[Terez]

The threads on these two tweets.

https://twitter.com/...219827535462401


https://twitter.com/...237229618892800

[worry]

He deserves all the hell he's getting for that.

[Primateus]

Terez, on 06 March 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

The threads on these two tweets.

https://twitter.com/...219827535462401


https://twitter.com/...237229618892800

This idea of "Super-Delegates" have always struck me as decidedly undemocratic.

It kinda leads to the question of which is it going to be? What is it going to be, America? Are you a democracy or not? And please, let's not have that lame-ass excuse about not actually being a democracy, but a republic.

Could this maybe more be an issue with the fact that your political parties are private entities who get to choose who they want to run for president?

[Terez]

Primateus, on 06 March 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Terez, on 06 March 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

The threads on these two tweets.

https://twitter.com/...219827535462401

https://twitter.com/...237229618892800

This idea of "Super-Delegates" have always struck me as decidedly undemocratic.

It kinda leads to the question of which is it going to be? What is it going to be, America? Are you a democracy or not? And please, let's not have that lame-ass excuse about not actually being a democracy, but a republic.

It's not entirely a lame-ass excuse. There's no such thing as a pure democracy in this world, at least as far as I know. Is there anywhere in the world where citizens can introduce and vote on legislation? Vote on appointments? Vote on war and peace? We elect people to do that for us, and the only way to hold them accountable is in elections with limited choices. That's not pure democracy; that's representative democracy.

The superdelegates are weird. Our presidential process is weird, especially considering the republican nature of the elections, i.e. the ability of states to set rules. The political parties were not provided for in our Constitution; they have their own weird rules. Is there nothing like it in the whole of the Western world? I'm sure every country has its democratic quirks.

Lots of us would like to change these things. It's difficult, but we're working on it. It just seems silly to mock us for being undemocratic when no one is democratic, really.

Primateus, on 06 March 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Could this maybe more be an issue with the fact that your political parties are private entities who get to choose who they want to run for president?

To an extent. Just keep in mind, the party chose Hillary in 2008 too. Obama was strong enough to overcome her and eventually win enough pledged delegates to woo the superdelegates to his side. Bernie is no Obama. He still has a chance, but it's a slim one. The problem is he's lagging in pledged delegates, in the same way that Hillary was lagging in 2008. The party is more doggedly invested in her this time, though. They feel bad about having allowed Obama to pass Hillary when it was her turn. Now it's SUPER her turn. Like, past her turn. That's a stupid way of looking at it, but whatever.

If it were just the party, then those superdelegates wouldn't save her; there are more than enough pledged delegates to render the superdelegates neutral and/or force superdelegates to reconsider their votes (theoretically, in favor of the candidate who won the most pledged delegates in their state). Howard Dean can get away with being stubborn because Hillary is also leading in pledged delegates.

She's also leading with huge numbers among African-American voters, who are considered by some to be the party's base. In the media, some refer to black voters as the base; some refer to progressives as the base. These factions are at odds in this election, but they were united in 2008 because Obama's platform and message were populist relative to Hillary's. (Hillary played a big role in moving him more toward the center.)

This is a complicated subject, and I could say a lot about it, but one of the reasons given by black pundits (looking at Jamelle Bouie especially) for the black-bloc loyalty to Hillary this year is that they, like the party establishment, generally feel bad for passing over Hillary in 2008. They want to make it up to her. That's just one reason, and it's mixed up in a bunch of other reasons, but all this contributes to the situation we have where Bernie's accumulation of pledged delegates is not yet impressive enough to sway the superdelegates, and might not ever be.

Howard Dean's place in this is somewhat unique, though, because his status as a superdelegate arises from his former position as governor of the state of Vermont, where Bernie is a senator. Bernie is more popular in Vermont that Dean ever was, though Dean was popular and successful enough to run for president himself in 2004. (See 538's short documentary on the Dean Scream.) Anyway, Bernie is so popular in Vermont that he won 86% of the vote and 100% of the state's 16 pledged delegates. (Lots of states have UNDEMOCRATIC delegate thresholds.)

16 delegates are not very helpful overall when 2383 are needed to win the nomination. But Howard Dean feels no obligation to vote with the people of his own state, which granted him his power as a superdelegate, and that in particular has people in Vermont annoyed, along with the rest of Bernie's supporters. Howard Dean is just one vote, and not a big deal in the scheme of things. It's just the principle of the thing. Dean is staying loyal to Hillary because he sees her as the inevitable nominee and he wants to be in her good graces. He has been campaigning for her all along; she started trotting him out regularly when it became clear that Bernie would be her main opponent.

Now people are calling him a sellout, partly because now he's a lobbyist for the health care industry, which hates the idea of single-payer universal health care because it would put them out of business. And he supported single-payer as governor. (He argues now that he only supported it for the state of Vermont, not for the whole country, which is exactly what Romney said about Romneycare.) I call him a sellout because he used to be a reformer on this issue. That article I linked earlier about superdelegates mentions a reform organization he started. Longer version of the quote I gave earlier:

This post has been edited by Terez: 06 March 2016 - 02:28 PM

[Terez]

Thanks for reminding me she was still alive.

