter how brilliant or impassioned - it's about party discipline and being able to get the support in Congress to move your agenda forward. The general tendency of Americans to focus on the individual personalities and messages of the Presidential candidates tends to overlook this reality, and that's one reason that Republicans, despite ostensibly being led and represented by the string of idiots that have served in most prominent roles, still maintain the power to strangle the government. They know it's about ground game, midterms, Reps, and Senators and if you hold onto that, you can write your own ticket, no matter who's in the White House. To get anything done, a President needs support in Congress, and a Democratic President in particular needs to be tough on reinforcing party discipline, because it's really not Democrats' strong suit. I could have killed the majority Democratic Congress that Obama had during the first part of his first term for frittering away their short moment of power infighting and grandstanding - it was disgusting. That kind of thing sucks royally, and it needs to be managed strategically and with political skill.
posted by Miko at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Trump has tweeted.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 1 minute ago

My experience in Iowa was a great one. I started out with all of the experts saying I couldn't do well there and ended up in 2nd place. Nice

posted by Sophie1 at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2016


Laughing out loud at that "nice." I can hear it in his voice. What a tool.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]



This piece at The Baffler about the erasure of the left feminist critique of Hillary (and the erasure of left feminist women from the "Berniebros" discussion in general), linked early in this thread, is probably worth linking again.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on February 2 [6 favorites +] [!]


I also want to link this again, it's a great read.
posted by werkzeuger at 8:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


ended up in 2nd place.

It must have hurt so much to type that. Not that he typed it, but.
posted by Miko at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent.

Huh? I've gotten emails from Obama since his campaign on. He frequently has called upon citizens to help with his initiatives. This is just plain false.
posted by agregoli at 8:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


"My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress"

What makes you think that it's the Republicans and not the Democratic congress that would Ned Stark him?

Most people who work in Democratic politics really do want to accomplish some meaningful changes. They just know it's not easy to do, and you have to play stupid games in order to do it.

Sanders is an outsider independent who basically declared the entire party as the enemy... and he has a platform which is arguably even more divisive and dangerous for their careers than supporting Obamacare was for so many Democrats in congress.

So why would they support his policies? They probably wouldn't. They'd try to come up with their own legislation instead, and let him screw himself politically, if he finds himself unwilling to compromise in order to help people. If they feel that Sanders is trying to shame them, they'll find ways to embarrass him. Anything he tells anyone in confidence would be used against him, or possibly even used out of context. It would be a mess, because he ultimately would lack the kind of levers of pressure on them that many other Democratic presidents tend to have.

All this is kind of a moot point anyway, as the superdelegates are a huge margin of victory in this election, and they are stacked on Hillary's side by about a 40-1 margin. He would literally need to rack up a 10-15 point margin nationwide to reverse that.

Really, I want Hillary to work together with Sanders on ideas and policies, but I find the idea of running a $250M campaign without a real chance of winning wasteful to the extreme. Hopefully, we won't really have to do that.
posted by markkraft at 8:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Obamacare comparison is way off base, because neither Sanders or Hillary are actually passing anything significant with this Congress. You don't need to fight with your own party when you know you don't have the votes for anything anyway. You just let people vote how they need to.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:18 AM on February 2, 2016




My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress. I agree with Clinton less, but I believe in her ability to accomplish stuff in this horrifying gridlock more.

http://ilikeberniebut.com/
Bernie is actually well-known for his ability to compromise to get things done without sacrificing his values. In the House, he was known as the Amendment King, and passed more amendments -- addressing exclusively progressive goals -- than any other legistlator, by forging cross-party coalitions.

He has earned respect from Republicans ranging from John McCain to the ultra-conservative Jim Inhofe. If any Democratic president can reach across the aisle to work with a stubborn Republican Congress, it's Bernie Sanders.
posted by Foosnark at 8:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [36 favorites]


Yeah, the demographic split with Hillary is a real problem. Bernie can overcome his early optics with minority voters with a carefully chosen running mate, but I can't see Hillary doing the same to turn out the youth/hard-left vote in November.

If Trump is the GOP pick, Julian Castro gets the nod to lock up the Latino vote for the Dems. A great campaigner with solid credentials. If Cruz or Rubio gets the nod, identity politics are going to bite the Dems in a bad way, especially with religious conservative Latinos, and they will need the African American and youth vote to turn out to win. Corey Booker, maybe? He'd be a natural counterpart for Sanders, his youth and energy and polish matching nicely with Sanders' rough-hewn experience and wisdom, will go a long way to bring in centrists, and the man does know how to campaign.

I don't know if he'd be exciting enough to energize the youth vote for Clinton - he's to the right of Sanders on economic issues that matter most to Bernie supporters.

Also, Trump's known for a few weeks now he was going to lose Iowa. He's been openly insulting the state for at least that long (He had a statement last week sneering at how Iowans haven't picked the winning GOP nominee in 16 years, exhorting them to "pick the winner for a change" and that Iowa was a "big, fat waste of time") - I don't think it will impact his campaign much.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




So he literally blew it all on hats?
posted by Jpfed at 8:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders is an outsider independent who basically declared the entire party as the enemy... and he has a platform which is arguably even more divisive and dangerous for their careers than supporting Obamacare was for so many Democrats in congress. So why would they support his policies? They probably wouldn't.

What a bizarre framing. Single-payer healthcare is hugely popular. Raising the minimum wage is hugely popular. That there are conservative Democrats in Congress who care more about corporate money than serving Democrat voters is true, for sure, but defending them while painting the most eloquent voice for the majority opinions of Democrat voters as some sort of dangerous pariah is just so freakishly off-base it's kind of astonishing.
posted by mediareport at 8:27 AM on February 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


What really happened in Iowa? The myths and the takeaways

That's a good read, thanks Kabanos.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 AM on February 2, 2016


pragmatism is what got Canadians Trudeau

There was strategic voting in the last election, absolutely, but Trudeau was the strategic choice not Mulcair. The NDP blew it this time by responding to Harper's games. Trudeau won by saying to voters, "We're better than this. We can do better than this." This was nowhere clearer than in the various parties responses to the refugee crisis.

It was hearts Trudeau won first, not the heads. And I say this as a life-long NDP voter, from a whole clan of NDP voters. I think we mostly all voted Liberal this time. Optimism is the way to beat suppression, not grim middling through. Obama proved that first, and Trudeau largely copied his strategy.
posted by bonehead at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


What makes you think that it's the Republicans and not the Democratic congress that would Ned Stark him?

The Republicans can't even manage to not Ned Stark their own people. And they do it often.

Also I'd think you'd usually keep your enemies from participating in your debates. I mean, seriously proposing that Sanders and the Democrats see one another as enemies makes me question everything you've said in this thread.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Really, I want Hillary to work together with Sanders on ideas and policies, but I find the idea of running a $250M campaign without a real chance of winning wasteful to the extreme. Hopefully, we won't really have to do that.

So the way Obama did that was by offering Clinton the State department. She got a stage to show just how good she could be, and the US greatly benefited from that as a country. Win-win.

What cabinet post is Clinton going to offer to Sanders? Will she at all?
posted by bonehead at 8:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


How far we came in a year. Really think Sanders could have won this primary if he didn't have a few key stumbles before he really got himself in gear and if he didn't start out with so little name recognition compared to his opponent. He's the sort of candidate I would love to see run again if age wasn't a potential roadblock, because he is improving as he goes. Personally, I think a longer campaign season is a good thing. Helps you to really get to know people. In our system you are stuck with a President for four years barring something crazy, so you might as well be sure.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016


Painting Sanders as a radical who would upend the entire system works for his supporters, who would like him to do so. It works for Clinton supporters, who would like to claim that he can't carry moderate states and therefore can't win the general, and even if he did, Democrats won't work with him. It works for Republicans, who think that by painting him as a crazy person, he'll be easier to beat. (As if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump are sane.....) And that narrative also works for the media, because from Day One they've done their best to set him up to fail.

The reality is that Clinton and Sanders are pretty closely aligned on most major political issues. Deeper looks at Clinton and Sanders don't show all that much distance between them.

Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare. These serve him well for the moment because his current opponent is a more moderate Democrat. If he were to get into the general, the divide between his positions and a Republican would be more stark. As would Clinton's, or any other Democratic candidate.

Democrats who become President tend to campaign as left-wingers. Then when they get into office, they become more conservative. At best, they become moderates. Look at Obama's record. For Democrats, that's what governing is. Contemporary Republicans don't govern the same way.

What candidates promise to do when elected and what they actually accomplish once they're in office are two different animals. But it seems silly to assume Sanders would be unable to work with his own party.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


saul wright: Donald J. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats — at least $1.2 million — than on voter data and outreach.

Jpfed: So he literally blew it all on hats?

Well, he really doesn't want another Scotland incident.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016


barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep.


Wow would that be a depressing waste of either of them.
posted by phearlez at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Robin: I like Bernie but he can't wi...
Batman: *slap* Vote for him and he will win!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare.

And Health care, banking, and criminal justice reform.

That sounds like profound differences on the key features of the United States goverment: its taxation, its regulation of finance, its warmaking, its welfare apparatus and its justice system. Are there even any really important issues besides those? If Clinton and Sanders differ on these issues as much as they do, then they are starkly different, not basically the same.
posted by dis_integration at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Corey Booker as VP would mean an NY/NJ Democrat ticket. Seems doubtful.
posted by mediareport at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here." Seriously, that's my biggest complaint of the Obama administration. He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent. He could have used the people to do so much more than just come up with a decision on whether or not to get a dog.

In the month and a half between Obama's election and inauguration, I went to, by my memory, at least three (there may have been a fourth, but I remember three) separate meetings arranged by the still-moving Obama campaign. There was a really strong grassroots feeling for a strong economic recovery plan (i.e. a jobs program) and single payer healthcare. I particularly remember one of the meetings getting basically shut down from the top by the organizers, who were totally appalled. There was an attempt to line people up behind Obama's rather lackluster stimulus package, but it became clear that the single payer thing just wasn't going to be supported by the top, and that the rank and file wanted it badly.

You really can't have an effective organization that works like this. What it meant was that when the Tea Party really went nuts and took over the political conversation, the same people couldn't be mobilized, because Obama had taken Single Payer out of the conversation. He couldn't let it back in, and instead we got the debacle of the Obamacare debate. This taught me a lesson in using the Democratic Party to organize mass action, namely that you can't do it. The political commitments of the candidates pretty much make it impossible for them to do anything but tack well right of their base.

