[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[The Romulan Republic]

At risk of going off topic -

If/when Carson and Kasich drop out, their votes will likely go more to Cruz and Rubio than Trump, perhaps enough to bring one or both of them close enough to win some state - and if both, perhaps they'll win enough that no one has a majority. If rubio somehow drops, cruz probably has it in the bag, though if cruz drops more of his supporters are apt to go trump.

Whereas, even if we had three strong dems, the supers would likely crush any such confusion.

While a portion of your argument is true, it doesn't go without saying that the Trump and Cruz supporters overlap. As for Rubio and his supporters; they tend to be along the lines of the mainstream, pro-business conservatives. That demographic most definitely appeals to Trump and his business credentials, not to mention that the Cruz-Rubio conflict is looking like it's still going on. A Cruz campaign spokesperson said that they are upping the anti-Rubio ads, so this tension will most likely continue throughout the rest of February and into Super Tuesday. If the party is truly serious about stopping him; then they have to do it now.

Realistically-speaking though, Trump is most likely going to cruise through the SEC states; save Texas and perhaps Arkansas.

As for the Democratic side of the race; Sanders will really only be able to compete in North Eastern states, unless he pulls within single digits in South Carolina; which is beginning to look less and less likely with the RCP average showing him down 33% to Secretary Clinton's 57%. On Super Tuesday, expect him to at least win Vermont (home state) and possibly Massachusetts.

Word is he's ahead by a number of points in Colorado as well (as Colorado is my home state, and has a fairly large Latino population I believe, this makes me very happy).

[Khadgar]

While a portion of your argument is true, it doesn't go without saying that the Trump and Cruz supporters overlap. As for Rubio and his supporters; they tend to be along the lines of the mainstream, pro-business conservatives. That demographic most definitely appeals to Trump and his business credentials, not to mention that the Cruz-Rubio conflict is looking like it's still going on. A Cruz campaign spokesperson said that they are upping the anti-Rubio ads, so this tension will most likely continue throughout the rest of February and into Super Tuesday. If the party is truly serious about stopping him; then they have to do it now.

Realistically-speaking though, Trump is most likely going to cruise through the SEC states; save Texas and perhaps Arkansas.

As for the Democratic side of the race; Sanders will really only be able to compete in North Eastern states, unless he pulls within single digits in South Carolina; which is beginning to look less and less likely with the RCP average showing him down 33% to Secretary Clinton's 57%. On Super Tuesday, expect him to at least win Vermont (home state) and possibly Massachusetts.

Word is he's ahead by a number of points in Colorado as well (as Colorado is my home state, and has a fairly large Latino population I believe, this makes me very happy).

Unfortunately 538 doesn't have anything on Colorado. RCP makes me cringe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Word is he's ahead by a number of points in Colorado as well (as Colorado is my home state, and has a fairly large Latino population I believe, this makes me very happy).

Unfortunately 538 doesn't have anything on Colorado. RCP makes me cringe.

What I'm also looking at, besides which states Sanders will win, is which ones he can come close enough to split the delegates in.

Texas in particular. Its gigantic. If all those delegates go to Clinton, it'll be bad.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

At risk of going off topic -

If/when Carson and Kasich drop out, their votes will likely go more to Cruz and Rubio than Trump, perhaps enough to bring one or both of them close enough to win some state - and if both, perhaps they'll win enough that no one has a majority. If rubio somehow drops, cruz probably has it in the bag, though if cruz drops more of his supporters are apt to go trump.

Whereas, even if we had three strong dems, the supers would likely crush any such confusion.

While a portion of your argument is true, it doesn't go without saying that the Trump and Cruz supporters overlap. As for Rubio and his supporters; they tend to be along the lines of the mainstream, pro-business conservatives. That demographic most definitely appeals to Trump and his business credentials, not to mention that the Cruz-Rubio conflict is looking like it's still going on. Therefore it is reasonable to say that a portion of the "establishment" vote will drift to Trump, just not in as large of numbers as someone such as Rubio. A Cruz campaign spokesperson said that they are upping the anti-Rubio ads, so this tension will most likely continue throughout the rest of February and into Super Tuesday. If the party is truly serious about stopping him; then they have to do it now.