[worry]

Terez, on 06 March 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

Thanks for reminding me she was still alive.

She's spent the last few years out of the limelight, reminiscing over the good times.
http://www.buzzfeed....n-we#.bkOqmWM4K

[worry]

The Young Turks discussed the Howard Dean tweet specifically and superdelegates more generally, in case anyone wants a 10 minute take on the controversy from the moderate left. I'm not sure watching the whole thing is necessary (since the format is friends -- albeit wonky friends -- having a chat Youtube/podcast style) but you do get substantial tidbits like 1 superdelegate = roughly 10,000 normal votes, giving the lie to the "just one guy's opinion" defense. NSFW for cussing.

[Terez]

By the way, Bernie won Maine today, in case anyone didn't know.

[worry]

He also won the debate! Though to be honest, both candidates did pretty well for the most part. Maybe that's just relative to the other debate, but I don't think it was just that.

[Terez]

I slept through the debate. I will watch it later online. From the tweets I saw on the debate, you would think Bernie was the loser. But that's corporate media for ya.

[worry]

Can debates have "spoilers"? If so this might have mild ones.

I think the she won narrative is necessarily from an "it's her race to lose" perspective. She didn't say anything wrong enough to turn supporters off, so she won in the sense of not screwing up her lead. And her answers were fine most of the time. Bernie had a "shushing" moment where he told her not to interrupt him, and I'm sure that's gonna get a lot of play as a very very easy "moment". And he did his usual thing of breaking too many things down solely to economic factors. But all in all I thought he was on the money the vast majority of the time. He really lived up to -- as Sarah Silverman put it this weekend -- being right before it was cool, while Clinton still comes off as mid-"evolution" on some of the issues.

It was great to see them both talk about Flint in direct, serious ways. They talked about race, education, infrastructure, the environment, and even fracking. The difference between this debate and the other one was night and day (even if Clinton and Bernie both have a few canned answers, at least they aren't about how waterboarding is the least of their planned war crimes).

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 07 March 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

I slept through the debate. I will watch it later online. From the tweets I saw on the debate, you would think Bernie was the loser. But that's corporate media for ya.

I thought Bernie won too. He didn't create a lot of soundbites, but he clearly attacked her positions and presented his own position as superior. However, the "Millionaire and Billionaire class" soundbite- while true- is getting a little old. He needs to find ways to engage her on other stuff not related to economy better (like foreign policy, which I don't care about but it's the perfect subject to show himself as a multi subject candidate).

I didn't like a mental health comment he made, and it may turn off some people who care about social justice. It was funny though.

Finally, whatever people want to say about HC's campaign team, you have applaud the people who do her hair and choose her clothes. They are obviously trying to make her younger (and more appealing to young people) and they are succeeding. I don't like the fact that female politician's clothing is so much more important than their male counterparts- case in point- but she uses it to her advantage. She also covered her abysmal (IMO) record pretty well.

I also have a theory about the best candidate in this election for the rest of the world. I think Donald Trump would do the least damage to other countries, while doing to most to the US. He is a nutjob, so I don't think he will be successful in convincing the rest of the world to go to war like GB did, and he won't be able to ram TPP and TTIP (the EU one, not sure of the name) down the world's throat, which would mean he does the least damage to planet earth. Canada may have a refugee crisis if he gets elected though.

Cruz is as much of a nutjob as DT, but I'm pretty sure he won't care about the rest of the world when deciding on invasions, he will just do it.

@clmazin is still being awesome, the hate he exudes is delicious.

[worry]

EmperorMagus, on 07 March 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

Terez, on 07 March 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

I slept through the debate. I will watch it later online. From the tweets I saw on the debate, you would think Bernie was the loser. But that's corporate media for ya.

She also covered her abysmal (IMO) record pretty well.

Agreed. It sucks that the leading contender has to do this, but she created plausible, palatable explanations for a lot of it. The exception being the emails, to which she immediately pivoted away from toward anti-Trump rhetoric.

On Cruz/Trump, I understand the thought process. Cruz is bloodthirsty, Trump is blood-indifferent. Just don't forget that Congress -- as much as they hate Cruz's personality -- are very much just as bloodthirsty for financial reasons. With either man, there will be war. Trump won't be hard to turn at all when he sees profit in it.

[EmperorMagus]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 07 March 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 07 March 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

Terez, on 07 March 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

I slept through the debate. I will watch it later online. From the tweets I saw on the debate, you would think Bernie was the loser. But that's corporate media for ya.

She also covered her abysmal (IMO) record pretty well.

Agreed. It sucks that the leading contender has to do this, but she created plausible, palatable explanations for a lot of it. The exception being the emails, to which she immediately pivoted away from toward anti-Trump rhetoric.

