Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

[John F]

Democratic caucuses:

Hillary Clinton 49.9% 23 delegates
Bernie Sanders 49.5% 21 delegates
Martin O'Malley 0.6%
others 0.0%
uncommitted 0.0%

O'Malley has ended his campaign

Republican caucuses:

Ted Cruz 27.7% 8 delegates
Donald J. Trump 24.3% 7 delegates
Marco Rubio 23.1% 7 delegates
Ben Carson 9.3% 3 delegates
Rand Paul 4.5% 1 delegate
Jeb Bush 2.8% 1 delegate
Carly Fiorina 1.9%
John Kasich 1.9%
Mike Huckabee 1.8%
Chris Christie 1.8%
Rick Santorum 1.0%
Jim Gilmore 0.0%

various charts:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

[karlhenning]

I should have called a strong second-place showing a tactical victory for Sanders; a virtual tie, is a genuine triumph.

Cheers,
~k.

[John F]

Sanders himself called the result a virtual tie, but the thing about "virtual" is that it isn't the real thing; virtual reality is not reality. You could call a win in the 100 yard dash by 0.01 seconds a virtual tie, but it's still a win. And while the narrow loss is indeed quite an achievement for Sanders, better than expected until recently, I don't call a loss a triumph when the point of the exercise is to win.

[karlhenning]

Sanders himself called the result a virtual tie, but the thing about "virtual" is that it isn't the real thing; virtual reality is not reality. You could call a win in the 100 yard dash by 0.01 seconds a virtual tie, but it's still a win. And while the narrow loss is indeed quite an achievement for Sanders, better than expected until recently, I don't call a loss a triumph when the point of the exercise is to win.

Does the winner take all the delegates? I.e., did Sanders win nothing? The 100-yard dash may be a questionable analogy here ; )

Cheers,
~k.

[lennygoran]

Does the winner take all the delegates? I.e., did Sanders win nothing? The 100-yard dash may be a questionable analogy here ; )

Karl found this:

"The close vote means that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are likely to split Iowa’s share of delegates to the Democratic convention, and Mr. Sanders will be able to argue that the Iowa result was a virtual tie."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/be ... email&_r=0

Regards, Len

[karlhenning]

Does the winner take all the delegates? I.e., did Sanders win nothing? The 100-yard dash may be a questionable analogy here ; )

Karl found this:

"The close vote means that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are likely to split Iowa’s share of delegates to the Democratic convention, and Mr. Sanders will be able to argue that the Iowa result was a virtual tie."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/be ... email&_r=0

Regards, Len

That was my impression, Len. And one opinionator today writes:

Behind the scenes, supporters of both candidates moved quickly to spin the result as a win for the candidate, but it will likely be a heavier lift for Clinton, given her enormous advantages over Sanders.

It's a fascinating cycle this time around. The supporters of El Tupé have largely been disruptive, angry anti-establishmentarians. By contrast, Sanders (I think) sounds a constructive anti-establishment note.

Nine month ago, scarcely a soul in Iowa had heard of Sanders. Our John may want to give him a simple thumb's-down as "a loser" (and Hillary must be hoping); but I do not at all agree with the odd pundit who asserts that "Bernie had to win" Iowa, as if this narrow margin of Clinton's victory were anything disastrous for the Vermont Senator.

Cheers,
~k.

[rwetmore]

No real surprise for me, expect maybe Rubio coming so close to 2nd place. But I think that's being overhyped, because he was basically the default establishment candidate. For those against Cruz and Trump, who is going to go with Bush at this point? We'll have to see what happens for Rubio in New Hampshire to tell whether his surge in support is real.

I don't know why so many pundits are saying that Trump not winning was unexpected or some major loss or let down for him. The whole way the Iowa thing works dramatically favored Cruz. Whoever wins Iowa rarely ever becomes the nominee anyway. I think I'm seeing a lot of self delusion in the media trying to deflate Trump's chances in the minds of voters.