Realistically-speaking though, Trump is most likely going to cruise through the SEC states; save Texas and perhaps Arkansas.

As for the Democratic side of the race; Sanders will really only be able to compete in North Eastern states, unless he pulls within single digits in South Carolina; which is beginning to look less and less likely with the RCP average showing him down 33% to Secretary Clinton's 57%. On Super Tuesday, expect him to at least win Vermont (home state) and possibly Massachusetts.

Which, sadly, is the mostly likely scenario, and leads to a Clinton-Trump GE, which has basically been my nightmare for the GE since we first saw the slates.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Unfortunately 538 doesn't have anything on Colorado. RCP makes me cringe.

What I'm also looking at, besides which states Sanders will win, is which ones he can come close enough to split the delegates in.

Texas in particular. Its gigantic. If all those delegates go to Clinton, it'll be bad.

Too bad California is last, IIRC. Without having looked at poll data, I feel that's apt to be a state where he has a chance, and probably one of if not the largest single chunk of delegates.

[Myrensis]

Food for thought -

If Clinton wins the nom, but by a close margin before supers, and the Cruz and Rubio trade enough wins with trump that the convention is brokered and trump is not picked, but trump runs independent anyways, do you think Sanders would throw in his independent hat as well, or realize his only real shot at winning nationally is as the dem nom and let Hillary sweep the resulting mess easily?

The latter. The only reason Bernie became a Democrat is because he knows that's his only shot at actually winning the Presidency, the only thing an independent run would accomplish is torpedoing Hillary/the Democrats. While some of his supporters seem to have trouble with it, Sanders at least seems to realize that while a mainstream Democratic President may not be ideal, they can at least hope for some progress on policies dear to them with one, whereas total Republican control of the government would be an unmitigated disaster for everything they support.

Trump is in a similar position, the difference being that since he's in this purely to fuel his own ego it's entirely possible that if the GOP 'steals' the nomination from him he'll run independent and destroy their chances in the general just because he can.

[The Romulan Republic]

What I'm also looking at, besides which states Sanders will win, is which ones he can come close enough to split the delegates in.

Texas in particular. Its gigantic. If all those delegates go to Clinton, it'll be bad.

Too bad California is last, IIRC. Without having looked at poll data, I feel that's apt to be a state where he has a chance, and probably one of if not the largest single chunk of delegates.

Yeah, I've heard Sanders is supposed to be stronger in some of the later states.

So basically, he doesn't need to win Super Tuesday. Just do well enough to survive it.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Food for thought -

If Clinton wins the nom, but by a close margin before supers, and the Cruz and Rubio trade enough wins with trump that the convention is brokered and trump is not picked, but trump runs independent anyways, do you think Sanders would throw in his independent hat as well, or realize his only real shot at winning nationally is as the dem nom and let Hillary sweep the resulting mess easily?

The latter. The only reason Bernie became a Democrat is because he knows that's his only shot at actually winning the Presidency, the only thing an independent run would accomplish is torpedoing Hillary/the Democrats. While some of his supporters seem to have trouble with it, Sanders at least seems to realize that while a mainstream Democratic President may not be ideal, they can at least hope for some progress on policies dear to them with one, whereas total Republican control of the government would be an unmitigated disaster for everything they support.

Trump is in a similar position, the difference being that since he's in this purely to fuel his own ego it's entirely possible that if the GOP 'steals' the nomination from him he'll run independent and destroy their chances in the general just because he can.

Basically where I fall. I have no love for Clinton as a leader, but overall prefer the effects of a Democrat in office than anyone the GOP is likely to field, backing my vote into her.