Sanders, despite his pretensions, would actually find himself in a similar bind if elected, namely that he would either have to surrender his agenda to the right wing of the Democrats in order to get key votes to accomplish anything, and couldn't keep his forces mobilized long term. This is by design in American politics.
posted by graymouser at 8:42 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


This piece at The Baffler about the erasure of the left feminist critique of Hillary (and the erasure of left feminist women from the "Berniebros" discussion in general), linked early in this thread, is probably worth linking again.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on February 2 [6 favorites +] [!]

I also want to link this again, it's a great read.
posted by werkzeuger at 10:08 AM on February 2 [1 favorite +] [!]


The article titled "My Kind of Misogyny: I Don’t Care If They Call a Warhawk 'Cankles' "? Wow, I can't imagine why some women might feel uncomfortable about that. Amber A'Lee makes many good points, but I disagree firmly with the whole framing conceit that we don't need to care about sexist attacks as long as they're used against problematic people. I don't think it's an extreme demand to say categorically that any misogynistic language is not acceptable, no matter who it's used against: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Megyn Kelly, anyone. Conceding that it's not a big deal if people call Hillary "cankles", because she's bad for poor women, is not doing any women any favors. It's feeding a wildfire that burns ALL us women. If people want to earn my vote, they'll agree with that, period, instead of explaining why I shouldn't care. It's not asking a lot.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [28 favorites]


It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom? Why isn't America great now?

Well, we all know what the Republicans mean when they say those things, even if they strenuously deny it. It's the reason why guys like Trump or Cruz are winning.


Jill Sobule knows exactly what they mean when they say they want their America back.
posted by phearlez at 8:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here."

Realistically Obama was super inexperienced and had no idea what he was doing. Imagine that dog in the chemistry lab meme, but with real nuclear missiles and the entire wold economy depending on you. Being President is about more than making decisions. You also have to know everyone else who makes decisions and anticipate them. The guy is awesome today (I think), after leveling up for the last 8 years. He showed amazing potential that has indeed paid off.

Also his coalition (aka us) failed him. In 2010 we just didn't show up to vote, and the Republicans destroyed him. He also never promised to be a true leftist. His most basic promise was to run the government with some compassion and do things that make sense. Which compared to the Bush years seemed like Jesus but was actually just... pretty boring. So don't be that surprised by what we got.

This taught me a lesson in using the Democratic Party to organize mass action, namely that you can't do it.

That's half true. I mean, we did get something. The ACA, the stimulus, and financial reform are not "nothing". True, they were all problematic in one way or another and if I was emperor I wouldn't have enacted any of them in the same way.

But we are all equal citizen living in a democracy. And in democracy the fight to enact reform never ends. You fight you whole life and inch by inch you build coalitions to inhabit the structures of power to enact laws to incrementally work towards utopia. But there will never be a "magic moment" when anyone gets everything they want and they other people get nothing they want. You go to the table, you trade and compromise. Whoever has the upper hand gets a little bit more than the one who comes to the table in weaker position. And then everyone goes back to build their position again.

We all want a Democratic majority, rather than a bigoted homophobic candidate from the billionaire party, right?

I don't believe that getting a Democratic majority requires us to be less demanding. Quite the opposite actually. There is a built in demographic advantage for the Democrats, and its huge. The problem is that old white people are significantly more likely to vote (and the difference isn't even sort of close) than young people or minorities. So what we need is a message that resonates with this built in demographic advantage and encourages them to show up to the polls to vote in numbers far in excess of what they usually do. If instead the Democrats offer a candidate and platform of "more of the same" I would be more worried about electing the bigoted homophobe. "More of the same" is why a majority of the country is voting for various anti-establishment candidates. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats should use that energy instead of fighting it.

I am not saying they HAVE TO nominate Sanders. But they should do something to generate the same kind of energy he is.
posted by Glibpaxman at 8:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


Most people who work in Democratic politics really do want to accomplish some meaningful changes. They just know it's not easy to do, and you have to play stupid games in order to do it.

I know someone who has worked for the Clintons since Bill's first term, and has been in elite Democratic politics in DC his entire career. The "Clintons," by which I mean the "new Democrats", etc. are people who were young republicans in high school but couldn't stomach Nixon's "Southern" strategy and the turn of the Republican party away from, say, the Rockefellers and towards social reactionaries, racists, and scum o' the earth.

Their political project is to make the Democratic party safe for big business and the banks and they have been wildly successful. That's the "meaningful change" they want to accomplish. And, a Republican party of Cruz or Trump: the religious right or the lumpen brownshirts, would cement the Democratic Party as the new party of money in the US.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Bernie can overcome his early optics with minority voters with a carefully chosen running mate, but I can't see Hillary doing the same to turn out the youth/hard-left vote in November.

Unless you mean "under 50" by "youth," the youth vote will probably be as nonexistent as it always is no matter who the nominees are. There aren't enough youth or hard-left voters to affect an election that's not already as close as 2000.

If Cruz or Rubio gets the nod, identity politics are going to bite the Dems in a bad way, especially with religious conservative Latinos

Rubio, maybe but probably not. When push comes to shove the latino electorate is still something like two-thirds or three-quarters Mexican-American, and Rubio is still a lily-white cubano. Cruz is a lily-white cubano who by all accounts speaks Spanish for shit, so it's hard to imagine latinos for whom being latino is important flocking to him.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


http://ilikeberniebut.com/

This site is sort of ridiculous on some topics while being right on others.

While Bernie's main focus is on domestic issues, he has shown remarkable foresight when it comes to foreign policy decisions. He was a member of a small minority voting against the War in Iraq in 2003, arguing in an impassioned speech that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in "disaster". He was right.

That's the foreign policy talking point? 2003? Plus the whole tone of the site is so condescending.
I feel like a lot of Bernie supporters bear out the saying, "You're right, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it."
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


And Health care, banking, and criminal justice reform.

That sounds like profound differences on the key features of the United States goverment: its taxation, its regulation of finance, its warmaking, its welfare apparatus and its justice system. Are there even any really important issues besides those? If Clinton and Sanders differ on these issues as much as they do, then they are starkly different, not basically the same.


When compared to the Republican platform, yes, there are quite a few difference between Clinton and Sanders vs. the GOP. Immigration. The makeup of the future Supreme Court, whether current laws that affect the rights of millions of Americans will be revoked, including ACA health care (which the Republicans have tried to eliminate entirely, the right for all consenting adults to marry regardless of sexual orientation, and a number of women's rights including abortion. Not to mention huge differences between the Republicans and Democrats on separation of Church and state. Energy dependence. Foreign trade. Goverment regulation and oversight of businesses, banks and other finance industry entities. Gun control. Climate change. Water and air protection/quality. Unemployment benefits. Medicare. Social Security. With all of these, their positions are very similar compared to any Republican candidate.

The differences Sanders is espousing on taxes and health care (compared to Hillary's positions) will be constrained by what he can push through Congress. His ability to oppose or wage war will be constrained by realpolitik, public opinion and yes, Congress. His power to "break up the banks" is going to be limited by Congress as well. He wouldn't be able to simply sign executive orders without limit.
posted by zarq at 9:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare.

A Sanders primary victory would mean a profound difference in *who* makes decisions in the Democratic Party, regardless of policy. Which is why it won't happen. People who have worked their whole lives to make the Dems what they are today are not going to roll over for some whack-o hippie from Vermont just because of an election or two.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


While Bernie's main focus is on domestic issues, he has shown remarkable foresight when it comes to foreign policy decisions. He was a member of a small minority voting against the War in Iraq in 2003, arguing in an impassioned speech that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in "disaster". He was right.

That's the foreign policy talking point? 2003?


If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'm not saying they HAVE TO nominate Sanders. But they should do something to generate the same kind of energy he is.


I think this is spot on. I would be happy with Sanders or Clinton at the end of the day, but you can't deny that Bernie's supporters really bring an elevated energy to the arena. That is so important. Clinton just seems like establishment politics, which is hardly something to get excited about. But I'm open to her proving me wrong. I donate to Bernie, but mostly just to keep the race fair.
posted by pwally at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.

We should be looking forward not backwards, blah, blah, blah twirling towards freedom.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've gotten emails from Obama since his campaign on. He frequently has called upon citizens to help with his initiatives. This is just plain false.

Revisionist history.

You can go back and see for yourself if you care to scroll back through his twitter stream. Some of this was actually mandated by rules on how the President can communicate:

Did you know that when this president took office, it was illegal for the President to end a tweet with a question mark without a six month approval process from the economists across the street at the “Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.” cite

But a lot of it was him just abandoning the platforms that put him in office.

Sanders levying the same criticism.

Even Obama himself says he failed to utilize his followers effectively after he got into office. Of course that's impossible to find a cite for, since all I get are right wing blogs.

Wikipedia on his use of social media states he did a reddit AMA while campaigning. Did he do one as President?

Some of the platforms literally went into read only, so if you were a forum participant or had a profile on barackobama.com once he was in office your voice was no more. I would be surprised if his YouTube or Facebook page was much different. His podcast went dark, so literally radio silence.

I could go on, but you're forgetting a lot. Even the emails pretty much dried up. I honestly don't remember unsubscribing, but I haven't gotten one in years.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've been watching Hillary for 25 years now. I was in Little Rock on November 3, 1992, when Bill gave his victory speech. Hillary blows with the wind. She is a master of political calculation. Time and again, she and Bill have taken support from the left wing for granted, and tacked to the right. She made the political calculation that the left can be ignored. But as of last night, the wind is blowing from the left. This is a good outcome.
posted by vibrotronica at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]



If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.


Yes, I understand destabilization in the region and what caused it. But making the big talking point on foreign policy 2003 is not a great idea. Clinton has done a lot more.
posted by sweetkid at 9:12 AM on February 2, 2016


Clinton has done a lot more.

Like lobbying hard for "intervening" in Libya? Nothing she has done since then has indicated she is anything but a hawk with respect to escalating intervention in the Middle East.
posted by dialetheia at 9:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


But making the big talking point on foreign policy 2003 is not a great idea. Clinton has done a lot more.