[John F]

I'm looking ahead to the general election in November. Sanders is not a Democrat and describes himself as a socialist, which for many Americans is synonymous with communist - strike one, strike two. No one who's neither a Democrat or Republican has won the presidency since 1850 (Millard Fillmore, a Whig); no one who's a member of no political party has ever won it. Would you bet the future of our country on Bernie Sanders bucking the powerful rip tide of history? If the Republican nominee becomes president, whoever he is, the country is really in for it.

[karlhenning]

I'm looking ahead to the general election in November. Sanders is not a Democrat and describes himself as a socialist, which for many Americans is synonymous with communist - strike one, strike two.

Well, the Senator is seeking the Democratic Party nomination; so if he should be nominated, he must be Democrat enough. The time to consider that a strike against him was before now, when he has been apportioned delegates on behalf of the Democratic Party . . . so I call that Ball One (high and away).

I concede the point that for many Americans, "socialist" is synonymous with "communist." Of course, for many Americans, "British" is synonymous with "English." There is the question of just how many Americans, and the question of how many of these are impervious to listening, and considering what a candidate has to say. Let's say a great majority of Americans for whom "socialist" provokes such a pre-cognitive rejection, are in their 50s or older—i.e., grew up with Cold War baggage. Where you see a clear strike against Sanders, I see a possible watershed.

Your historical observation about no one who's neither a Democrat or Republican is astute, of course; I think you're mischaracterizing an observation of a quadrennial pattern as "the powerful rip tide of history"; "the powerful rip tide of history" was against the election of an African-American President . . . the observation of What Has Long Been can be an imperfect gauge of what is now realistic.

Cheers,
~k.

[rwetmore]

I don't know why so many pundits are saying that Trump not winning was unexpected or some major loss or let down for him. The whole way the Iowa thing works dramatically favored Cruz. Whoever wins Iowa rarely ever becomes the nominee anyway. I think I'm seeing a lot of self delusion in the media trying to deflate Trump's chances in the minds of voters.

Here is good example of what I'm talking about:

Donald Trump Isn’t Real

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/opini ... inion&_r=0

Iowa is evangelical land, and which is why Rubio's surge there is not necessarily indicative at all of some kind of national surge for him now. Yet so many people like Brooks want to desperately believe it is. They are not being objective.

I and many others fully expected Trump would get less than what he was polling due to turnout and that the Iowa process is significantly more involved. He was polling around an average of 30% and got 24%. I fully expect him to get less than what's he's polling in New Hampshire too due to turnout, but for the drop percentage to be less, because voting in the primaries there just involves pulling a lever in full privacy behind a curtain in a couple minutes. It's quick and easy. There is no question that turnout hurts Trump in the primaries, but would favor him in the general election.

Anyone who thought Trump was likely to win Iowa or should have won Iowa, and that this is indicative of how things are going go for him in subsequent primaries are deluding themselves, IMO. But as always, we'll have to see what happens.

[John F]

I'm looking ahead to the general election in November. Sanders is not a Democrat and describes himself as a socialist, which for many Americans is synonymous with communist - strike one, strike two.

Well, the Senator is seeking the Democratic Party nomination; so if he should be nominated, he must be Democrat enough. The time to consider that a strike against him was before now, when he has been apportioned delegates on behalf of the Democratic Party . . . so I call that Ball One (high and away).