[John King]

While a portion of your argument is true, it doesn't go without saying that the Trump and Cruz supporters overlap. As for Rubio and his supporters; they tend to be along the lines of the mainstream, pro-business conservatives. That demographic most definitely appeals to Trump and his business credentials, not to mention that the Cruz-Rubio conflict is looking like it's still going on. A Cruz campaign spokesperson said that they are upping the anti-Rubio ads, so this tension will most likely continue throughout the rest of February and into Super Tuesday. If the party is truly serious about stopping him; then they have to do it now.

Realistically-speaking though, Trump is most likely going to cruise through the SEC states; save Texas and perhaps Arkansas.

As for the Democratic side of the race; Sanders will really only be able to compete in North Eastern states, unless he pulls within single digits in South Carolina; which is beginning to look less and less likely with the RCP average showing him down 33% to Secretary Clinton's 57%. On Super Tuesday, expect him to at least win Vermont (home state) and possibly Massachusetts.

Word is he's ahead by a number of points in Colorado as well (as Colorado is my home state, and has a fairly large Latino population I believe, this makes me very happy).

Well Colorado would definitely need to be a state he wins because Clinton is going to take a lot of the SEC states due to African-American population.

Which, sadly, is the mostly likely scenario, and leads to a Clinton-Trump GE, which has basically been my nightmare for the GE since we first saw the slates.

I presume that you're a Sanders' supporter, in which case I'd agree; we're most likely going to see a Clinton-Trump matchup.

[Khadgar]

While a portion of your argument is true, it doesn't go without saying that the Trump and Cruz supporters overlap. As for Rubio and his supporters; they tend to be along the lines of the mainstream, pro-business conservatives. That demographic most definitely appeals to Trump and his business credentials, not to mention that the Cruz-Rubio conflict is looking like it's still going on. Therefore it is reasonable to say that a portion of the "establishment" vote will drift to Trump, just not in as large of numbers as someone such as Rubio. A Cruz campaign spokesperson said that they are upping the anti-Rubio ads, so this tension will most likely continue throughout the rest of February and into Super Tuesday. If the party is truly serious about stopping him; then they have to do it now.

Realistically-speaking though, Trump is most likely going to cruise through the SEC states; save Texas and perhaps Arkansas.

As for the Democratic side of the race; Sanders will really only be able to compete in North Eastern states, unless he pulls within single digits in South Carolina; which is beginning to look less and less likely with the RCP average showing him down 33% to Secretary Clinton's 57%. On Super Tuesday, expect him to at least win Vermont (home state) and possibly Massachusetts.

Which, sadly, is the mostly likely scenario, and leads to a Clinton-Trump GE, which has basically been my nightmare for the GE since we first saw the slates.

If it makes you feel any better I think Rubio will be the Republican nominee. Only question is when Cruz drops out. If he drops early Rubio has it made, if he lingers Rubio is toast.

[Samnoreg]

If Bernie drops out of the race, I have a feeling the leftward drift that we've seen from Hillary will reverse back towards the centre-right.

By American standards Hillary isn't close to center-right. She's arguably close to center-left, but extremists rarely win the White House.

But that doesn't mean she still isn't centre-right by its general definition. These "American standards" you speak of are merely the product of the US political spectrum being firmly lodged on the right-wing, and I'm sure you know this. As such, I don't adhere to these standards, because calling her "centre-left" is completely inaccurate. She'd fit right in with the UK Conservative Party or Norway's Høgre (perhaps she is even a bit further right than Høgre).

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Which, sadly, is the mostly likely scenario, and leads to a Clinton-Trump GE, which has basically been my nightmare for the GE since we first saw the slates.

I presume that you're a Sanders' supporter, in which case I'd agree; we're most likely going to see a Clinton-Trump matchup.

