[worry]

Ever the literalist!

[worry]

(But it is a good literal answer. It just remains to be seen how the states go, and then how the super-Ds respond at the convention).

[Terez]

Bernie's win tonight was really big. The polling average going into the election had Bernie winning by about 13 points; the spin going into election day was that Bernie needed to win by 20 points to prevent Hillary from saying she closed the race. And there were some indications that she might be closing the race, especially the YouGov daily tracking poll. Bernie won by 22 points, far above his polling average and higher than the majority of individual polls predicted; anything showing a 20-point lead had to be considered an outlier. People were asking Hillary yesterday morning, "Is a single-digit loss a win?" and she refused to answer that directly. That clip was played over and over again on MSNBC throughout the day, but in the end, she didn't come anywhere near a single-digit loss; she has no way to spin this as anything but a devastating loss.

[Terez]

Breaking news from Democracy Now: TNC is voting for Bernie.

[Terez]

Chris Christie is gone. I for one will miss him.

[Abyss]

Is there a serious possibility of a Bernie surge tho? Hillary seems to be leading him almost everywhere else, and NH was a foregone outcome weeks ago.

On the other side of the circus we have Trump.... Fuck me like a chicken pot pie America, are you actually going to move this ... thing.... all the way to a presidential run? Seriously? Seriously??? This is a joke right? At some point Trump is going to pull off a mask and turn out to be John Stewart... right?

[Andorion]

2 things.

How will Bernie do out of the Northeast? His victory is huge, but isn't this is home ground? What about the South, the midwest? I suppose the South Carolina thing will shed light on this

Will Evangelicals abandon Cruz for Trump? They got him the victory in Iowa, will Trump do well in places with a solid Christian bloc?

[Terez]

Abyss, on 10 February 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Is there a serious possibility of a Bernie surge tho? Hillary seems to be leading him almost everywhere else, and NH was a foregone outcome weeks ago.

Bernie's win was predicted, but not the margin, and not the dominance in every demographic in NH including women; he won all women by 11 percentage points, not just women under 50 like in Iowa. Hillary won two demographic groups: voters over 65 and people with household income over 200k.

The polls in Nevada and South Carolina are outdated; none have been conducted since well before Iowa. Polling in later states is even less reliable at this point. So yes, a Bernie surge is entirely possible, and actually quite likely at this point. Hillary's lead in South Carolina has been dependent on her presumptive control of the black vote. Ben Jealous, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Michelle Alexander are publicly questioning black support for the Clintons in general and Hillary specifically. The average person might not know who these people are, but black voters certainly do. Jealous helped save the NAACP from demise during his tenure; TNC is one of the most respected black voices in journalism; Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, is one of the most influential modern civil rights writers. These voices can change the calculus in South Carolina and beyond.

As for Trump, the only hope for keeping him from the nomination is to consolidate the Establishment vote. Rubio's awful debate in New Hampshire made that task much, much more difficult. You can guarantee the Establishment is praying for some clarity out of South Carolina, because they sure didn't get it in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Studlock]

I'm just going to point out that you guys (Americans) might have a presidential race between a leftist populists who doesn't understand foreign policy, who economist (or, at least, by and large, the 'mainstream' academic and professional economists) hate because he doesn't understand economics in one way, and has good instincts when it comes to social policy, but his given mechanics of ending inequality (minimum wage, fed audit, 'taking on Wall Street') are either unlikely to work or are unproven. And a right-wing populists who doesn't understand foreign policy, who economists hate because he doesn't understand economics in a different way, and has horrific social policies planned. I'm honestly a bit nervous of either candidate being in charge for what it means for i) world trade, and ii) specifically the relationship with Canada and USA.

[Terez]

Studlock, on 10 February 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

I'm just going to point out that you guys (Americans) might have a presidential race between a leftist populists who doesn't understand foreign policy...

Why would you say he doesn't understand foreign policy? He understood it well enough to oppose the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. He's not 100% peacenik; he supported Afghanistan reluctantly. He understands the value of diplomacy and doesn't believe we should be the world's policemen. By the way, especially for Mentalist and Gothos and others who have previously expressed some reluctant appreciation for our role as world policemen, he's not completely anti-interventionist either. He just believes that if we intervene anywhere outside our borders it should be as part of a sizable coalition of allies and with a fair consensus at home. That's basically the same as Obama's original platform but it's pretty much always been Bernie's view.