Honestly kind of reminds me of the Bush family line on W. "He always kept us safe. If you don't count that one little thing that happened first."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Something just occurred to me. Has a Latino ever won a state Presidential primary? I can't think of any. Is Cruz the first to do so?
posted by zarq at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


saul wright: Donald J. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats — at least $1.2 million — than on voter data and outreach.

Hey, Trump hats are the finest, most luxurious, best hats around. They're hyuuuge.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Realistically Obama was super inexperienced and had no idea what he was doing.

If I can play DC-area knows-machine-insiders here, this is not a trivial thing. The most significant story I heard (and all these tales came from lefty friends who'd voted for him and would do so again in 2012, even if they thought his administration was disorganized) was one from early on, where a friend of mine took a call from a WH staffer who was peeved at the budget estimate they had been sent for closing Guantanamo. The quote was "why does it cost anything to just turn off the lights?" They were marginally mollified by "well, do you intend to just leave all the prisoners and workers there?" but still fought the process of organizing and paying for operations.

It's somewhat surprising given that we all assumed he was going to pull in a lot of the old Clinton machine and from some perspectives it seems like he did. But somehow it took them a long time to get the hang of governing beyond the passing of legislation. Which some might argue they didn't do well at either.

That's not enough reason for me not to support Sanders and his pushing lefty issues (though I'll vote for any non-R in the general) but I am a lot less sanguine about how much it matters to know how to run an executive office than I was before 2009.
posted by phearlez at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Something just occurred to me. Has a Latino ever won a state Presidential primary? I can't think of any. Is Cruz the first to do so?

Ditto, but Canadian by birth?
posted by Wordshore at 9:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


What the media never really talks about is that the activist base of the Republican party, the guys who set up the catering and tell you where the bathroom is at the speech venue, is dominated by racists and religious extremists, particularly the latter. The people who make Republican elections work at the local level are the scum 'o the earth that Nixon courted and married the party to with his "Southern" strategy. The reason why the Republican party hates Cruz isn't because he's an asshole or weird, but because he's a true believer. A Cruz primary victory would be a coup for the religious right, which has acted as a servant to the traditional "money" side of the party for too long. Bush wasn't destroyed in Iowa just because he sucks, but because the religious right revolted against the party elite decision to anoint Bush as "the one." This is why they pray for Rubio, but would rather have a Trump than have the top and bottom of the Republican Party controlled by mouth-breathing Jesus freaks.

Politics is ultimately about *who* rather than *what*. Candidates are just individuals and policies are just words: it's the people they bring into power with an election victory that are important.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder when the era of 'buy one, get one free' ended.

TED KOPPEL (VO): Meet the new political wife. She has a career, she has opinions. A partner in every way.

GOV BILL CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And my slogan might well be, "Buy one, get one free".


I have felt for a long time that the Clinton era pushed the Democratic party rightward. And the past year has felt like the New Deal Democrats taking back a party occupied by Wall Street. I don't think this Clinton-Sanders competition would have elements of acrimony if it weren't for FPTP plus a marginalization of the left for decades.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


He's actually Canatino, technically.
posted by bonehead at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2016


[Folks, I know we're variously in the throes of one of the weird cathartic moments of this already long-lived election cycle but please try to keep it a little bit cool in here.]
posted by cortex at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have to admit to loving the Canadian anchor baby line though. He kind of was, in a way.
posted by bonehead at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2016


cjorgensen, don't tell me I'm forgetting things. We disagree on Obama's outreach, but you don't need to make it personal. I didn't forget anything and I am offended that my experence is categorized by you as revisionist history.
posted by agregoli at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ditto, but Canadian by birth?

Yeah. But still, if he is the first that's pretty damned ground-breaking. I haven't seen any mainstream media outlets report it -- which may mean I'm wrong.

I was thinking Ben Fernandez might have won a primary, but no.
posted by zarq at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2016


That article about both parties and the white middle class really speaks to a lot of the Sanders/Trump support that has been puzzling - the percentage of Sanders voters who say they would vote for Trump in the general if Sanders got knocked out and vice versa, which is otherwise incomprehensible.
posted by corb at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2016


The really interesting thing will be what happens if Cruz wins another primary. There are many Constitutional scholars who believe he is not eligible for the presidency.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


corb, that's what I was trying to say upthread. The assumption that Sanders voters will become Clinton voters is not correct.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yep. I googled "cruz first latino primary" and spotted two tweets acknowledging his achievement. One from Jake Tapper of CNN and the other from Charlie Kirk of Turning Point.
posted by zarq at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am just shocked, honestly shocked, at what a poor candidate for President Hillary Clinton really seems to be. I thought maybe she was just caught off guard in 2008 but no, she's about as bad this time around. Her campaign has been all over the place: attacking Sanders while sidling up to his policy positions, throwing shade on perennial liberal dream policies, arguing that No We Can't! is the rallying cry we really need on the left. In the debates she's constantly going on and on about our enemies the Republicans, but then she turns around and says she'll be able to work with them best? Even as she remains one of the most hated figures in all conservative history? Her message to Democrats is "dream small, it's pointless"?

She doesn't even make a full-throated argument for liberal values and policies the way that Sanders does; instead, she makes an argument for herself, how she's the best, how no one but her is experienced enough, yadda yadda yadda. The closest she comes is rattling off a list of constituencies she thinks should be hers. If you contrast the number of times she says "I" with the number of times Sanders says "we" in their respective speeches, it's pretty staggering. It's the opposite of inspiring to me. I don't understand how anyone could think that she would be any better at building the political movement we need to get any of these policies through Congress. Where's her political revolution? If her big message is that policies supported by the broad majority of American people have no hope of being enacted, she should have an answer for fixing that system beyond "just keep taking corporate money and hope it gets better."

Hillary Clinton has a huge enthusiasm problem. She has a huge youth problem, both among men and women. 84% of people under 29 voted for Sanders last night. Everyone has done their best to construe Sanders' support and enthusiasm as a liability - the media's "Bernie Bro" focus is part of that - but getting 20,000 people out to rallies in multiple states before the first primary vote has even been cast is no small feat, especially for a barely-known 74 year old socialist. Nor is raising tons of money from 3 million small donations (a record by far). In the same sense that everyone is asking Sanders how he intends to address his shortfalls in PoC votes, I would love to see Clinton pressed on how she is going to win votes from Sanders' coalition.

Why are so many Democrats trying to squash this wave of enthusiasm for liberal policies? "Sorry kids, better give up on ever getting secure access to health care unless you're middle class!" is not the rallying cry I expected from Democrats this year. There are still 29 million people without insurance and many more drowning in medical debt and bankruptcy - those people can't wait, either.
posted by dialetheia at 9:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [74 favorites]


DINOs gonna DINO.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2016


Her slogan is basically "No, we can't" - that's the basis of both her appeal and her lack of appeal.
posted by Artw at 9:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Corey Booker as VP would mean an NY/NJ Democrat ticket. Seems doubtful.

Or VT/NJ - but he's urban New Jersey, with a lot of urban politicians in his network from his time as Mayor. Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote for a ticket featuring a centrist black VP with experience running a large city, ditto VA and FL.

Obama did just swell with a senator from MD - Biden was the establishment brawler Obama needed as the slick outsider. Personality, experience and positions on policy matter as much as zipcode, if you have the right candidates.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Joe Biden is from Delaware.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Biden's from DE.
posted by ob at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Joe Biden is from Delaware.

MD upside down doesn't actually look like DW, which is OK as DW totally doesn't stand for Delaware, which is DE. Study it out and unskew your polls! Cough.

(gimme a minute to use the change window, next time! Geeeeeze...)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Biden would be an excellent VP pick for Hillary too.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anything that keeps Diamond Joe and his Trans-Am around for another 4-8 years is okay with me.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


She could pick Obama as VP to really get the other side going.
posted by localhuman at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2016


She could pick Obama as VP to really get the other side going.

I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2016


Obama is ineligible, VP has to meet the qualifications to be President. The Supreme Court nomination idea is very interesting though.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.

Yes indeed. Can't be done, but it's fun to imagine the apoplectic fits the right wing would have.
posted by Fleebnork at 9:52 AM on February 2, 2016


cjorgensen: "Some of the platforms literally went into read only, so if you were a forum participant or had a profile on barackobama.com once he was in office your voice was no more."

That's likely a consequence of the fact that elected officials need to keep their campaign platforms very separate from the tools that they use to carry out their office. It only very recently became OK for congresspeople to use the same cellphone for work and campaigning.
posted by schmod at 9:55 AM on February 2, 2016


He can't be elected to VP. But what if the acting VP were to resign—could Obama be appointed to the office?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:57 AM on February 2, 2016


Could Obama be vice president? I think the answer is clearly yes. You can not be elected more than twice to be president (or more than once plus two years). If he is not being elected president, then he can still serve as president should the case arise.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2016


The article titled "My Kind of Misogyny: I Don’t Care If They Call a Warhawk 'Cankles' "? Wow, I can't imagine why some women might feel uncomfortable about that.

Yes, that title is very unfortunate, which is probably why it was first linked in this thread with the caveat that it was the "more acerbic" version of "Rejecting Bourgeois Feminism," a sharp anti-Hillary piece by Roqayah Chamseddine from a couple of weeks ago:

Their works in defense of Clinton hinge on emotion and a prospective future that has no basis in reality, especially when one examines her history as Secretary of State. Their arguments are bolstered by superficial social justice performances and liberal neologisms, wherein policy is simply an aside rather than the very heart of the matter. When faced with policy issues their critics are often told that Clinton is “problematic”, that she “has some issues”, or something similar. They refuse to engage with material concerns, reject internationalism almost outright, and rummage through a laundry list of accusations against “Berniebros” even when vocal detractors are women. Setting up the Berniebro straw-man has become their knee-jerk response to any critique, no matter how tempered and thorough—if they can’t formulate any kind of refutation they fall back on a ritual: ignore critics and tweet something against “bros” to thousands of followers who will laugh and throw forward some support...

Clinton’s acceptance of campaign donations from private prison lobbyists, one of which “is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit”, is rarely discussed as being harmful to women. According to a report by The Sentencing Project (2013), “the rate of increase of women continued to outpace that of men, as it has for several decades. From 2000 to 2009 the number of women incarcerated in state or federal prisons rose by 21.6%, compared to a 15.6% increase for men.” The rate of growth of women in prison has climbed 646% from 1980 to 2010, compared to a 419% increase for men, and in 2010 there were 112,000 women in state and federal prison and 205,000 women overall in prison or jail.