I plan to poll for him on March 1st, but I'm not rabid for him. I like his overall direction the best, especially considering the compromise it'll get through time spent in Congress (fewer of his actions, compared to Trump for the GOP's equally demagogic outside, can be passed via exec order - and even a democratic congress will give them some moderation....compared to any Exec orders trump may pass that'd function regardless of congressional control). I like the fact that he's, at least comparatively, honest and plays a clean game, which stands in particularly stark contrast to Clinton's far dirtier campaign, history of much more prevalent lies, corporate backing, and, you know, the fact that she could still be federally indicted (there's still at least one batch of emails left, iirc!). While northern Europe's model won't work perfectly here, I definitely think we could stand to learn from it, considering the stark differences in a lot of social aspects between us and every other nation near equally or higher ranked in HDI.

If it came down to Clinton versus one of the more moderate GOP representatives, I'd have to think long and hard, but I'd probably still end up with her in regards to the party as a whole. That doesn't look like it's going to be an issue though...I suppose we'll have to wait for March 1 to really be sure, but Trump stands pretty well, and unless there's a shocking dropout and endorsement after Nevada, I don;t see that changing majorly.

[Ngelmish]

There's no angle for Sanders to run as an independent. However much contempt he has for the Democratic establishment, he lived through the Reagan years, he lived through the Clinton years he lived through W. Even if rhetorically he sometimes implies that there's not a meaningful difference between those three presidents, he's no Nader and has no desire to die on that hill.

It's worth noting (anecdata alert!) that the majority of voters threatening to sit the election out if Sanders isn't nominated tend to be in the youth vote demographic. I don't know if there's anything in this or not, but I wonder how many of them have a clear memory of the differences between having a government controlled completely by the Republican party as opposed to split government. The latter may be frustrating, but the cost of the former is just so high.

I understand the objection to settling for less than one's first choice, indeed as an unabashed O'Malley enthusiast, I'm still not particularly invested in either Clinton or Sanders, but I think that some of these voters are underestimating the sheer amount of damage George Bush and a Republican-controlled congress was able to do. I for one have no desire to repeat the experience and the surest way to prevent it is another Democratic president.

[Khadgar]

There's no angle for Sanders to run as an independent. However much contempt he has for the Democratic establishment, he lived through the Reagan years, he lived through the Clinton years he lived through W. Even if rhetorically he sometimes implies that there's not a meaningful difference between those three presidents, he's no Nader and has no desire to die on that hill.

It's worth noting (anecdata alert!) that the majority of voters threatening to sit the election out if Sanders isn't nominated tend to be in the youth vote demographic. I don't know if there's anything in this or not, but I wonder how many of them have a clear memory of the differences between having a government controlled completely by the Republican party as opposed to split government. The latter may be frustrating, but the cost of the former is just so high.

I understand the objection to settling for less than one's first choice, indeed as an unabashed O'Malley enthusiast, I'm still not particularly invested in either Clinton or Sanders, but I think that some of these voters are underestimating the sheer amount of damage George Bush and a Republican-controlled congress was able to do. I for one have no desire to repeat the experience and the surest way to prevent it is another Democratic president.

My 401K thanks anyone who helps get Democrats elected. The GOP costs me money every time they're at the helm.

[Ashmoria]

sanders wouldn't run as an independent. his only strength is by allying with the democratic party so he cant burn that bridge. his success is in dragging the party back toward the left where it belongs.

Listen: Even if Bernie loses do you think he will drive Hillary more to the left?

it doesn't matter what Hillary does. what matters is that the democratic voters are already moved to the left. that will affect our politics for a decade.

[Ashmoria]

There's no angle for Sanders to run as an independent. However much contempt he has for the Democratic establishment, he lived through the Reagan years, he lived through the Clinton years he lived through W. Even if rhetorically he sometimes implies that there's not a meaningful difference between those three presidents, he's no Nader and has no desire to die on that hill.

It's worth noting (anecdata alert!) that the majority of voters threatening to sit the election out if Sanders isn't nominated tend to be in the youth vote demographic. I don't know if there's anything in this or not, but I wonder how many of them have a clear memory of the differences between having a government controlled completely by the Republican party as opposed to split government. The latter may be frustrating, but the cost of the former is just so high.

