[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[The United Territories of Providence]

That's slightly disappointing. And don't get me wrong, I love Lizzie, but I was hoping a Cory Booker or Tim Kaine VP pick.

Nonetheless Lizzie will motivate Bernie supporters and probably increase female voter turnout.

Kaine would do nothing to excite the voter base, and Booker would alienate the progressives she's been working hard to convince to support her due to his friendliness with the financial sector. Warren comes with her own issues, but none are insurmountable.

Booker might boost black turnout. Which is important, because in a year when Barack Obama isn't on the ticket, we could see turnout for my people return to 2004 and 2000 levels, hovering below 60%. If Booker could keep turnout at it's current levels, or even up slightly...I think Clinton could win North Carolina and make Georgia and Mississippi (which Obama carried nearly 44% of the vote in) very very close. Progressives are already lining up behind Hillary, and I think that trend will continue when educated voters look at their options. Any real Sanders supporter could not vote for Donald Trump. Sanders has endorsed Hillary, and assuming she keeps up her progressive rhetoric that she's adopted from Sanders....Booker shouldn't alienate that many voters. His connections to Wall Street aren't anymore prominent than Barack Obama's and he is more liberal than Hillary on most issues. That said, I want her to pick Elizabeth Warren. But Cory Booker is not a bad pick, and could be an advantage in states where Hillary can be competitive. I don't see her losing Minnesota, or Michigan, or Wisconsin because of Booker. If she loses a state, it'll be Ohio or Nevada and it'll be because of her own ineptness as a candidate.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Honestly I don't get it. He got over 60% of the stuff he wanted in the platform, has a prime speaking slot at the convention, and is forming a new set of liberal lobbying organizations to put pressure on Congress.

He might have done more in losing than if he had goddamn won. Be happy. Take what you can get. It's not bad. It really isn't.

I still want him for president, but yeah, he got something in return for his endorsement, so it's not just selling out.

Also, him not wanting a candidate who is his polar opposite to win...that's not selling out. Bernie doesn't want a man who doesn't believe in Climate Change, Wants to Privatize Healthcare, Wants to Privatize Social Security, Wants to Give Tax Breaks to the Wealthy, Is the 1%, Demonizes Minorities and Would Appoint a Judge that would protect Citizens United...to be the next President of the United States. Doing everything he can to stop that, even if it is unpopular and risks slowing down the revolution...doing what's best for America is quintessentially Bernie Sanders and as a former supporter, I'm very proud of him.

[Guy]

Booker might be an advantage in Georgia, but if you're winning there (let alone Mississippi) it's not a close election anyway. Yes, GA is one of the next pickups down the list from the 2012 map, but in most cases, preserving that map is easier.

Black turnout may be instrumental in Virginia and Ohio, and that's where Booker truly helps you. Tim Kaine gets you the former, even to a greater extent.

Ultimately, if Clinton doesn't believe that Booker and Castro would be good VPs, which I think is the case, she shouldn't pick them, whatever the electoral benefits.

I think that people really don't understand in how good a position Clinton is electorally. She's got so many paths to 270, and they all go through losing several states that she's currently leading handily in. If she wins Florida, it's basically game over, for example. Or if she loses that, but builds on Obama's advantage in the western swings states and Virginia. Hell, she's even ahead in NC right now.

[USS Monitor]

I still want him for president, but yeah, he got something in return for his endorsement, so it's not just selling out.

Also, him not wanting a candidate who is his polar opposite to win...that's not selling out. Bernie doesn't want a man who doesn't believe in Climate Change, Wants to Privatize Healthcare, Wants to Privatize Social Security, Wants to Give Tax Breaks to the Wealthy, Is the 1%, Demonizes Minorities and Would Appoint a Judge that would protect Citizens United...to be the next President of the United States. Doing everything he can to stop that, even if it is unpopular and risks slowing down the revolution...doing what's best for America is quintessentially Bernie Sanders and as a former supporter, I'm very proud of him.

Yeah, you could tell whenever he talked about Trump that he was sincerely disgusted. And I don't blame him, cos Trump is really awful.

[Corrian]

Trump was the one candidate that Sanders seemed to not hold back at all on with the "No attacks" thing.

I loved how he used the "Love Trumps hate" line at the rally.