The prison-industrial complex has grown exceedingly powerful thanks to the Clinton dynasty, and the alarming reception prison lobbyists received from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the silence of certain high-platform feminists in response, underlines the type of women they find worthy of their brand of feminism.


There's much more, from other left feminist women as well, and the consistent theme is the refusal of mainstream feminist Hillary supporters to honor the voices of women who have legitimate concerns about Hillary's record, instead seeming to solely prefer engaging with the issue of sexist criticisms of their candidate. I'm glad we can talk about this calmly here; regardless of the unfortunate framing of Amber Frost's Baffler piece, both she and Chamseddine raise good points, as you note.
posted by mediareport at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


She could pick Obama as VP to really get the other side going.

I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.


If it's good enough for Putin...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


But making the big talking point on foreign policy 2003 is not a great idea. Clinton has done a lot more.

Honestly kind of reminds me of the Bush family line on W. "He always kept us safe. If you don't count that one little thing that happened first."


Yes, she has been mostly hawkish, but she was also Secretary of State and had an actual foreign policy role. I like Sanders' take on the Middle East much better, but I don't like how some volunteers phrased it on a site called "I like Bernie but" which I find really offputting.

That doesn't make me the same as a Bush supporter, but it sure feels like it in this thread. Not 100% Bernie - you're dumb, super Pro Clinton, or a conservative. Probably all three.
posted by sweetkid at 10:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Sorry kids, better give up on ever getting secure access to health care unless you're middle class!"

Sanders is attracting the youth vote, but even with all the enthusiasm generated the turnout for the Democratic Caucus was down from 2008, youth vote as a percentage of the Democratic Caucus turnout is also down from 2008. I think whoever is chosen to run on the Dem side this year is going to have a tougher time, because their party is the one in power.

I'm actually a little disappointed that immigration reform has fallen off the radar again and the focus is on health care again (which, yes, is also important). There are still 11 million folks out there without documentation, and there has been no real attempt at reform since 2007, and it's starting to look like 2007 was the best chance we had.
posted by FJT at 10:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


You know, I know it's partially an issue just because of Clinton now, but one thing that's being raised was also raised ten years ago and I think it's still valid. At what point can we decree that if a member of your immediate family was President, you are ineligible? Bush gave rise to W, gave rise to Jeb running for the Presidency. Clinton gave rise to Hillary running, with think pieces popping about Chelsea's future ambitions. I mean, wasn't one of the points of the presidency being to avoid fucking dynasties?
posted by corb at 10:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


Definitely hate the trend.

Lessig for VP!!
posted by Trochanter at 10:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I also am not a huge fan of dynasties but I think it's up to the American people to decide if they want a spouse/sibling/child of a former president to be elected or not.

I don't see why Hillary or Jeb! (or RFK, or John Quincy Adams) should be legally barred from the office just because of who they're related to.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the founders wanted to explicitly ban any sort of family connection, they would have done so. Bush 43 was unqualified, but that had nothing to do with the fact that his dad was President first. Likewise, Hillary's qualifications or lack thereof have nothing to do with anything her husband did.

Blame the voters if you don't like it, not the candidates.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton gave rise to Hillary running

No, Hillary gave rise to Hillary running. I would maintain, if anything, that Bill's earlier success stopped her from running in the '90s or the early aughts, lest it seem too much like a dynasty. Her interest in politics preceded her relationship with Clinton.

Whereas I don't think there would have been a W. without a Bush beforehand.
posted by cjelli at 10:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Blame the voters if you don't like it, not the candidates.

Or, blame the dynastic money. Blame campaign finance laws.

(Old leftie yells at cloud)
posted by Trochanter at 10:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


The only way to be fair is to require all families with presidential ambition to give up their newborns. It'll be like how the jedis do it.
posted by FJT at 10:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


FJT, that's a valiant attempt at a mega-thread pair crossover. Don't cross the streams!
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Good morning, NetaFilter. I had surgery about an hour ago and the first thing I asked when I woke up was if they had a declared a winner in Iowa and said Feel the burn, winning me the best question asked after surgery award. No prize but I got some Saltines. That is all.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


Iowa Caucuses 2016 results

Clinton, Hillary 701
Sanders, Bernie 697

If you were to take the 6 coin toss delegates, and split them in a more statistically probable manner, and instead of giving them all to Clinton, split them 50/50, the score would be:

Clinton, Hillary 698
Sanders, Bernie 700

The rules are the rules, and I am sure that's the way the flips landed, but it's is why Sanders is wanting the total votes released. There's a good chance he'll have taken the popular vote. I honestly don't see how Hillary can color this as anything more than a technical win.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


An Elegy for Martin O’Malley

'The former Maryland governor’s love of Irish poetry provides a fitting send off to his candidacy.'
posted by readery at 10:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I honestly don't see how Hillary can color this as anything more than a technical win.

Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


How Both Parties Lost the White Middle Class

"The populism we're seeing stems entirely from the collision of whites who flourish in the global economy — and amid the cultural changes of the last 50 years — with those who don't." /rings true! (but keep in mind it's by the editor of _first things_ ;)

also btw...
  • Why the Outer Party hates Trump & will waste this opportunity for reform - "Summary: The reaction of our upper classes to the rise of Trump reveals much about 21st century America — a society divided by class, with blinkered elites, and an opportunity to unify and make reforms (which we'll almost certainly squander). 2016 will be a big year for America, a bad one if we do not try to understand what is happening."
  • Jobs Are Under Attack, But Not by Robots - "The problem created by the computer age isn't mass unemployment but the gradual disappearance of good, steady, mid-level jobs that have been lost to robots and algorithms and also to globalization and outsourcing... Slower productivity growth and low-wage jobs are leading to the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Those are the real headwinds that America faces."
  • Is 'Secular Stagnation' a Monetary-Financial Problem or a Fundamental-Technological Problem? The Long View - "Range of adaptation refers to how comprehensively economic activity must be reorganized before positive impacts on output and productivity occur. Eichengreen reasons that the greater the required range of adaptation, the higher the likelihood that growth may slow in the short run, as costly investments in adaptation must be made and existing technology must be disrupted."
  • Economic Problems in the Age of Abundance - "As labor becomes a less important part of the economy, and working-age men, in particular, become a smaller proportion of the workforce, problems related to social inclusion are bound to become both more chronic and more acute."
  • Are Economists in Denial About What's Driving the Inequality Trainwreck? "What's really causing the growing gap between haves and have-nots? Is it mechanical market forces? Outsourcing? Real estate? ... Worker exploitation and outsized business profits are factors, but even more key are the unjustified payments to the wealthy generated by our outsized financial sector. This hasn't just 'happened'. Flawed economic theory and politicians beholden to the rich lead to policies that make it happen."
  • Will Hillary Clinton rein in Wall Street? (spoiler: no) - "I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street."
  • Robert Reich: Who Lost the White Working Class? - "They've done nothing to change the vicious cycle of wealth and power that has rigged the economy for the benefit of those at the top, and undermined the working class. In some respects, Democrats have been complicit."
  • Conservatives, wake up: The tax code is not your biggest problem - "Men of prime working age — too old to be in school and too young to be retired — are in flight from the labor force. The average labor force participation rate of prime-aged men in 1980 was 94.3 percent. The rate last month? Just 88 percent. Only 83 prime-aged men out of every 100 have a job today... Public policy can help."
  • What Bernie Sanders Has Already Won - "With uncomplicated language and simple sincerity, Sanders has rallied millions of Democrats under the banner of 'democratic socialism'—a kind of neo–New Deal liberalism, set against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's attempted synthesis of Great Society policies and Third Way politics—and moved 'socialist' from the realm of epithet to legitimate label."
posted by kliuless at 10:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]


"Her slogan is basically "No, we can't""

No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".
posted by markkraft at 10:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Which is what?
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Let's do what is possible

One shifts left to right...
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:36 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Which is what?

1. Nominate Supreme Court Justices
2. Negotiate deals to not close the government down or default on the national debt.
3. Decide where to bomb.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Does anyone understand how, given the results, Clinton ended up with 23 delegates and Sanders 21? That lead of two delegates is hard to grasp.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016




4. Keep dismantling the middle class.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


1. SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST
2. PROTECT THE INNOCENT
3. UPHOLD THE LAW
4. [CLASSIFIED]

posted by FJT at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Clinton loudly claiming Iowa as a "win" would simply confirm how out little she cares about being straight with the people in this election, and how very much she is counting on voters who don't pay attention to carry her over the top. It (in my opinion) would wholly undermines her posture as a moderate, stay-the-course candidate; you can't trust an opportunist to stay on any particular course, whether the one we're on, or any other.

The one thing I'm certain of is that she won't become President courtesy of super-delegates if Sanders has more elected delegates. Either he, or another strong progressive, will run as an independent in that case and split the vote. Far more likely, she will, in a repeat of 2008, be forced to relinquish her super-delegates or see them stripped from her by defections or rules changes.
posted by MattD at 10:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."

Difference here is this isn't an election. This is only one contest among many.

I know it's spin to say, A tie is a loss, but a race this close wasn't what Hillary was going to want coming out of Iowa. Sanders can spin it as a win "No one expected…" "I took the popular vote…" "Just two months ago…" etc. Hillary will lose bad in NH. Not an auspicious beginning. Personally, I don't think it will change the final outcome, but she sure didn't shut Sanders down.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's more like "let's do what is possible".
Or, "let's do what is possible, without changing how campaign finance or lobbying works."

vs. "what is possible is bounded only by the breadth of public participation" (i.e. a political revolution)

Nothing progressive is possible in the current political climate. Absent fundamental change to the political system, the best Clinton can do is prevent the GOP from pushing us closer to Gilead. I'll absolutely vote for that, if it's my only option. But it's a vote of despair, a vote of resignation, a vote under duress.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."

They came out with the numbers years ago. Al Gore /did/ have a technical win. For all the good it did him.
posted by corb at 10:45 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".

Despair the dreamers. Think small. No, smaller.
posted by bonehead at 10:46 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".

aka the status quo which always benefits those with privilege and power at the expense of the vulnerable. Same as it's always been.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Never mind election strategy, "Let's do what is possible" is not the way to move the Overton window to actually accomplish anything either, btw. You miss 100% of the opportunities you don't create.