That doesn't follow. Will the Democratic Party put its resources of manpower, data, endorsements, and campaign finance behind a candidate who has repeatedly disowned any connection with it in the past, who has always described himself as a democratic socialist and only claimed to be a Democrat last November when filing paperwork to enter the Democratic primaries? That smacks of mere opportunism. I don't see much whole-hearted support coming from that quarter; the Party could sink Sanders's candidacy as it did George McGovern's in 1972, with devastating results - McGovern carried just one state against Richard Nixon. The Democratic National Committee's action against the Sanders campaign in the voter data security breach could be ominous. Whereas Hillary Clinton has paid her Democratic dues many times over and can count on those resources as Sanders can't. An early indicator: Clinton has endorsements from 347 superdelegates to the nominating convention, Sanders a mere 13.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... dorsements

I concede the point that for many Americans, "socialist" is synonymous with "communist." Of course, for many Americans, "British" is synonymous with "English." There is the question of just how many Americans, and the question of how many of these are impervious to listening, and considering what a candidate has to say. Let's say a great majority of Americans for whom "socialist" provokes such a pre-cognitive rejection, are in their 50s or older—i.e., grew up with Cold War baggage.

Not so. A great many Americans still have a strong aversion to whatever gets branded as socialist, which they seem to believe impinges on their personal freedom and, more generally, on free enterprise capitalism. That's why the Affordable Care Act got saddled with the klutzy insurance exchange system instead of a single-payer system, which was attacked as "socialized medicine."

Your historical observation about no one who's neither a Democrat or Republican is astute, of course; I think you're mischaracterizing an observation of a quadrennial pattern as "the powerful rip tide of history"; "the powerful rip tide of history" was against the election of an African-American President . . . the observation of What Has Long Been can be an imperfect gauge of what is now realistic.

False analogy. Party politics has been embedded in the American way of government since the founding of the republic, and there has never been any widespread rejection of it; when one of the parties loses its following, another party is formed, as when the Whigs gave way to the Republican Party. John Tyler was elected vice president as a Whig; on becoming president he declared himself an independent and he was not reelected, indeed he was almost impeached. On the other hand, racial discrimination has been in retreat for 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation and has been illegal since Brown vs. Board of Education; to keep my metaphor, the tide has been against it and growing stronger for many generations. There are other reasons as well why Barack Obama won the election over a Republican Party tarnished with an unpopular war and a financial disaster. No such factors are in play in 2016 to aid the candidacy of an unaffiliated politician lumbered since his youth with a poisonous brand name.

[John F]

Putting the Iowa Democratic result in perspective:

Most leading Democrats, and the interest groups around them, remain confident that Clinton will emerge with the nomination. Clinton’s highest-profile ally in Congress, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), played down Sanders’s showing in Iowa, citing the Clinton family’s tortured history with Iowa. Bill Clinton barely competed there in the 1992 race that put him in the White House. And Hillary Clinton lost badly in Iowa when she ran in 2008 against Barack Obama. “You know, Iowa was hardly Hillary’s best state. Last time she came in third, and she won” this time, said Schumer, who is in line to become the Senate minority leader.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

There have been comparisons between the youth movement behind Barack Obama's nomination and election in 2008 and the voter profile for Bernie Sanders on Monday. But Sanders, who at 74 is hardly a youth himself, is no Obama, who was 46. Here are the 2008 Iowa results that Sen. Schumer speaks of:

Candidate
Barack Obama 37.6%
John Edwards 29.7%
Hillary Clinton 29.5%
Bill Richardson 2.1%
Joseph R. Biden 0.9%

Even so, Clinton got more total votes in all the primaries than Obama, by 62,000. If the nomination were decided by the overall popular vote, she would be the president today, and Barack Obama might be campaigning to succeed her.

[John F]

It may look like I'm doing an rwetmore on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and I won't be piling up the posts like that as the campaign wears on. But karlhenning's dismissal of her Iowa victory as a "virtual tie," though understandable, has got my goat, and I'll post one more piece that's a direct response to that view.

Cut Clinton some slack
By Dana Milbank
February 2

NASHUA, N.H. - Q: When is a win not a win? A: When the winner is Hillary Clinton.

