Election 2016

[Prak]

Thank you. That's roughly what I thought, but wasn't sure.

[Ancient History]

And another one bites the dust: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-pau ... d=36674666

[RobbyPants]

And another one bites the dust: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-pau ... d=36674666

Wait a minute...

He was pretty much a nobody in the list of 16 contenders for months, then the day after a way better showing in the caucus than anyone had anticipated, he withdraws now?

[Username17]

And another one bites the dust: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-pau ... d=36674666

Wait a minute...

He was pretty much a nobody in the list of 16 contenders for months, then the day after a way better showing in the caucus than anyone had anticipated, he withdraws now?

His senate campaign isn't a sure thing anymore and he needs to go work on it full time. He's probably been waiting for a bit of good news so that he isn't slinking back to Kentucky with the stench of failure on him.

Like how Jindal ended his campaign just before the governor election was going to happen so he was out of the national news when his office got turned over to a Democrat.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

Santorum aborts his campaign: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/ ... ntial-bid/

And then there were...uh...technically 9, although that's counting Gilmore and Kasich.

[Prak]

For someone who hates abortion, Santorum certainly aborts campaigns a lot...

[Koumei]

For someone who hates abortion, Santorum certainly aborts campaigns a lot...

I'm pretty sure someone has sigged my comment from last time saying he should stick to his principles and carry his dead campaign to term.

[MisterDee]

I really liked his Twitter comment. "It's just not our year."

As opposed to the last, what, five election years?

[Leress]

For someone who hates abortion, Santorum certainly aborts campaigns a lot...

I'm pretty sure someone has sigged my comment from last time saying he should stick to his principles and carry his dead campaign to term.

I wonder who...

[RobbyPants]

For someone who hates abortion, Santorum certainly aborts campaigns a lot...

Santorum leaked dropped out... someone, get a towel, some soap, and water.

[Username17]

So New Hampshire primary happened. New Hampshire is a weird, tiny, lily white state where the voters pried themselves on voting for marginal outsiders and also it allows spoiler votes to be cast by "independents." It was pretty much assumed that Trump and Sanders would win this state by double digits, and they did. So that part of the race is unchanged. If Sanders had pulled off another statistical tie or even posted a very tiny win in this extremely demographically state, his campaign would essentially be over. But he posted the kind of win he was supposed to, so he's still in there fighting. Similarly, Trump has a campaign about winning because he's a winner, and coming in second in Iowa was very damaging to his narrative - another second place in New hampshire and people would stop talking about him as if he was in first place and then people would stop talking about him at all. A big win in New Hampshire puts him right back to where he was in the beginning of January.

Cruz came in a distant third or fourth, but that doesn't hurt him at all because he markets himself to religious nutjobs rather than libertarian nutjobs or pretend-serious plutocracy supporters. New Hampshire was never part of his path to the presidency, so losing it doesn't really matter. He needs to do well in South Carolina, and that hasn't really changed. Similarly for Clinton, while a win here would have been a knockout punch, a loss, even a big loss like this one, doesn't change much. The Washington Post will wring its hands about how doomed she is, but it always does that, awarding her the "worst week in Washington" almost every week.

If the top two positions are essentially unchanged by the vote, what happened? Well, the Republicans are more disarrayed now. Rubio seems to have hit a wall. His "Rubio Bot" performance at the debate combined with a fifth place finish in New Hampshire has killed the "Rubio Momentum" meme, so he's simply no longer the presumptive establishment pick. Kasich and Bush both finished ahead of him and get delegates while he doesn't. That means that the establishment has to continue splitting their focus (and their money) on Kasich, Bush, and Rubio.

Christie and Fiorina are probably going to drop out. Christie might take his "I knocked out Rubio" thing and try to hang on until Nevada, but he might not. A 6th place finish in New Hampshire is very bad news for him. Fiorina has gone nowhere, and could drop at any time. Carson got crushed in New Hampshire, but the black religious zealot was never going to go far in the white libertarian state. He might drop at any time of course, because his campaign is fake and used to sell books. But there's no particular reason to not hold on until South Carolina.

So that's New Hampshire. The number 1 and 2 position of the Republican side is still Trump then Cruz, the number 1 and 2 position of the Democratic side if still Clinton then Sanders. But the Republican establishment was hoping to coalesce around a solid #3, and it very much did not.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Poor RubioBot, may he Rest in Peace.

[Mechalich]

The one piece of news on the democratic side is that the generational divide thing that showed up in Iowa - with Sanders annihilating Clinton among the under 35 demographic while losing the older ones held true in New Hampshire as well. If Bernie can keep that up he can contest an awful lot of states (though everyone is predicting he will do significantly worse once the youth demographic stops being so heavily tilted towards white college kids). I still doubt he can beat Clinton, but it now looks like he has a path to pull in a very real quantity of delegates and stretch this thing out.