I understand the objection to settling for less than one's first choice, indeed as an unabashed O'Malley enthusiast, I'm still not particularly invested in either Clinton or Sanders, but I think that some of these voters are underestimating the sheer amount of damage George Bush and a Republican-controlled congress was able to do. I for one have no desire to repeat the experience and the surest way to prevent it is another Democratic president.

if all those voters care about is income inequality and breaking up the banks they aren't really democrats anyway. its hard for me to believe that anyone who loves Bernie sanders today would be unwilling to vote for Hillary when it means the control of the supreme court. the difference between democrats and republicans couldn't be more stark.

[Ngelmish]

There's no angle for Sanders to run as an independent. However much contempt he has for the Democratic establishment, he lived through the Reagan years, he lived through the Clinton years he lived through W. Even if rhetorically he sometimes implies that there's not a meaningful difference between those three presidents, he's no Nader and has no desire to die on that hill.

It's worth noting (anecdata alert!) that the majority of voters threatening to sit the election out if Sanders isn't nominated tend to be in the youth vote demographic. I don't know if there's anything in this or not, but I wonder how many of them have a clear memory of the differences between having a government controlled completely by the Republican party as opposed to split government. The latter may be frustrating, but the cost of the former is just so high.

I understand the objection to settling for less than one's first choice, indeed as an unabashed O'Malley enthusiast, I'm still not particularly invested in either Clinton or Sanders, but I think that some of these voters are underestimating the sheer amount of damage George Bush and a Republican-controlled congress was able to do. I for one have no desire to repeat the experience and the surest way to prevent it is another Democratic president.

if all those voters care about is income inequality and breaking up the banks they aren't really democrats anyway. its hard for me to believe that anyone who loves Bernie sanders today would be unwilling to vote for Hillary when it means the control of the supreme court. the difference between democrats and republicans couldn't be more stark.

I think of these voters as being more like the protesters who refused to vote for Humphrey in '68. Whether they're right or wrong on the merits of their particular issue, there's a cause involved.

I'm not that sort of voter personally, but I don't think it means that people absolutely lose their credentials as ideological fellow travelers too. A lot has to do with their reaction afterwards. Like, for instance, if they acknowledge that it was a mistake the way many people who voted for Nader have.

[Trumpostan]

There's no angle for Sanders to run as an independent. However much contempt he has for the Democratic establishment, he lived through the Reagan years, he lived through the Clinton years he lived through W. Even if rhetorically he sometimes implies that there's not a meaningful difference between those three presidents, he's no Nader and has no desire to die on that hill.

It's worth noting (anecdata alert!) that the majority of voters threatening to sit the election out if Sanders isn't nominated tend to be in the youth vote demographic. I don't know if there's anything in this or not, but I wonder how many of them have a clear memory of the differences between having a government controlled completely by the Republican party as opposed to split government. The latter may be frustrating, but the cost of the former is just so high.

I understand the objection to settling for less than one's first choice, indeed as an unabashed O'Malley enthusiast, I'm still not particularly invested in either Clinton or Sanders, but I think that some of these voters are underestimating the sheer amount of damage George Bush and a Republican-controlled congress was able to do. I for one have no desire to repeat the experience and the surest way to prevent it is another Democratic president.

Sanders has explicitly ruled out any third party/independent bid and said he will be supporting whoever is the nominee (and encourages his supporters to do the same because there is too much at stake).

[USS Monitor]

Food for thought -

If Clinton wins the nom, but by a close margin before supers, and the Cruz and Rubio trade enough wins with trump that the convention is brokered and trump is not picked, but trump runs independent anyways, do you think Sanders would throw in his independent hat as well, or realize his only real shot at winning nationally is as the dem nom and let Hillary sweep the resulting mess easily?

I don't think Sanders is going to run as an independent no matter what. He said he wouldn't and it doesn't strike me as his style to go back on his word with something like that.