Has the Clinton camp really learned nothing from 30+ years of conservative political successes?
posted by bonehead at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Difference here is this isn't an election...I know it's spin to say, A tie is a loss, but a race this close wasn't what Hillary was going to want coming out of Iowa.

It's also spin -- and technically false -- to say that this was a tie. It was close, yes, but the current count shows Hillary as having won more delegates (23 to 21). A technical win is a win, not a tie; a close race isn't a tied race.

Whether a close win in Iowa will be predictive of future voting; whether this showing is problematic for Hillary; whether she wanted to win by a larger margin -- those are totally separate questions from 'did Hillary win in Iowa?'
posted by cjelli at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why are so many Democrats trying to squash this wave of enthusiasm for liberal policies?

Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


"[...] Sanders has rallied millions of Democrats under the banner of 'democratic socialism'[...]"

I have to wonder, given the relatively muted disdain for Sanders on American right-winger sites like Free Republic, compared for their outright hatred for Obama, the Clintons, etc., if it's because they regard him at least an honest enemy. In their worldview, he makes no pretensions about being anything other than a socialist. Maybe this is the true shift we're seeing with this election- regardless if Sanders gets nominated, much less elected, he can make socialism no longer a dirty word in America.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


‏Tweet: @StevenTDennis
Coin flips to join hanging chads in annals of how Americans select presidents.

posted by nickyskye at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.

Yes, by all means, then let's elect youthful tokens, which is why we should vote for Rubio this year and Governor Haley in 2020.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm seeing conservatives on Facebook mourning the idea that "kids today" don't remember what it was like to be afraid of the Soviets maybe coming here to kill us in the streets and they are voting for Sanders because they never learned about Communism in schools.

I'm the same age as some of these people (30s) and don't remember worrying about the Cold War or soviets. By the time I had even a baby political consciousness the wall was down.
posted by sweetkid at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016


Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.

1)This seems similar to what they tell me the BernieBros do.

2)I think this election is a free play for the dems. You want to talk unelectable?

You're running against Cruz or Trump, and you STILL want to play defense?
posted by Trochanter at 11:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I have to wonder, given the relatively muted disdain for Sanders on American right-winger sites like Free Republic, compared for their outright hatred for Obama, the Clintons, etc., if it's because they regard him at least an honest enemy. In their worldview, he makes no pretensions about being anything other than a socialist.

Some of it's that - he says everything he's for, so you don't have to worry about hidden agendas. Some of it is also that he hails from a rural state, so they feel if he did get elected, he'd be at least somewhat sympathetic to their concerns. Some of it is that he has a pretty good record on guns, so people aren't afraid of him coming for them. Some of it is that they don't think he can get it done because his ideas are so far out there.

One thing I note while looking at Sander's site to doublecheck something on a policy - both him and Clinton are promising, "I won't wait for Congress to act. I will use executive orders." I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


That said, it is kinda sad-funny that the sheer novelty of a Trump v. Sanders v. Bloomberg election died last night.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016


The most scared I was in HS was the day some half-senile old white guy forgot a mic was on and made an ill-considered joke about starting a nuclear war.

It wasn't just, or even mostly the Soviets that we were frightened by during the cold war.
posted by bonehead at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Either he, or another strong progressive, will run as an independent in that case and split the vote

This seems like the least likely thing that Sanders would do at this point - He's vowed not to, and I see him being true to his word on that.... I don't think this is the point where he would suddenly break a vow of that magnitude.

I also don't think there's anyone else that could pick up that momentum out of nowhere.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Story is still changing on the ground with the Democrats pretending they are the Iowa GOP in from 2008:

Missing precinct scrambles to report Sanders won (headline refers to just that precinct)
posted by cjorgensen at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016


I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.

I get the sentiment, but if you actually look back at EOs throughout history, I don't think there's any way we can call this new - What's new is the whole mythos of Obama as some sort of dictator beyond historical precedent through EOs.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


I think this election is a free play for the dems. You want to talk unelectable?

I honestly don't see it as free play. The Democrats are in the White House right now, and the whole "throw the old guard out" is always a factor. I know of at least one Bernie supporter that hates Obama, so I'm kind of wondering if seeing Obama, Sanders, and Clinton (!) on the stage together will just totally turn people off on Democrats in general.
posted by FJT at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016


I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.

Yes, clearly it has grown with every administration of late.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


I am an independent, not a Democrat or Republican, so I am not interested in the ongoing willingness of Democrats to tear into their own candidates.

Here's what I like about Hillary, although I do not trust her the way I have always trusted Barack Obama. She is very, very smart. She has a long, solid track record of effective advocacy for women, children and families, and she's actually passed major legislation on these topics with bipartisan support. She knows how to work across the aisle. She draws deep loyalty in the Democratic party, which is the best hope of seeing party discipline translate into social change. She is respected overseas and deeply knowledgeable. She is a woman who has broken down barriers all her life. She is no elitist: she has always understood that this country is about regular people, not corporations and the elite. She is absolutely steely and fearless.

I.e., we finally have the chance to vote for a strong, capable woman president with longstanding political convictions that are indeed progressive, and a proven ability to get things done and work across the aisle, as well as strong, rooted party support.

Anyway, that's why I'm on board for Hillary this time, speaking as someone who strongly supported Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
posted by bearwife at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think this election is a free play for the dems.

Pretty sure that people were this confident about the same thing in 2004 (and the opposite way in 2012). Don't ever bet on a Presidential election being a free play, especially when there's no incumbent. There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed. One out of seven.
posted by Etrigan at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yes, by all means, then let's elect youthful tokens, which is why we should vote for Rubio this year and Governor Haley in 2020.

I'm answering a question, not giving prescriptive advice about who the Dems should nominate. I'm not enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders' candidacy because in my subjective opinion, I think he'll have a hell of a time winning the general.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed.

And that was the Republicans.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


markkraft: No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".

I found the news that she was giving up on single payer health care and painting it as "to do that we'd have to trash the whole system and start over because people can't wait for coverage" absolutely infuriating. A total reversal to her position on the need for universal coverage throughout her political career, including during the 2008 Presidential campaign. She attacked Obama over it in 2008! Literally said: "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"

The other problem is, her "waiting for coverage" premise is a lie. It should be perfectly possible to work on creating additions for and changes to the ACA while it still functions. Without stopping everyone's coverage. It's fearmongering to suggest otherwise.

Setting realistic goals is important. One of the primary reasons I'm voting for her is I think she's better positioned to beat a Republican challenger in the general election.

But the Democrats controlled a 60-vote Senate supermajority in the latter half of 2009. They have never treated single payer health care as a viable option. If they had, the ACA might look very different today. And to suggest that we can't afford to even try is bullshit.
posted by zarq at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


I think he'll have a hell of a time winning the general.

Even though all polls show him doing better than Hillary in the general?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I get the sentiment, but if you actually look back at EOs throughout history, I don't think there's any way we can call this new

I mean more - they're openly campaigning on using executive power, which would have been unheard of ten years ago. Presidents have always used them, to various extents, but they've always been somewhat quiet about it. This is more "Fuck yeah, this is awesome!" which is new and weird. Obama may or may not have expanded the actual power, but I think his usage of it made it "okay" socially, at least.
posted by corb at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Truthiness!
posted by entropicamericana at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed.

To divorce the quality of the candidates from that statement is like gambler's logic.

Just to speak to Gore: He was not then what he is now. He was running a "more of the same" campaign. He was Clinton redux. And he was not an exiting candidate. He was boring. He was "Coathanger Gore."

Surely by your logic Clinton is the dangerous candidate. She's the "more of the same" one.
posted by Trochanter at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Even though all polls show him doing better than Hillary in the general?

Most of the Iowa polls, including the one run by the Des Moines paper which was considered the gold standard for public opinion, said Trump would win last night. You can't trust polls.

Sanders is an independent, democratic socialist Jewish guy from the northeast. I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
posted by zarq at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


But the Democrats controlled a 60-vote Senate supermajority in the latter half of 2009.

One of those "Democrats" was Joe Lieberman, so that 'supermajority' has no relevance to single payer.
posted by delfin at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




Conservatives, wake up: The tax code is not your biggest problem - "Men of prime working age — too old to be in school and too young to be retired — are in flight from the labor force. The average labor force participation rate of prime-aged men in 1980 was 94.3 percent. The rate last month? Just 88 percent. Only 83 prime-aged men out of every 100 have a job today... Public policy can help."

There is simply no way the modern Republican party can accept that last line as true. For anything.

Just to speak to Gore: He was not then what he is now. He was running a "more of the same" campaign. He was Clinton redux.

That's really very much not true, at least the way he came across to me as a voter in 2000. My issue with him was the way he kept divorcing himself from Clinton, including keeping Clinton from campaigning for him. What I said at the time was "why am I being asked to pick between a real republican and a fake one?" The end result of that may make the difference clear but for this voter I felt he did not make the case of himself as an actual democrat/progressive at all.

Which, I mean, fair enough - B Clinton wasn't much of a progressive. But I found Gore to be selling himself as a more conservative version of Clinton, not at all 'more of the same.'
posted by phearlez at 11:30 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Has the Clinton camp really learned nothing from 30+ years of conservative political successes?

They reached the heights of political power and earned over $100 million dollars giving speeches to rich people... that's a pretty positive lesson.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.

from a fark comment:

1. Sanders wins D nom.
2. Bloomberg runs because Clinton not nom.
3. Due to chaos candidate mucking things up, R's enter brokered convention, settle on a politically-connected man not currently in Congress w/ decent conservative track record: Eric Cantor.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016


Surely by your logic Clinton is the dangerous candidate.

The only danger I was talking about was your idea that this election is going to go to whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
posted by Etrigan at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016


I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.

I'm more uncomfortable with the fact that both parties have loudly and enthusiastically cheered on the Executive as it has bombed countries across the world (most recently in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan.

Doing policy through executive orders is not as great as doing policy based on legislation. But it's way better than waging war without the consent of our elected representatives (or as seems to be the case, because they're too chicken to bring a war to a vote, so they prefer to tacitly endorse whatever the hell the White House wants to bomb this week).
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.

We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Another question that occurs to me - how much could the email thing actually hurt her? It seems pretty clear that she broke the law on classified material, but if the Justice Department under a Democratic president doesn't want to prosecute her, can she essentially skate?