As far as the Republicans go I doubt Rubio's out completely yet, simply because neither Kasich - who's made too many iconoclastic statements and has essentially no organization outside of New Hampshire and his home state of Ohio - nor Bush - who's been lackluster at best the whole way so far - are really likely to garner major bumps out of finishing with less than 12% of the vote. If the establishment figures can't settle on a nominee after SC or NV - and it doesn't seem like they will - then it seems likely that either Trump or Cruz actually could win the nomination. Which is truly terrifying.

[Schleiermacher]

It's early yet and I was wrong in my last prediction (Jeb!) but at this point I think it'll be Cruz.

[Username17]

As far as the Republicans go I doubt Rubio's out completely yet

He definitely is not out. He got 7 delegates in Iowa and zero in New Hampshire. That's still more delegates than any of the other establishment candidates. And remember that there are three delegates per state that are from the RNC and go to pretty much whoever the RNC wants to win. If Rubio can ultimately make the establishment decide that he's the guy they want, then he won Iowa and came second in New Hampshire.

It's just that in the media narrative world he just had a disastrous debate appearance followed by a lower than expected showing in the New Hampshire primary. Worse, he's been tagged with the "Rubio Bot" meme, which means that any time he fails to repeat himself he's off message and any time he does repeat himself he's the Talking Points 3000. It's very difficult to see how he can rebrand himself as "not a loser" before Nevada and South Carolina. And if he does poorly in Nevada and South Carolina he simply isn't going to be treated as a serious candidate any more.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

It's early yet and I was wrong in my last prediction (Jeb!) but at this point I think it'll be Cruz.

Too early to admit defeat, there is still time for Cruz to be Crazy, Trump to Bow out because he has enough money from his book sales, RubioBot to be RubioBot, and Kaisch to be slightly to the Left of literal Hitler, and thus Jeb! to win by default.

[erik]

It is weird that I've still been expecting Jeb! to be the establishment pick and nominee, and wondering how it was going to come to pass, but it seems more likely after Rubio faltering.

[MisterDee]

I'm thinking that out of deference to Old President Bush, there's been less pressure on Jeb! to call it quits (and by extension, on the other nobodies polling in the 5-10% range, because that'd just be too obvious) than usual.

Iowa and NH just aren't that important, and they're not winner-takes-all or winner-takes-most states.

But now I figure that the pressure-to-quit on the not-Bush/not-Rubio candidates will be turned up to 11. The Republican establishment flat-out can't afford to give all the winner-takes-most delegates to Cruz and Trump. I expect Christie and Gilmore (who?) wll bow out before the next contest at least.

[sendaz]

Would Trump's ego let him play second fiddle and take the VP slot?

I don't see him doing it, but it all depend on what he really wants...

[Ancient History]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/f ... o-drop-out

Fiorina's out. Chris Christie is expected to drop later tonight. That leaves...uh...Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, and technically Carson and Gilmore. Although really Gilmore isn't running, and Carson's book tour has almost ended.

Also, hilariously the fourth-placed Democratic candidate in New Hampshire was Vermin Supreme, who got only 0.1 percentile less of the vote than O'Malley.

Coming up: South Carolina and Nevada. Which are confusing and bullshit.

[DrPraetor]

If Sanders had pulled off another statistical tie or even posted a very tiny win in this extremely demographically state, his campaign would essentially be over. But he posted the kind of win he was supposed to, so he's still in there fighting.

Actually, he did about 5% better than he "should have" (which is a big difference), and the crosstabs indicated that he was winning by large margins among lower-income people.
This basically gives him Clinton's 2008 coalition vs. Clinton having Obama's 2008 coalition, and projects closer to a draw, which is better than he was doing before that 20% margin or those crosstabs came in. Of course, projects-to-a-draw still means Clinton is favored, but objectively speaking the odds just ticked substantially in Sanders favor.

So that's New Hampshire. The number 1 and 2 position of the Republican side is still Trump then Cruz, the number 1 and 2 position of the Democratic side if still Clinton then Sanders. But the Republican establishment was hoping to coalesce around a solid #3, and it very much did not.

Any time you outperform your polling average by 5 points, that's a positive sign for your Campaign. So Trump and Sanders both benefited from this more than you're indicating - but overall, yeah, that's true.

[Occluded Sun]

Ah, Trump's fulfilling an old, old pattern: the elite who sides with the plebes against the rest of the elites. And he's doing it by referencing the issues the other elites have an agreement to ignore - as one described it, 'picking up the hundred dollar bill in the center of the room'.

This should be highly entertaining.

[Username17]

Actually, he did about 5% better than he "should have" (which is a big difference), and the crosstabs indicated that he was winning by large margins among lower-income people.
This basically gives him Clinton's 2008 coalition vs. Clinton having Obama's 2008 coalition, and projects closer to a draw, which is better than he was doing before that 20% margin or those crosstabs came in. Of course, projects-to-a-draw still means Clinton is favored, but objectively speaking the odds just ticked substantially in Sanders favor.