On Cruz/Trump, I understand the thought process. Cruz is bloodthirsty, Trump is blood-indifferent. Just don't forget that Congress -- as much as they hate Cruz's personality -- are very much just as bloodthirsty for financial reasons. With either man, there will be war. Trump won't be hard to turn at all when he sees profit in it.

Can't argue with you on that, I'm just grasping at straws. It really is important to considers deals such as TPP as an important factor though, they fuck everyone almostas much as wars ( poor countries due to climate and environment erosion, rich due the flight of jobs and thus wealth)

I forgot to add this, but I really loved how Bernie never interrupted her and hated how she just kept on going despite his politeness. I really wish Bernie's advisors would teach some sort of stance that shows he wants to speak without his schoolboy (for lack of a better term) hand raising.

[HoosierDaddy]

Saw my first "Feel the Bern" bumper sticker in Indy today. That's nearly equal to calling yourself a pinko-Commie in Indiana.

The potential for a brokered convention has the political scientist in me drooling. A Trump Independent run is a near 90% Democrat victory.

[worry]

For real. I just don't think his rivals are necessarily competent enough to even get that done. I'd like to see it happen, obv, but I just don't know. I mean Romney as your big get? Why aren't any of these guys paying McCain the big bucks to boost them as much as possible? I know he's tarnished by Palin a bit, but individually he still might be one of the only Republicans w/ actual political capital and general goodwill in the eyes of voters, PLUS you have Trump insulting his military service (and not his legislative record). It's just so stupidly wrongheaded to think Romney is your anti-Trump savior.

[worry]

Cool to see Clinton has already won Mississippi with 0 precincts reporting though.

[HoosierDaddy]

I long ago stopped trying to reason out the rationale for the Republican Party apparatus.

McCain isn't necessarily a "party leader" anymore, so reaching for Mitt, who performed better than him against Obama in '12 (due to incumbent reasons, but whatevs) makes a little sense. The other party leaders:

Ryan (just lost, but wouldn't be bad)
McConnell (LOL)

????

There is no leadership in that party. I think this is a symptom of the madness.

[worry]

You're right, HD. I was just thinking that one valid way to combat Trump is with integrity & legitimacy, since those are two things Trump really nails them on, and which McCain at least (in relative GOP terms) can lay claim to.

That said, who knows? Frankly the Bush -> McCain -> Romney -> Trump set of leaps is so odd from bird's eye view that it actually seems like the symptoms of a long-term mentally fractured, terminally erratic party. Which is accurate of course, but that lack of leadership means there's no captain to steer them out of the whirlpool. On another note, I love mixed metaphors.

[Terez]

Tonight was fun. For those who weren't paying attention, Bernie won a huge upset victory in Michigan tonight. Hillary's polling average in MI has been a 20+point lead. The tightest poll was a 10-point lead, and that was taken a month ago (though if you go back to September there was a one-day local news org poll showing her with a 7-point lead). There was some anecdotal reporting on Dems who crossed over to vote for a non-Trump (probably Kasich) Republican (MI has open primaries) but seeing as how Trump won the state by a good margin (12 points over Cruz), there can't have been too many crossovers. Kasich came in 3rd to Cruz, and Kasich was supposed to do best in the Midwest.

Another interesting thing: the margin right now (98% reporting) is roughly 22,500 votes. There were roughly 22,200 "other" votes, most of which were "undeclared" votes, basically "no candidate" protest votes. Not quite enough to save Hillary (even assuming they would all prefer Hillary to Bernie), but perhaps combined with the crossovers, it would have been. Still, even if she had won, it wouldn't have been by anywhere near the anticipated 20-point lead. And that huge polling lead might have affected her turnout.*

None of the recent MI polls called people after the debate Sunday night (which I still haven't watched; I think I will now; I'm in the mood for it, since MI gives me a spark of hope). So even though debates usually don't swing votes very much short of a moment like Rubio in New Hampshire, maybe this one did. I remained pessimistic despite the debate analysis here; the MSM was all about Hillary having won that debate, based mostly on a few petty points of identity politics (Bernie and ghettos, Bernie's "sexist" finger-wagging and "I'm talking", etc.).

Trump and Hillary won my home state, Mississippi, Hillary by the same huge margin (83-17) that we've seen in other southern states with high minority populations. Cruz won Idaho. Rubio did not win a single delegate in Michigan, Mississippi, or Idaho. Hawaii is still voting. The Dems didn't vote in Idaho and Hawaii today.

Because the margin was wide in MS and tight in MI, Hillary actually took home more delegates than Bernie tonight, but the media consensus is that she still lost big because she lost the expectations game in MI. A postmortem is underway at 538 to figure out why the polls were so wrong. Nate Silver noted earlier that this might be one of the biggest polling errors in the history of polling US presidential elections.

*In retrospect, it's unlikely that Hillary's turnout was affected by poll apathy. Turnout was way up on the Democratic side, whereas it's been way down in other states (while the Republicans have seen consistent turnout gains). As Bernie says, he does well when turnout is high.

This post has been edited by Terez: 09 March 2016 - 09:47 AM