And bonus question: if she does get arrested or what have you for the email fiasco after she is made the nominee, does the nomination then go to her veep pick or can Sanders jump back in?
posted by corb at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016


Which, I mean, fair enough - B Clinton wasn't much of a progressive. But I found Gore to be selling himself as a more conservative version of Clinton, not at all 'more of the same.'

He moved away from the Clinton image, the sex scandals and stuff. That's why he got a moral crusader like Lieberman for his VP. But politics wise, he was viewed as a more of the same, very boring Democrat. That's my recollection anyway.

I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.

We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.


Eh...it's not that simple.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> It seems pretty clear that she broke the law on classified material

Sorry, but [Citation Needed].
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016


The only danger I was talking about was your idea that this election is going to go to whichever Democrat wins the nomination.


Okay, maybe "theirs to lose" is better.
posted by Trochanter at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016


And bonus question: if she does get arrested or what have you for the email fiasco after she is made the nominee, does the nomination then go to her veep pick or can Sanders jump back in?

Nothing in the Constitution that disqualifies a person under indictment, on trial, or even in prison from being President; and you can't impeach a candidate.
posted by Etrigan at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016


> It seems pretty clear that she broke the law on classified material

Sorry, but [Citation Needed].


Yeah. It's not actually that clear, I think. I find the defenses based on the law to be kind of missing the point, this was scandalous behavior even if legal in my view, but I haven't seen a convincing argument she has broken the law yet. Not a lawyer though so what do I know?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2016


Eh...it's not that simple.

It's not that complicated. We've had a Catholic and a black President.

A Muslim, that would be tough right now.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Corb -- there's really no evidence the e-mail thing has hurt her among Democratic primary or caucus voters, in no small part because Sanders (and this might be changing) has refused to pile on, probably for good reason about not wanting his race to be negative. I think that it makes no difference at all until and unless she's actually indicted.

If Clinton is indicted, Obama will certainly be able to procure nominating process rule changes from the DNC designed to permit Biden, Kerry or someone else (Gore?) to come in and prevent Sanders from being nominated by default. But will he actually choose to do that? Probably driven by Sanders' polling at the time, who the Republican nominee is looking to be, and when this were to occur. And in any event you'd have to give Sanders a good chance on any Process 2.0 even against Biden; the original fighter has a strong appeal over the last-ditch substitute.
posted by MattD at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


how much could the email thing actually hurt her?

I actually think that's a fair question at this point, now that the State Department is also classifying things in a way that could create a lot of problems for her, and not just the CIA. Her defense before was that it was wild CIA overclassification, but now State has classified things the same way, and some of the emails they were going to release are now top-secret. People are already leaking all kinds of stories for what information was in those emails - CIA agents' names, Benghazi stand-down orders, you name it.

It's not a big issue for me personally, but the email scandal is certainly something that needs to be addressed squarely if we're going to have the electability conversation. Just saying "no one should care" won't do it if there are new stories every two weeks about her email server and all we do all season is defend from Republican attacks instead of making a case for liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


The other problem is, her "waiting for coverage" premise is a lie. It should be perfectly possible to work on creating additions for and changes to the ACA while it still functions. Without stopping everyone's coverage. It's fearmongering to suggest otherwise.

Absolutely. HHS has authority to grant waivers to states as long as the state's plan for coverage will cover at least as many people, with benefits at least equivalent to existing coverage levels, as are covered under the current system. This authority has mostly been used to cajole recalcitrant reddish-purple states such as Arkansas into expanding coverage. There's no reason that it can't also be used in blue states to implement more progressive reforms at the state level. (As I noted way above, VT was considering doing so but backed out last year.)

I'm sure there are other tools that the ACA and other legislation have put in the hands of the administrative agencies to move the ball forward.

And of course, pressure can and should be put on Congress to implement some fixes to the law -- for instance, a poorly written section that means that people who are eligible for coverage through their spouse's employer generally can't get tax credits to buy plans on the Exchanges if the coverage for their spouse alone isn't unaffordable. (So if your spouse could get insurance through work for a $50/pay period premium, you probably have to go with their coverage even if it costs $500/pay period to get added on -- or go pay full price on the exchange.) That is the kind of thing that hopefully the next President can work with Speaker Ryan on. Or how about increasing subsidy levels for deductibles and copays? Right now, if you're making 251% of the poverty line you get no help with that. Congress could authorize more money, find offsets elsewhere for it, and fix to some extent the issue of high deductibles that everyone on the right is screaming about.

Maybe -- MAYBE -- if the White House and Congressional Democrats would start pushing for single-payer, Republicans would start to defend the relatively conservative ACA and work with the Democrats on making fixes to it. That's how we move the damn Overton window. What Democrats are doing now sure isn't working, and I don't know how Sec. Clinton is offering anything but the same strategy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The last-minute delay on thousands of those emails ('due to the snow storm' even though they were ordered to release months ago) is also somewhat alarming, given that it pushes all of this back past the most important primaries.
posted by dialetheia at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


An indictment coming after the nomination is pretty unlikely. The DOJ public corruption prosecution guidelines set a very strong bias against interfering with elections; the professional prosecutor corps is going to demand the final FBI report on a time-frame long enough to make a decision on presentment (going to the grand jury) and have the grand jury consider in order to indict or no-true-bill before the Convention.
posted by MattD at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Eh...it's not that simple.

It's not that complicated. We've had a Catholic and a black President.


Advances for one outgroup don't necessarily insure advances for other outgroups. All of this bigotry can be expressed in different ways depending on the target.

Atheists might be at an even bigger disadvantage than Muslims in American politics.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.

The level of overt antisemitism in this country is pretty damned bad. The level of casual antisemitism is unmeasurable, but in my experience it's off the damned charts especially in more rural areas. Hell, people on Mefi have recently insinuated (among other things) that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than this country.

We sure as hell haven't entered a post-antisemitism world. So yeah, I think its a real concern.
posted by zarq at 11:55 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


That's really very much not true, at least the way [Gore] came across to me as a voter in 2000. My issue with him was the way he kept divorcing himself from Clinton, including keeping Clinton from campaigning for him. What I said at the time was "why am I being asked to pick between a real republican and a fake one?" The end result of that may make the difference clear but for this voter I felt he did not make the case of himself as an actual democrat/progressive at all.

And this is one reason why Hillary makes me itch.

Hillary, once she is the nominee, has political cover to tack as far to the right as she likes because of that precedent -- her team will scream about THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES and NADER NADER NADER as to why she should be able to take every progressive's vote for granted and how the only way to win is to be a New Democrat, or as I prefer to describe them, "Old Republican."

And, yes, it _is_ important to win this election. It _is_ important to keep the Supreme Court from becoming a subsidiary of Trump Enterprises. It _is_ a fallacy to believe that much of anything that is truly progressive would get through this Congress under any circumstances. But responding to a strong Sanders showing by disdaining them and going after mythical 'moderate' Republicans is a great way to blow an election, just as Gore's hard right turn turned a slam-dunk election into one close enough for the courts to snatch away.
posted by delfin at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Her defense before was that it was wild CIA overclassification, but now State has classified things the same way, and some of the emails they were going to release are now top-secret. People are already leaking all kinds of stories for what information was in those emails - CIA agents' names, Benghazi stand-down orders, you name it.

Yeah, honestly I have a lot of sympathy for her as a human - she didn't work in a NSA or military-intelligence type culture where the dangers of practically even thinking about classified material while not inside a secure facility are pretty much hammered home every day. I don't think she thought, when wanting a private email server that would maintain a database at home, "hey what if some of this stuff is classified and I am thus removing classified material without authorization from a classifying official". From a legal standpoint, it doesn't actually matter what was in the emails - the mere fact that classified information was removed and stored is enough to damn her.
posted by corb at 11:58 AM on February 2, 2016


From a legal standpoint, it doesn't actually matter what was in the emails - the mere fact that classified information was removed and stored is enough to damn her.

And from a practical standpoint... David Petraeus.

The rules are for the little people. You know that.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:00 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean more - they're openly campaigning on using executive power, which would have been unheard of ten years ago.

That makes more sense, and I'm uncomfortable with that as well. At the same time, there's some reason for this stance - the Congress majority openly declared that they would work against Obama from day one - McConnell stated that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term president - and there's no reason to believe that things will suddenly be different this time around. I think that's something that was equally unheard of 10 years ago, but I may be mistaken on that - the majority of my first-hand political history only goes back so far.

In this particular case, campaigning on the use of EOs makes me a bit unsettled, but I'm also not sure if that is just a symptom of the overall combative political environment. I'm really not sure how a democratic president could promise much effective direct action otherwise, unless they could somehow convince a very skeptical populace that the senate will be more open to working with as opposed to against the president this time around. I feel as if there's is an expectation that whoever is in play must wage war with the opposition party and treat them as hostile - I'm fairly sure that if the parties were reversed, we'd be seeing the same thing happening with different party names behind them.

All of this is to say that I don't like it either, but I'm not sure if the answer to that lays either within campaigning or within the executive branch. With a presidential candidate running against an opposition controlled house, it would take a dramatic change in how the houses work with the president to be able to promise any sort of action otherwise. Of course, the promises of direct action are part of the problem. Peoples perceptions of what the executive branch should be doing vs. the realities of the executive branch seem to be horribly misaligned... We put a lot of weight on a president as a solver of all problems, at the expense of seeing the power of all of the other elected officials.

Unfortunately, "I'm here to cast a veto vote, appoint judges, act out diplomatic functions with foreign heads of state, and generally try to convince other lawmakers that they should support the ideas I have" isn't much of a campaign platform at this point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I fully support not voting for whatever candidate, including in the general. Candidates earn our votes, they are not owed them. I've voted green party before specifically to send a message to the Democratic party to move to the left.

What I don't support is pretending, or insisting, that it is an action without consequences or that said consequences are not potentially devastating. The Supreme Court nominees alone will shape not just this future presidency, but the next 30-40 years of American politics. It is not disingenuous to point this out.
posted by lydhre at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I haven't seen a convincing argument she has broken the law yet.

I think you are right here. I hate to agree with this, as her actions here go against everything that I see as fundamental to the health of a government that is there for the people. I'm of the mindset that governance should act in as accountable and transparent of a fashion as possible. The less transparency and accountability you have, the less that the governance is acting in the interest of the people, and the closer you get to facism. I realize that the sort of transparency and accountability I want is very far removed from the political reality, but I also feel that we should ALWAYS fight for more accountability and against secrecy - That's one of the largest (theoretical) differentiators between public and private operations, that the public side should be more transparent and accountable when it comes down to it. Should.