And I love how there are Sanders supporters trying to say that Sanders and Trump are similar to each other and more alike than he is to Hillary...Like what.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Booker might be an advantage in Georgia, but if you're winning there (let alone Mississippi) it's not a close election anyway. Yes, GA is one of the next pickups down the list from the 2012 map, but in most cases, preserving that map is easier.

Black turnout may be instrumental in Virginia and Ohio, and that's where Booker truly helps you. Tim Kaine gets you the former, even to a greater extent.

Ultimately, if Clinton doesn't believe that Booker and Castro would be good VPs, which I think is the case, she shouldn't pick them, whatever the electoral benefits.

I think that people really don't understand in how good a position Clinton is electorally. She's got so many paths to 270, and they all go through losing several states that she's currently leading handily in. If she wins Florida, it's basically game over, for example. Or if she loses that, but builds on Obama's advantage in the western swings states and Virginia. Hell, she's even ahead in NC right now.

Well I disagree with your first sentence. Clinton could do really well with minorities, which I think is the case, but do horribly with non-college educated whites. If she can do better with Latinos and Blacks in regards to vote share and turn out than Obama did in 2008, but worse with all whites than Obama did in 2012...you could have her winning Florida and Virginia and maybe North Carolina but losing Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Which to her credit, still brings her to over 270 electoral votes and therefore the presidency.

Results in these elections are usually regional, and you'd need an extremely partisan state to start leaning in a different direction in order to predict a national trend. If Missouri is light pink or a tossup, Clinton is probably going to do very well in Iowa and better than expected in Indiana. BUT, if like Alabama or Wyoming start to go from dark red to maybe just red...Clinton probably won in a landslide. Conversely, if Massachusetts or Illinois go from dark blue to just blue...Trump probably won very big.

My point is, Clinton needs Black Voters to turn out. Even more importantly, she needs to not do worse than Obama did with Whites if she's going to hold on to what we won in 2012, and expand the map back into the south and west.

[Geilinor]

Booker might be an advantage in Georgia, but if you're winning there (let alone Mississippi) it's not a close election anyway. Yes, GA is one of the next pickups down the list from the 2012 map, but in most cases, preserving that map is easier.

Black turnout may be instrumental in Virginia and Ohio, and that's where Booker truly helps you. Tim Kaine gets you the former, even to a greater extent.

Ultimately, if Clinton doesn't believe that Booker and Castro would be good VPs, which I think is the case, she shouldn't pick them, whatever the electoral benefits.

I think that people really don't understand in how good a position Clinton is electorally. She's got so many paths to 270, and they all go through losing several states that she's currently leading handily in. If she wins Florida, it's basically game over, for example. Or if she loses that, but builds on Obama's advantage in the western swings states and Virginia. Hell, she's even ahead in NC right now.

Well I disagree with your first sentence. Clinton could do really well with minorities, which I think is the case, but do horribly with non-college educated whites. If she can do better with Latinos and Blacks in regards to vote share and turn out than Obama did in 2008, but worse with all whites than Obama did in 2012...you could have her winning Florida and Virginia and maybe North Carolina but losing Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Which to her credit, still brings her to over 270 electoral votes and therefore the presidency.

Results in these elections are usually regional, and you'd need an extremely partisan state to start leaning in a different direction in order to predict a national trend. If Missouri is light pink or a tossup, Clinton is probably going to do very well in Iowa and better than expected in Indiana. BUT, if like Alabama or Wyoming start to go from dark red to maybe just red...Clinton probably won in a landslide. Conversely, if Massachusetts or Illinois go from dark blue to just blue...Trump probably won very big.

My point is, Clinton needs Black Voters to turn out. Even more importantly, she needs to not do worse than Obama did with Whites if she's going to hold on to what we won in 2012, and expand the map back into the south and west.

Trump doesn't seem to be gaining ground in the Midwest yet, Clinton would still win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa if things stayed the same.

[USS Monitor]

Trump was the one candidate that Sanders seemed to not hold back at all on with the "No attacks" thing.

I loved how he used the "Love Trumps hate" line at the rally.

And I love how there are Sanders supporters trying to say that Sanders and Trump are similar to each other and more alike than he is to Hillary...Like what.