Meh. Among registered Democrats, Clinton and Sanders split the vote 49% to 49%. Sanders won 72% to 27% among Independents, but most of the rest of the country does not allow "spoiler votes" in primaries. Basically we got the same result as Iowa, Clinton and Sanders pretty much tied among Democratic voters in states where the demographics heavily favor Sanders by being heavily stacked with white people and liberals relative to the Democratic party in the nation at large.

It's actually a bad result for Sanders, though obviously he's going to benefit a lot from his "huge win" in terms of media narrative. By getting a tie in Iowa and a win in New Hampshire, the media is forced to take him and his message seriously and can't effectively pretend he doesn't exist. That's great for his movement and for his candidacy. But for his path to the presidency to be much more than a dark horse candidacy he would have had to show that he was able to win over more than half of Democrats when the demographics were in his favor. He hasn't done that. And the upcoming contests in South Carolina and Nevada are much less favorable for him demographically.

He didn't get 51% of the Democrats in lily white Iowa and he didn't get 51% of the Democrats in lily white New Hampshire. And in two and a half weeks he is going to try to win over the Democrats in South Carolina, where more than half of the Democrats are black. It started as a long shot candidacy, and nothing has happened to really change that.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

I like how half of the superdelegates (not half of New Hampshire's, just half) have already pledged Clinton. Sanders won New Hampshire's popular vote 60-38 and lost the state's superdelegates 25-75.

Who the fuck thought that was a good idea? First, it's a bluff. The superdelegates are not going to flip the results. If Sanders wins the popular vote, Clinton will either drop out or the superdelegates will fall in line. If the superdelegates did, in a moment of total fucking stupidity, actually flip the results, then it'll be the lowest turnout the Democratic party has seen in decades and whichever clown ends up winning the Republican primary will be our next president.

Second, it's a stupid fucking bluff to be making. Clinton needs Sanders' supporters in the general, and a lot of Sanders' supporters are Sanders' supporters because they are dissatisfied with the party establishment. Having the actual establishment blatantly flex its muscles against Sanders in a toothless show of force means when/if Clinton ends up winning the primary a lot less of those supporters are going to show up to the general. The fact that Clinton lost the New Hampshire popular vote by 22 points and still tied Sanders is not actually helping Clinton win the primary - it's just hurting her in the general.

[Username17]

I like how half of the superdelegates (not half of New Hampshire's, just half) have already pledged Clinton.

Hardly surprising. While Sanders and Clinton voted the same way 93.1% of the time while they were in the legislature together, Sanders is not really a Democrat. He's an independent. Hillary has spent the last twenty years racing around the country helping other Democrats out with fundraising and campaigning, and Bernie has done only a little. The Democratic party apparatus and elected officials, from whom the superdelegates are pulled, owes Clinton a lot more than it owes Sanders.

Al Franken endorsed Hillary Clinton. He's pretty leftist and possibly closer to Bernie Sanders on the few policy positions that Clinton and Sanders disagree. But Hillary Clinton helped him get into the Senate in the first place and Bernie Sanders did not.

Second, it's a stupid fucking bluff to be making.

I'm not sure it is. The numbers grossly favored Clinton at the beginning and they still grossly favor her now. Sanders came surprisingly close to getting 51% of the Democrats in two states, but he didn't make it. It's enough to make it a real race. It's enough that if Hillary gives a 47% speech or announces that we should dispel the notion that Obama doesn't know what he's doing, the tables could turn and Sanders could win. Hillary has to move left on a bunch of issues to keep Sanders from outflanking her. Hillary has to campaign for real in all the primary states. These are all real things.

But right now, she's still massively ahead. And the biggest danger to that is the media not understanding what it means to get 60% of the vote in fucking New Hampshire means and spend the next ten days singing a dirge about the death of her campaign. If the public is inundated with a media narrative that she is in a tailspin and her campaign is covered in loser funk, she might actually start to lose races she's set up to win. So right now her people have to flood the damn airways with "actually, Clinton is doing fine" stories. Doesn't matter how contrived they are, they just have to break up the relentless wardrums of "Clinton in Trouble" stories so she doesn't get bumrushed out the door by a self fulfilling media narrative of defeat.

As such, this is probably exactly the time to pull the "I still own all the super delegates, go fuck yourself" card. From her standpoint, the sooner the media starts saying "Bernie Sanders fought a good fight and got really close but didn't make it" the better. Sanders is probably going to continue the campaign all the way to DC in June, but once the media starts reporting the campaign as "hopeless" the states are going to stop being close.

The other thing of course is that waving the super delegates dick around is pretty off-putting. Better to do it early than late. If the super delegates have to be brought in for a brokered convention, the Democrats are toast. But no one is going to remember arcane procedural moves made in February by the time November comes around.

-Username17