He understands the value of trade and supports fair trade practices over free trade. That's an oversimplification but it's what works for the campaign trail; Bernie is hardly unread or inexperienced on these topics and has spoken on them at more length in the House and in the Senate and in the media. His single-mindedness is a character trait that makes it easy to believe he's kind of a one-trick pony but if you actually start digging into his record you might be surprised to see how much he's had to say on a wide range of topics over the years.

Journalists act very knowingly shocked when they learn that many voters in New Hampshire were undecided between Trump and Sanders. Knowingly because they're both clearly populist candidates, aiming deliberately outside the mainstream. One could be called far right, and one could be called far left. That false dichotomy is not an accident (full transcript of MLK's words below recording). In a very real way, both campaigns are as centrist as they are anti-establishment. The only thing that really separates them is racial identity politics.

One really interesting thing about the results in New Hampshire is that Bernie won a lot of counties and towns that Obama lost to Hillary in 2008—what Steve Kornacki referred to as "white, blue collar" areas of the state. There's a distinct possibility that Obama lost those voters to racism, and Hillary was the lesser evil for them, and Bernie appeals to them because Bernie doesn't appeal to black voters (yet). But Bernie mentioned race-related issues several times in the New Hampshire debate, and Hillary didn't really. It could be that Bernie is merely tapping into that generic white populist vote, and actually expanding the influence of left-populism among white working class voters.

Studlock, on 10 February 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

...who economist (or, at least, by and large, the 'mainstream' academic and professional economists) hate because he doesn't understand economics in one way...

That would be the Establishment of economics, i.e. the religion of neoliberalism. It really is a religion because it relies on faith. I don't pay much attention to those people; Yves Smith likes Bernie and she understands economics better than probably 99.9% of people in the world. She probably (like me) wishes he could express his ideas a little better and be quicker on his feet at the debates, but he's turning out to be not too shabby. Before he ran for president, Bernie was a very dour old man. That's part of what made him seem unelectable. It's been very interesting to see him transform now that he's got more confidence in himself and more confidence in the revolution itself. He's not an economic illiterate by any means, nor is he an economist. He doesn't have to be an economist; he just needs a good team. He's only now getting the traction he needs to recruit that team, because most of the people who could make up that team work for the Establishment.

I'm rereading Chris Hayes's Twilight of the Elites. He likes to refer to the Establishment as the meritocracy. He didn't coin the term, but the specificity of the term is central to his book. It's interesting to watch the meritocracy grudgingly concede that Bernie has merited a place in this race. They take a certain perverse pleasure in watching Bernie slowly become part of the Establishment. It's all very surreal sometimes. I can't wait to see where this election goes. It's really starting to get a 2008 kind of feel to it, if with a slightly slow start, and it's not because Bernie is a charismatic figure like Obama. It's not about Bernie, really, and most people including Bernie like it that way just fine.

Studlock, on 10 February 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

...his given mechanics of ending inequality (minimum wage, fed audit, 'taking on Wall Street') are either unlikely to work or are unproven.

First, let's dispel with this notion that Bernie Sanders doesn't know how to take on Wall St. He knows exactly how to take on Wall St., starting with campaign finance (since he's running a campaign) and, barring the ability to pass legislation (always iffy in this Congressional climate), at least use his administration to enforce laws already on the books, or as Elizabeth Warren says, to put cops on the beat and dispense with the two-tiered justice system. Financial crimes should have their due consequences.

There's a lot more that can be done re: lobbying with legislation, but most voters don't want to hear about all that beyond the basics. If he wins the nomination, I'm sure he'll stress down-ticket voting, and there are some interesting Bernie-like insurrectionists running this year, like Zephyr Teachout in NY.