Bernie or Trump people are full of shit. If they don't like Hillary, they should at least have the decency to vote 3rd party and find someone who isn't a raging bigot.

[Maineiacs]

The whole comments section on his page has gone to shit. You got the occasional people in the comments calling them out, though. I think it's because the worst are the main ones left. Though presumably not anymore.

Honestly I don't get it. He got over 60% of the stuff he wanted in the platform, has a prime speaking slot at the convention, and is forming a new set of liberal lobbying organizations to put pressure on Congress.

He might have done more in losing than if he had goddamn won. Be happy. Take what you can get. It's not bad. It really isn't.

60%? I heard it was more like 80%.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Well I disagree with your first sentence. Clinton could do really well with minorities, which I think is the case, but do horribly with non-college educated whites. If she can do better with Latinos and Blacks in regards to vote share and turn out than Obama did in 2008, but worse with all whites than Obama did in 2012...you could have her winning Florida and Virginia and maybe North Carolina but losing Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Which to her credit, still brings her to over 270 electoral votes and therefore the presidency.

Results in these elections are usually regional, and you'd need an extremely partisan state to start leaning in a different direction in order to predict a national trend. If Missouri is light pink or a tossup, Clinton is probably going to do very well in Iowa and better than expected in Indiana. BUT, if like Alabama or Wyoming start to go from dark red to maybe just red...Clinton probably won in a landslide. Conversely, if Massachusetts or Illinois go from dark blue to just blue...Trump probably won very big.

My point is, Clinton needs Black Voters to turn out. Even more importantly, she needs to not do worse than Obama did with Whites if she's going to hold on to what we won in 2012, and expand the map back into the south and west.

Trump doesn't seem to be gaining ground in the Midwest yet, Clinton would still win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa if things stayed the same.

Well Actually...

He's closing the gap in all of those states. A gap still exists, and it's fairly large in Michigan...but Trump has shown potential. Trump is doing poorly, but marginally less poorly than he was previously. I think after this summer, we'll know whether or not Trump can win in the Rust Belt. I'll say this. I would not be surprised if he lost in a landslide, and I would not be surprised if he won. There's enough data to suggest either outcome.

Hillary only has to do one thing. Maintain her margins, and boost turnout in Hispanics and Blacks. If she can do that, she doesn't have to worry about disaffected white progressives. It's a constituency she shouldn't ignore, but ultimately I don't think they'll vote for Jill Stein (who I think is horrible, just personally) and they certainly won't vote for Donald Trump....Gary Johnson will be interesting.

[Galloism]

Honestly I don't get it. He got over 60% of the stuff he wanted in the platform, has a prime speaking slot at the convention, and is forming a new set of liberal lobbying organizations to put pressure on Congress.

He might have done more in losing than if he had goddamn won. Be happy. Take what you can get. It's not bad. It really isn't.

60%? I heard it was more like 80%.

Well... depends on how you count it. He wanted free college for all, hillary acquiesced to free for those making less than 125k. Some people counted that as a point of victory for sanders, but I count it as a partial victory.

[Maineiacs]

60%? I heard it was more like 80%.

Well... depends on how you count it. He wanted free college for all, hillary acquiesced to free for those making less than 125k. Some people counted that as a point of victory for sanders, but I count it as a partial victory.

I'll take it. It would mean my 15-year-old daughter wouldn't have to forego college.

[Galloism]

Well... depends on how you count it. He wanted free college for all, hillary acquiesced to free for those making less than 125k. Some people counted that as a point of victory for sanders, but I count it as a partial victory.

I'll take it. It would mean my 15-year-old daughter wouldn't have to forego college.

Oh I agree. I'll mark that a 90% victory. I just don't mark it 100%.

I approve of it.

[Corrian]

Well Actually...

Ugh, I don't like how that has shrunk by like 13% recently. Just...no.

I think what you said is about right, though. It's weird. I could see him winning (And America immediately going to shit), and I could see him getting utterly destroyed. And I honestly hope he gets utterly destroyed. In other words, it's way too unpredictable at the moment. But from what I keep seeing swing state wise, it feels like she SHOULD have it in the bag pretty easily, but I don't know if she actually will.

[Corrian]

Oh I agree. I'll mark that a 90% victory. I just don't mark it 100%.

I approve of it.