[USS Monitor]

At risk of going off topic -

If/when Carson and Kasich drop out, their votes will likely go more to Cruz and Rubio than Trump, perhaps enough to bring one or both of them close enough to win some state - and if both, perhaps they'll win enough that no one has a majority. If rubio somehow drops, cruz probably has it in the bag, though if cruz drops more of his supporters are apt to go trump.

Whereas, even if we had three strong dems, the supers would likely crush any such confusion.

While a portion of your argument is true, it doesn't go without saying that the Trump and Cruz supporters overlap. As for Rubio and his supporters; they tend to be along the lines of the mainstream, pro-business conservatives. That demographic most definitely appeals to Trump and his business credentials, not to mention that the Cruz-Rubio conflict is looking like it's still going on. Therefore it is reasonable to say that a portion of the "establishment" vote will drift to Trump, just not in as large of numbers as someone such as Rubio. A Cruz campaign spokesperson said that they are upping the anti-Rubio ads, so this tension will most likely continue throughout the rest of February and into Super Tuesday. If the party is truly serious about stopping him; then they have to do it now.

Realistically-speaking though, Trump is most likely going to cruise through the SEC states; save Texas and perhaps Arkansas.

As for the Democratic side of the race; Sanders will really only be able to compete in North Eastern states, unless he pulls within single digits in South Carolina; which is beginning to look less and less likely with the RCP average showing him down 33% to Secretary Clinton's 57%. On Super Tuesday, expect him to at least win Vermont (home state) and possibly Massachusetts.

I don't know why you keep talking about Massachusetts like you think his hold on it is sketchy. He was polling ahead of Clinton last time anyone took a poll, and in most places where opinions have changed, Sanders has gained ground.

[Skogin Federation of the Twelve Duchies]

By American standards Hillary isn't close to center-right. She's arguably close to center-left, but extremists rarely win the White House.

But that doesn't mean she still isn't centre-right by its general definition. These "American standards" you speak of are merely the product of the US political spectrum being firmly lodged on the right-wing, and I'm sure you know this. As such, I don't adhere to these standards, because calling her "centre-left" is completely inaccurate. She'd fit right in with the UK Conservative Party or Norway's Høgre (perhaps she is even a bit further right than Høgre).

In the eyes of Americans, at least from my observations, Europe is either a extremely terrible liberal place that is destroying itself, or extremely progressive and the model to emulate.

[Ashmoria]

I presume that you're a Sanders' supporter, in which case I'd agree; we're most likely going to see a Clinton-Trump matchup.

I plan to poll for him on March 1st, but I'm not rabid for him. I like his overall direction the best, especially considering the compromise it'll get through time spent in Congress (fewer of his actions, compared to Trump for the GOP's equally demagogic outside, can be passed via exec order - and even a democratic congress will give them some moderation....compared to any Exec orders trump may pass that'd function regardless of congressional control). I like the fact that he's, at least comparatively, honest and plays a clean game, which stands in particularly stark contrast to Clinton's far dirtier campaign, history of much more prevalent lies, corporate backing, and, you know, the fact that she could still be federally indicted (there's still at least one batch of emails left, iirc!). While northern Europe's model won't work perfectly here, I definitely think we could stand to learn from it, considering the stark differences in a lot of social aspects between us and every other nation near equally or higher ranked in HDI.

If it came down to Clinton versus one of the more moderate GOP representatives, I'd have to think long and hard, but I'd probably still end up with her in regards to the party as a whole. That doesn't look like it's going to be an issue though...I suppose we'll have to wait for March 1 to really be sure, but Trump stands pretty well, and unless there's a shocking dropout and endorsement after Nevada, I don;t see that changing majorly.

there are no moderate GOP candidates. there are only crazy/creepy and sane.

[Idzequitch]

American Philosopher Cornel West compares Hillary to Milli Vanilli; Accuses her of "lip-syncing"

[Geilinor]

Clinton has revived the public option.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Clinton has revived the public option.

Good on her.

Maybe this is what Sanders hoped to accomplish at the very least.