Edit: I forgot to address the other things. I think Bernie's main goal with these particular policy proposals is to move the goalposts. The left has been conceding on these things for so long that $15 minimum wage is actually well behind inflation when compared to the 60s and 70s. It should be around $22. That's how much the value of work has fallen, but somehow $15 is unrealistic. There's a reason for that: wealth is being extracted from the poor and middle class and concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of the population. It's being extracted through the financial market and it comes out in our mortgages and credit card payments and various other direct and indirect ways. This extraction is made possible by various extremely complex financial laws which were written by Wall St. lobbyists and passed by well-funded Establishment Congresscritters.

Fed audit...this is where Bernie tries to appeal to the Paulies. It is, if nothing else, completely harmless.

This post has been edited by Terez: 10 February 2016 - 06:38 PM

[Abyss]

Studlock, on 10 February 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

I'm just going to point out that you guys (Americans) might have a presidential race between a leftist populists who doesn't understand foreign policy, who economist (or, at least, by and large, the 'mainstream' academic and professional economists) hate because he doesn't understand economics in one way, and has good instincts when it comes to social policy, but his given mechanics of ending inequality (minimum wage, fed audit, 'taking on Wall Street') are either unlikely to work or are unproven. And an eggplant. A racist misogynist eggplant.

ftfy.

[Terez]

Fiorina is out.

PS: That means we're down to Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Bush. All the stragglers are gone except Ben Carson and Jim Gilmore, and no one knows if he's even still alive. Maybe someone knows, but most Americans have still never heard of him. He got beaten by write-ins in NH.

This post has been edited by Terez: 10 February 2016 - 08:29 PM

[Illuyankas]

I saw a tweet saying that Jim Gilmore had about 120 votes, and Vermin Supreme had 180.

Also my vote.

[Gnaw]

Abyss, on 10 February 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Is there a serious possibility of a Bernie surge tho? Hillary seems to be leading him almost everywhere else, and NH was a foregone outcome weeks ago.

On the other side of the circus we have Trump.... Fuck me like a chicken pot pie America, are you actually going to move this ... thing.... all the way to a presidential run? Seriously? Seriously??? This is a joke right? At some point Trump is going to pull off a mask and turn out to be John Stewart... right?

Silvio Berlusconi

My fellow United States of America citizens are really, really stupid.

The intense and passionate hatred of the Clintons will bring out the "anyone but..." vote. Bernie Sanders will lose on name recognition alone.

I'm so fucking pissed at Elizabeth Warren for not running.

President Trump. Let the roll off your tongue a few times. Because it is currently the most likely scenario in my not so humble opinion*.




*Opinions subject to change solely based upon Terez's commentary. I've decided that she is on par with Christopher Hitchens and TNC; while I may disagree with her on some point or another I do so knowing that it is at my peril.

[worry]

Listen to Terez first, your heart second, your brain third. That's how I do it.

[Gnaw]

Dumbledude, on 11 February 2016 - 12:14 AM, said:

Listen to Terez first, your heart second, your brain third. That's how I do it.

I'm a white male. Terez first, dick second, dick third, dick fourth, and what's a heart?

[worry]

Speaking of white male dicks getting in the way of progress, Kasich signed the Ohio bill cutting off Planned Parenthood funding, sure to waste $$$ futilely defending that in court. Way to think of the long game, bozo.

[Gnaw]

Dumbledude, on 11 February 2016 - 01:29 AM, said:

Speaking of white male dicks getting in the way of progress, Kasich signed the Ohio bill cutting off Planned Parenthood funding, sure to waste $$ futilely defending that in court. Way to think of the long game, bozo.

The very sad part of that statement is: he's the sanest Republican.

[EmperorMagus]

Because I was thinking of who Bernie Sanders reminded me of while trying to do more important things.
His campaign strategy (and his opponents) seem so similar to the book "Politician" (Bio of a space tyrant no. 3) that I can't believe I never thought of it.

PS. The first book of that series is horrible, but the rest of the series if worse.

[Gnaw]

EmperorMagus, on 11 February 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

Because I was thinking of who Bernie Sanders reminded me of while trying to do more important things.
His campaign strategy (and his opponents) seem so similar to the book "Politician" (Bio of a space tyrant no. 3) that I can't believe I never thought of it.

PS. The first book of that series is horrible, but the rest of the series if worse.

Oh gawd, I had forgotten that particular piece of crap.

That and "Battlefield Earth" compete for the title of worst SF ever written.