Honestly, the stance that people making too much money don't get free education at least makes sense to me, so it's not that bad of a thing to me. So I'm definitely mostly satisfied. Especially if it passes because it would save me.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Well Actually...

Ugh, I don't like how that has shrunk by like 13% recently. Just...no.

I think what you said is about right, though. It's weird. I could see him winning (And America immediately going to shit), and I could see him getting utterly destroyed. And I honestly hope he gets utterly destroyed. In other words, it's way too unpredictable at the moment. But from what I keep seeing swing state wise, it feels like she SHOULD have it in the bag pretty easily, but I don't know if she actually will.

Ultimately, if Trump wins, I think we have to do an autopsy and ask whether we've lost the culture war. 2008 and 2012 were very consequential elections in a way that 2000 and 2004 and 1996 were not. 2008 we had an economic crisis and two wars, the candidate had very different visions for America and we chose correctly. 2012 we were in the middle of the recovery and had written the Affordable Care Act and were dealing with the onset of Arab Spring, if we had chosen Romney that would've been the end of Obamacare and maybe our economic recovery. I think this year, is the most important election since 1940. If we abandon the Democrat now, we likely lose marriage equality, we lose Obamacare, we start a war on islam, we start trade wars with our partners, we make the court conservative for a generation, we don't address racial issues, we don't fix social security, we don't act on climate change, we defund planned parenthood, and so many things that we've worked for...for like a decade...just gone. This election is going to be a referendum on liberal ideas and Barack Obama. I think there are probably larger forces at work, more powerful than Hillary or Donald or Bernie.

[Corrian]

Ultimately, if Trump wins, I think we have to do an autopsy and ask whether we've lost the culture war. 2008 and 2012 were very consequential elections in a way that 2000 and 2004 and 1996 were not. 2008 we had an economic crisis and two wars, the candidate had very different visions for America and we chose correctly. 2012 we were in the middle of the recovery and had written the Affordable Care Act and were dealing with the onset of Arab Spring, if we had chosen Romney that would've been the end of Obamacare and maybe our economic recovery. I think this year, is the most important election since 1940. If we abandon the Democrat now, we likely lose marriage equality, we lose Obamacare, we start a war on islam, we start trade wars with our partners, we make the court conservative for a generation, we don't address racial issues, we don't fix social security, we don't act on climate change, we defund planned parenthood, and so many things that we've worked for...for like a decade...just gone. This election is going to be a referendum on liberal ideas and Barack Obama. I think there are probably larger forces at work, more powerful than Hillary or Donald or Bernie.

And we chose a heavily disliked Democrat as our choice to go up against him. Very good choices, America.

But just...ugh. I honestly expect if Trump wins, things might get ugly real fast. We're already seeing how ugly things are getting lately. These last two months have been awful, not just here, but world wide.

[Maurepas]

I don't know if this has been posted, but I'm pretty confident with these poll numbers post-FBI Director results. I think that was the floor for Clinton and they aren't going to get another silver bullet like that one. And yet,

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/15/ ... orida.html

[Ngelmish]

Ultimately, if Trump wins, I think we have to do an autopsy and ask whether we've lost the culture war. 2008 and 2012 were very consequential elections in a way that 2000 and 2004 and 1996 were not. 2008 we had an economic crisis and two wars, the candidate had very different visions for America and we chose correctly. 2012 we were in the middle of the recovery and had written the Affordable Care Act and were dealing with the onset of Arab Spring, if we had chosen Romney that would've been the end of Obamacare and maybe our economic recovery. I think this year, is the most important election since 1940. If we abandon the Democrat now, we likely lose marriage equality, we lose Obamacare, we start a war on islam, we start trade wars with our partners, we make the court conservative for a generation, we don't address racial issues, we don't fix social security, we don't act on climate change, we defund planned parenthood, and so many things that we've worked for...for like a decade...just gone. This election is going to be a referendum on liberal ideas and Barack Obama. I think there are probably larger forces at work, more powerful than Hillary or Donald or Bernie.

And we chose a heavily disliked Democrat as our choice to go up against him. Very good choices, America.

But just...ugh. I honestly expect if Trump wins, things might get ugly real fast. We're already seeing how ugly things are getting lately. These last two months have been awful, not just here, but world wide.