The only reason to act in the way that she did with her email was if you want to remove all traces of accountability, and operate in the shadows. This wasn't an accidental "oops, I keep using my gmail account on my phone" sort of thing, she specifically went to the effort of having a private email server out of any sort of public view control put into place - and it was an entirely deliberate move. To me, that's more damning than if any actual top secret info flowed through it or not - She made an intentional decision that her email would be outside of any accountable system.

What she did may be legal on a technicality, but it's still a corruption of the office. Her attitude towards it at first really didn't do her any favors, and it's only better now out of necessity. I think that this did a good job of realizing much of the narrative against her regarding "trustworthiness" - She had an opportunity to counter that directly, and did not do so.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I agree and, not to beat a dead horse here, but everyone that I've seen in the thread who was talking about voting third-party is from a deep blue state. If the Republican nominee is polling near 50% in New York or Illinois or California, they've already locked in the South, Midwest and interior West and there would be no chance for a Democratic presidency anyway.

The only way that might change is if there were a centrist (Bloomberg or similar) third-party candidate who was changing the electoral math in unpredictable ways. For instance, Bloomberg might be polling on 40% in NY with the Democrat at 35% and the Republican at 30%. In that case it would be strategically dumb to vote for a left-wing third party, it'd just be handing the state to Bloomberg and (depending on how the other states went) throwing the election into the GOP-controlled House.

Weird realignments like that aside, I'll continue to cast protest votes (i.e. vote for the person I most want to be elected) in any election where I think the outcome is pretty well set. An election that goes 30% Republican / 55% Democratic / 15% Green sends a message to the Democrats that a 30% Republican / 70% Democratic vote does not, with identical electoral outcomes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:31 PM on February 2, 2016


Unfortunately, "I'm here to cast a veto vote, appoint judges, act out diplomatic functions with foreign heads of state, and generally try to convince other lawmakers that they should support the ideas I have" isn't much of a campaign platform at this point.

As Elizabeth Warren pointed out this week, nominations to executive branch agencies are huge. The difference between a Clinton appointed US Attorney, and one appointed by Rubio is massive, and is the literally the difference between having agencies like the FCC, FEC and NLRB that function at all, or do nothing, or worse actively work to undermine their own missions because the Republican president doesn't believe they should exist.

A Democratic vote at this point is literally a vote to keep the government functioning.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]


Don't get me wrong, I actually think it's a realistic campaign platform, and it's exactly why you should vote for Clinton if you are remotely Democratic - Veto and appointments are HUGE. My real point is that these functions don't really capture the publics attention as much.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


What she did may be legal on a technicality, but it's still a corruption of the office.

Right, look, you can tell me there was no law that made it illegal to receive emails that weren't yet marked as classified. What you can't tell me is that anybody would be less than 100% certain that the e-mail account of the Secretary of State would involve emails that would contain information that would at some point be marked as classified. She is the boss of American foriegn policy, of course her communications will involve material that the government would want to keep secret. Not marked yet, sure, but you knew damn well that private server was going to end up storing classified information.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders is an independent, democratic socialist Jewish guy from the northeast. I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.

I am not Jewish, so I am not about to remark about the levels of anti-Semitism in America or pretend I am remotely qualified to do so. But I've been interested to see just how much of a non-issue Sanders' Jewishness has been so far. If it gets mentioned, it's just in passing. Compare that to Lieberman, where his Jewishness was front-and-center everywhere. Part of that, I'm sure, is that Lieberman was observant, so his religion was an active dynamic in the conversation, whereas Sanders is pretty secular. But still--it's striking how little attention Sanders' background gets.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]




Re: the emails, I'm more concerned about some of the stuff coming out about Clinton Foundation donors simultaneously lobbying the State Department while paying them both huge speaking fees than I am about the emails, but it sounds like it's possible that the FBI is looking into both the classification issues and any alleged corruption as part of their investigation (though that last part is still based on unnamed sources in the FBI so take it with a grain of salt). Either way, the 'optics' here aren't great, and I don't think Democrats should be so quick to dismiss the possibility that the scandal will continue to linger and could be a real negative for her.
posted by dialetheia at 12:42 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]




it's exactly why you should vote for Clinton

(I left out "if she's the eventual nominee" - I'd much rather see Sanders there, personally)
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:45 PM on February 2, 2016


I am not Jewish, so I am not about to remark about the levels of anti-Semitism in America or pretend I am remotely qualified to do so. But I've been interested to see just how much of a non-issue Sanders' Jewishness has been so far. If it gets mentioned, it's just in passing. Compare that to Lieberman, where his Jewishness was front-and-center everywhere. Part of that, I'm sure, is that Lieberman was observant, so his religion was an active dynamic in the conversation, whereas Sanders is pretty secular. But still--it's striking how little attention Sanders' background gets.

That's because he's not overt about it. His religious affiliation will become a more important issue if and when he's running against a Republican.

Imagine if Sanders had stood up last night and said something along the lines of, "Let me first of all say, to Hashem be the glory. I thank Hashem for allowing me the opportunity to come this far with each of you. Thanks be to Hashem for allowing me to be his messenger on Earth." I would bet real money that evangelicals would go ape shit. Never mind that in Judaism "Hashem" is simply a synonym for G-d. Pretty much the only thing that would be worse in their minds would be if he substituted "Allah."
posted by zarq at 12:58 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


That's because he's not overt about it. His religious affiliation will become a more important issue if and when he's running against a Republican.

I don't think this is true. Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man. He doesn't have to recite a bracha for people to be reminded of his religion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:01 PM on February 2, 2016


Bernie Sanders Won Iowa Because the Media Says He Did
The fact is, not much is usually at stake in Iowa except for the media narrative that its results generate. Which isn’t to say that a lot isn’t at stake — if cable news decides that you made a weird noise after coming in third place, it can decide to put a hit on your campaign. While Donald Trump didn’t emerge victorious Monday night, the fact that he came in second despite spending less than all of his rivals is a testament to the power of free media.

By producing an effective tie, Iowa Democrats gave journalists the opportunity to choose the narrative they wanted...

There’s a strong argument that, on paper, Monday night’s narrow victory increased Clinton’s chances of securing her party’s nomination. Clinton has nearly unanimous support from the party’s superdelegates, so Sanders would have needed a large victory to put himself on pace for the nomination. Clinton still has the overwhelming support of her party’s Establishment and a double-digit lead in national polls... But Sanders performed well enough to give the media a choice — and media bias tends to favor the more interesting narrative. As the Post’s Ruth Marcus wrote, “Between Sanders and Clinton, tie goes to the underdog.”

In the pundit class's defense, it is a damn good story. A septuagenarian socialist, who trailed by 40 points in Iowa at the race’s start, takes on his party’s handpicked candidate with absolutely zero Establishment support and builds a million Millennial movement that propels him to a virtual tie? Who doesn’t want to see the next episode of this drama? Not a certain former New York senator, of course.

Sanders is incredibly well funded for an insurgent without a super-pac. He has a giant army of small-dollar donors who are far from being maxed out and committed volunteers across the country. He still doesn’t have a great chance of actually winning, but all he needed to keep the political revolution rolling was to impress the media with his showing in Iowa. Today’s front pages suggest he has done so.
posted by flex at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't think this is true. Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man. He doesn't have to recite a bracha for people to be reminded of his religion.

He speaks Brooklynese, period. There's very little in his accent or vocabulary that should scream "Jewish stereotype" to non-Jews. It's not as if he's constantly peppering his speech with yiddishisms.
posted by zarq at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


As someone who still identifies as a Brooklynite, let me tell you Sanders uses less yiddish in public speaking than I do. I can't see this as being a hindrance, but that may be New York eyeglasses.
posted by corb at 1:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think Sanders will get more flack for being borderline atheist than for being raised Jewish. I also think that the fact that he had family members die in the Holocaust is important when juxtaposed against deport-all-Muslims and other white supremacist rhetoric from the GOP (and even vs Clinton's support from institutions that benefit from systemic oppression).
posted by melissasaurus at 1:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


I truly hope so.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on February 2, 2016


I think Sanders will get more flack for being borderline atheist than for being raised Jewish.

The right's attack on Obama have gone in so many different directions and so many contradictions that I think it's conceivable he'll be labeled as both an Atheist and Jewish. And more, who knows?
posted by FJT at 1:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man

what does this even mean? this is such an odd assertion.
posted by sweetkid at 1:37 PM on February 2, 2016


And do you know who else was a radical Jewish socialist who wanted to give everybody free health care?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:38 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]


sweetkid, to be honest, we haven't really had civil conversation in this thread, so I'm going to let my point stand, and people can figure it out themselves if they want to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:39 PM on February 2, 2016


As I understand it there is going to be a lot of "Spread the money around" with Sanders if the Republicans ever do start really talking about him. They're still on Hillary. And more than that, Obama.
posted by sweetkid at 1:41 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


WaPo: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:43 PM on February 2, 2016


What about the amount of ties? Just asking. Is the amount of ties what we'd expect?
posted by Trochanter at 1:45 PM on February 2, 2016


Sooo...

WaPo: Our story was bullshit!
posted by Justinian at 1:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


WaPo: We blame the Des Moines Register.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


So Clinton is officially the winner?
posted by Justinian at 2:01 PM on February 2, 2016


this coin-toss thing is fucking weird
posted by angrycat at 2:03 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't actually think it's going to happen, but I am going to laugh my ass off if anyone is caught using a double-headed or double-tailed coin.

I personally use the double-tailed coin when I want to load bets because nobody expects it
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2016


What about the amount of ties? Just asking. Is the amount of ties what we'd expect?
There are approximately 11,000 county delegates, so yeah, I think some ties are probably to be expected. Usually it doesn't matter, because usually the race isn't this close.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2016


As a senator, Secretary of State John Kerry sent at least one email to Hillary Clinton from his personal account that has now been classified as secret, the State Department confirmed on Tuesday.

The largely redacted May 19, 2011, email from Kerry — then the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee — “was sent from a non-official account,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday.

That account, Kirby added “is no longer active.”
The message referenced India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and was classified for containing information about foreign governments and U.S. foreign relations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:14 PM on February 2, 2016


Spoiler: We find out that everyone at the deputy cabinet level or above has been regularly sending classified material over insecure channels for a couple of decades, because the classification system is antithetical to the kind of information sharing policymakers need to do their jobs.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


WaPo: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.