Blame party polarization. Clinton is still broadly liked among Democrats even though the last couple of news cycles have been rougher than average on her.

If Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley or even Lincoln Chafee had somehow become the nominee, their numbers would have been in the same ballpark. Indeed it's possible (probable in at least one of those cases) that their numbers would actually be lower because they're less known nationally and haven't needed to fend off reams of coordinated attacks.

[Marylandonia]

I don't know if this has been posted, but I'm pretty confident with these poll numbers post-FBI Director results. I think that was the floor for Clinton and they aren't going to get another silver bullet like that one. And yet,

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/15/ ... orida.html

That's a good assessment. From here out Hillary needs not to botch up with her VP pick or say something stupid on the trail and especially at the debates.

Bet she has an October surprise for Donald. Trump's taxes anyone?

[Maurepas]

I don't know if this has been posted, but I'm pretty confident with these poll numbers post-FBI Director results. I think that was the floor for Clinton and they aren't going to get another silver bullet like that one. And yet,

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/15/ ... orida.html

That's a good assessment. From here out Hillary needs not to botch up with her VP pick or say something stupid on the trail and especially at the debates.

Bet she has an October surprise for Donald. Trump's taxes anyone?

I thought he wasn't going to release them? I figured he was afraid they'd show he wasn't nearly as rich as he says he is.

[Galloism]

Oh I agree. I'll mark that a 90% victory. I just don't mark it 100%.

I approve of it.

Honestly, the stance that people making too much money don't get free education at least makes sense to me, so it's not that bad of a thing to me. So I'm definitely mostly satisfied. Especially if it passes because it would save me.

Like I said - I'm pretty happy with it. Let's just keep in mind it wasn't 100% Bernie's stance. Maybe 90% of it.

[Ngelmish]

After tinkering around the edges of it for weeks, I've finalized my personal list of acceptable picks for Clinton's VP (always assuming that she doesn't pull some really unexpected dark horse like Jerry Brown) in a roughly descending order of excellence: Martin O'Malley, Tom Perez, Deval Patrick, John Hickenlooper, Tom Vilsack, and Tim Kaine.* Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are also sort of in the mix for me, although I'd be loath to unnecessarily hand either seat over to the a Republican appointee.

On the whole I'm feeling slightly more optimistic at the potential quality of the selection than I was, though of course there's truly no divining her intentions at this point. The people who know aren't talking and the people who are talking are only repeating what the campaign has chosen to give away.

*I'm aware that at least one of those names is not seriously in contention.

[Maurepas]

After tinkering around the edges of it for weeks, I've finalized my personal list of acceptable picks for Clinton's VP (always assuming that she doesn't pull some really unexpected dark horse like Jerry Brown) in a roughly descending order of excellence: Martin O'Malley, Tom Perez, Deval Patrick, John Hickenlooper, Tom Vilsack, and Tim Kaine.* Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are also sort of in the mix for me, although I'd be loath to unnecessarily hand either seat over to the a Republican appointee.

On the whole I'm feeling slightly more optimistic at the potential quality of the selection than I was, though of course there's truly no divining her intentions at this point. The people who know aren't talking and the people who are talking are only repeating what the campaign has chosen to give away.

*I'm aware that at least one of those names is not seriously in contention.

I think my favorites are Warren and O'Malley, I actually really liked some of his stuff in the debates towards the end.

[The Romulan Republic]

After tinkering around the edges of it for weeks, I've finalized my personal list of acceptable picks for Clinton's VP (always assuming that she doesn't pull some really unexpected dark horse like Jerry Brown) in a roughly descending order of excellence: Martin O'Malley, Tom Perez, Deval Patrick, John Hickenlooper, Tom Vilsack, and Tim Kaine.* Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are also sort of in the mix for me, although I'd be loath to unnecessarily hand either seat over to the a Republican appointee.

On the whole I'm feeling slightly more optimistic at the potential quality of the selection than I was, though of course there's truly no divining her intentions at this point. The people who know aren't talking and the people who are talking are only repeating what the campaign has chosen to give away.

*I'm aware that at least one of those names is not seriously in contention.

To my knowledge, of that list, only Kaine, Perez, Warren, and Brown appear to have been seriously considered.

My preference is Warren, but I fear it'll be Kaine.