Way to bury the correction at the bottom behind a bunch of ads, bullshit videos, and the dorky coin-toss applet, WaPo. I can easily imagine readers skimming the first half of the article and not knowing the 6-6 thing is incorrect.
posted by aught at 2:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.

Nobody expects the Binomial Distribution!
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Especially since a bunch of people are implying they think Clinton people rigged the coin tosses, and now everyone's still reporting that "Clinton only won because of coin tosses" narrative. That's a big mistake to make and then bury.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


We sure as hell haven't entered a post-antisemitism world. So yeah, I think its a real concern.

Take this, for instance: Zachary Levi loses work over being ‘too Jewish’

There are lots of Jewish actors, but being perceived as Jewish typecasts you in a way that being (e.g.) Lutheran doesn't. That doesn't mean Sanders can't get the nomination, but it will inevitably affect his campaign.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:29 PM on February 2, 2016


Spoiler: We find out that everyone at the deputy cabinet level or above has been regularly sending classified material over insecure channels for a couple of decades, because the classification system is antithetical to the kind of information sharing policymakers need to do their jobs.

And that a lot of stuff is classified for stupid reasons or otherwise really pointlessly. ISTR that some of the later-classified stuff is newspaper articles.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:30 PM on February 2, 2016


I don't have a really good sense of how much Sanders's Jewishness is going to matter. I didn't see any signs that anyone in Iowa cared at all, and I was looking for it. I also am not sure that everyone in Iowa realizes he's Jewish, and I don't think that anyone was particularly focused on it. I think it will be a bigger issue among general election voters than it would be among Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, and I think the Republicans would definitely make it an issue if he got the nomination.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:35 PM on February 2, 2016


where is the discussion of antisemitism w/r/t sanders' chances going here? i'm having trouble telling if this is dispassionate forecasting or persuasive/personal speech about how folks should/the writer will vote, and that makes one hell of a difference in how to interpret things.
posted by The Gaffer at 2:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I cannot help but recall the exact same kind of concern...er...sharing, heartfelt or not, was a big part of the Clinton-supporter theories about how unelectable Barack Hussein Obama was back in 2008. I mean, if our country can elect a (relatively) unknown black guy with the same name as our nation's arch enemy, then perhaps prognostications of who's "electable" may not really hold as much water as they once did?
posted by darkstar at 2:45 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think it's mostly a bunch of Jewish people trying to sort through what this means for the Tribe, to be honest. Because if you had told me ten years ago that someone with Bernie Sanders's profile would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting votes in middle America, I would have laughed in your face. And I am a Jewish person who is happily, comfortably ensconced in middle America.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


My feeling (note: I'm Australian, I can't vote, and what the hell do I know) is that there will be some delegates who will think that anti-Semitism would harm Sanders' campaign, and will therefore support Hillary. I don't know whether that position is at all reasonable; I don't know whether fear of a Republican administration justifies that sort of pragmatism; it wouldn't be the first time that well-meaning liberals asked minorities to subordinate their interests for the greater good.

Will there be enough of those well-meaning liberals to harm Sanders' chances? Reply hazy, try again.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:48 PM on February 2, 2016


where is the discussion of antisemitism w/r/t sanders' chances going here? i'm having trouble telling if this is dispassionate forecasting or persuasive/personal speech about how folks should/the writer will vote, and that makes one hell of a difference in how to interpret things.

I was voicing my personal opinion. It's my assessment of an obstacle I think that he will have to deal with if he reaches the general election. It's not meant to persuade anyone regarding how they should vote.
posted by zarq at 2:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


a bunch of people are implying they think Clinton people rigged the coin tosses

That's just silly. Everyone knows it's the money that controls Hillary, not vice versa!
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:52 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


We find out that everyone at the deputy cabinet level or above has been regularly sending classified material over insecure channels for a couple of decades, because the classification system is antithetical to the kind of information sharing policymakers need to do their jobs

The dirty secret in government is that everyone who handles classified material has to bend the rules to get work done. There are draconian and largely unworkable procedures for data handling that absolutely no one follows. IT security is notorious for coming up with completely impractical solutions which promptly get ignored.

And that's a huge problem. Clinton's rather extreme form of abuse of that is rooted in the strong belief that IT doesn't know its head from its backside when it comes to real-world use of operational security protocols. This attitude is exacerbated by the fact that no one thinks they're a security risk, especially if it's with new technologies that they haven't used much.

Solutions to this kind of problem are not easy. Data needs to be secure (and its not like people are cowboys; most everyone cares about security), but it also needs to be usable. IT nerds too often prefer perfect security that makes data inaccessible. Users want to have all the access they want. Most of the time this is "solved" by compromising on (multiple) old-school physical security barriers and careful allowance of what can go off site. Basically, go nuts in a secured area.

So, breaking that physical layer, taking an email server home, as Clinton did, is pretty egregious even by typical look-the-other-way government standards.
posted by bonehead at 3:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The other thing is that 6 wins in a row isn't that unusual. It's a 1/64 chance. Oh sure, you don't expect that to happen, 1/64 is only 1.6% or so but that's not crazy unlikely just normal unlikely. How many people here have played RPGs or board games or anything and rolled three 1s in a row on d6s. If you've played those games more than a couple times then everybody has. And winning 6 coin tosses is three times as likely as rolling three 1s in a row.

The thing about strings of probabilities is that they are very lumpy and streaky, not homogeneous. Excessive uniformity (ie H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T) is in itself a sign that the coin isn't fair.

If one party had won 10 or more in a row then we'd start having something to talk about. Maybe even 9.
posted by Justinian at 3:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Joe (and others,) you might find this interesting: American Jews Face a Political Paradox.

In addition to its premise (Republicans love Israel but are 'not so crazy about Jews' while Democrats like Jews but are not so crazy about Israel,) the article notes that a Sanders win in New Hampshire will make him "the first non-Christian in American history to win even one major party nominating caucus or primary." Interesting.
posted by zarq at 3:28 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


S.C. Rep. Bamberg to switch endorsement from Clinton to Sanders (1/25/2016)

This one made me so happy: Ohio's Nina Turner jumps from Clinton to Sanders. I believe she has her eye on the Cleveland mayoral race, so we will hopefully have someone there who will protect the right to vote, and maybe that helps get her to Secretary of State.

Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee. I think that's probably true

I agree. It will be interesting to see what happens when she endorses Sanders (assuming she makes a public endorsement.) One question I have for the people really pushing the bro angle is, Bernie has broken all kinds of fundraising records, including raising $20 million dollars in January alone, all from small donors. Who do you think is sending all that cash? Who is phone banking every single night? Who is making (multiple!) trips out of state to canvas for Bernie? The bros? No. It's millions of people who care about this campaign and this country. I think it's a mistake to dismiss the Sanders campaign as a boy zone.

Anecdotally, I know one person who has said they will not vote for Hillary, ever. (An African-American woman, since we're discussing demographics here.) Every other Sanders supporter I know will vote for Hilary.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I mean, if our country can elect a (relatively) unknown black guy with the same name as our nation's arch enemy, then perhaps prognostications of who's "electable" may not really hold as much water as they once did?

I kind of agree, but I think electability is still worth discussing. In this topic Sanders' electability is also brought up as a positive since he has more enthusiastic supporters, and brings in both the liberal and youth vote (and the possible potential of bringing in some of the white working class). If you are comparing it to Obama, then in 2008 his supporters made a similar case on his electability based on some of those groups as well.
posted by FJT at 3:39 PM on February 2, 2016


Can somebody confirm how many delegates Iowa has including the superdelegates? I keep saying it will end up like 30-22 for Clinton but now from what I hearing from the Clinton camp people the 52 delegates may only be the ones awarded based on the caucus results and Iowa actually has 60 total. Because the Clinton spokesguy said they expect Clinton will come out with about 37 delegates and Sanders 23.

This is such an arcane, anti-democratic, insane process when I'm not even sure what the results mean and I'm following it closer than 99.8% of the population.
posted by Justinian at 3:54 PM on February 2, 2016


Here's the thing about randomness: HHHHHHH is precisely as likely an outcome of six coin flips as HTTHTH or THHTTH or TTTHTH.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:55 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]




Man, Trump looks beaten down and subdued. That's too bad. Too, too bad.
posted by Justinian at 4:04 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's the thing about randomness: HHHHHHH is precisely as likely an outcome of six coin flips as HTTHTH or THHTTH or TTTHTH.

you could argue it's 1/3 as likely.
posted by andrewcooke at 4:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I find antisemitic thoughts about Sanders hard to believe -- he's an old secular Jewish guy from Brooklyn! It'd be like hating Uncle Leo or bagels. But maybe I'm underestimating the amount of antisemitism out there.
posted by crazy with stars at 4:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


And who is responsible for moving the window of what is possible? Not just Hillary. You too.

If she beats Sanders -- which she appears to be doing -- it's *STILL* on you to change that... not just her. She's been fighting this battle for thirty plus years, while others couldn't even be bothered to come out to vote.

So really, no... let's not talk about her. Let's talk about you instead.


Strawman, but yeah you're right. Look what happened to the antiwar movement once Obama was elected. Of course you can't seem to be arsed to notice that Bernie has been making this point the entire campaign. He knows he can't do it alone. Clinton on the other hand is, as usual, focused only on herself and what she is personally going to do and/or fight for. Clinton wants votes and then the progressive wing of the party can buzz right the fuck off as far as she's concerned. She doesn't want a movement, she wants sloganeering and apathy....i.e. the status quo.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


But maybe I'm underestimating the amount of antisemitism out there.

I once got banned from an IRC channel for expressing the opinion that Intel processors were generally better than AMD. Because the channel operator thought that Intel chips were part of a Jewish conspiracy.

It wasn't even a channel about computers.

So yeah, the struggle is real.
posted by fifthrider at 4:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's the thing about randomness: HHHHHHH is precisely as likely an outcome of six coin flips as HTTHTH or THHTTH or TTTHTH.

Every discrete outcome is equally likely (1/64), but there was a 63/64 chance of Sanders winning at least one coin toss.

But the chance that Clinton somehow distributed trick coins to every caucus in Iowa just in case is about as likely as America transitioning to full communism.
posted by dis_integration at 4:11 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


She doesn't want a movement, she wants sloganeering and apathy....i.e. the