The Iowa Democratic Party confirmed in its final tally Tuesday that Clinton had won Monday night’s caucuses. She not only beat Bernie Sanders but got more votes than any Republican candidate, and she becomes the first woman ever to win the Iowa caucuses. Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Yet from the coverage of Monday’s caucuses, you’d think Clinton was on the ropes. The New York Times: “Hillary Clinton Campaign, Unnerved by Iowa, Braces for New Hampshire” The Post: “Photo finish reveals shortcomings of candidate who once seemed invincible ” Politico: “How Iowa went wrong for Hillary Clinton” CNN: “Did Hillary Clinton really win the Iowa caucuses?”

The Post reported that she would spend the day “trying to reassure supporters, donors and the mainstream media that last night does not mean a reprise of 2008,” and the Times raised the possibility that “a significant staff shakeup was at hand.” One shudders to imagine the coverage if she had lost Iowa.

Journalists were faulting Clinton for flunking the expectations game by barely defeating a 74-year-old socialist who once trailed distantly. But that dismissed the salient fact that she won — and that her performance fit with forecasts. Yes, the RealClearPolitics polling average showed her up four points in Iowa, but a few days earlier that same average showed Sanders with a slight lead. As for the margin of victory, Rick Santorum defeated Mitt Romney by all of 34 votes in 2012 — yet his win was reported as a conquest.

Why the disparate treatment? Some see sexism, which is difficult to prove. But there does seem to be a long-running game in which Clinton can never quite meet the expectations set for her, even if her actual achievements are considerable. She raised a ton of money — but Sanders raised almost as much! She won the Iowa caucuses — but she didn’t win by enough!

Yes, the narrow win in Iowa could make for a more protracted nomination battle. So would an expected loss in New Hampshire, which the media will likely attribute to Clinton’s weakness rather than Sanders being a New Englander (like previous New Hampshire victors Romney, John Kerry, Paul Tsongas, Michael Dukakis and Edmund Muskie). But it may have been a hard slog no matter who was in the race with Clinton: She’s a candidate of steadiness at a time when the electorate wants iconoclasts.

Voters, particularly young ones, are easily wooed by talk of free college and free health care. They can be intemperate (as demonstrated by the supporters at the Sanders rally in Des Moines on Monday night who booed Clinton when she appeared on television and chanted “She’s a liar!”) and can fall for unrealistic promises. But Clinton, to her credit, is not pretending to be something other than herself this time. “I come to you with a lifetime of service and advocacy and of getting results” was her less-than-soaring pitch here Tuesday.

Clinton staffers have come to expect that they’ll have to fight every hour — literally. After Clinton’s speech Monday night, in which she stopped short of claiming victory, aides briefed reporters at about 1:30 a.m. aboard the campaign plane on the Des Moines airport tarmac, trying mightily to spin a victory in the absence of final results. “The only candidate who can emerge from tonight’s caucuses with a win is Hillary Clinton,” Brian Fallon said. “We believe,” said Jennifer Palmieri, “that we won. Our modeling shows that.”

When the plane landed in New Hampshire at 4:30 a.m. Tuesday, Fallon announced that the Iowa Democratic Party and NBC had projected Clinton the winner... A few hours later, at Nashua Community College, the candidate herself felt it safe to declare victory. “I am so thrilled that I’m coming to New Hampshire after winning Iowa,” she told about 800 supporters. “I’ve won and I’ve lost there. It’s a lot better to win... Don’t ever forget,” she told the cheering crowd. “Close elections matter. You either win or you lose.”

That’s how it works, and Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucuses. Let’s cut her some slack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[lennygoran]

It may look like I'm doing an rwetmore on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and I won't be piling up the posts like that as the campaign wears on. But karlhenning's dismissal of her Iowa victory as a "virtual tie," though understandable, has got my goat, and I'll post one more piece that's a direct response to that view.

Cut Clinton some slack
By Dana Milbank
February 2

Voters, particularly young ones, are easily wooed by talk of free college and free health care. They can be intemperate (as demonstrated by the supporters at the Sanders rally in Des Moines on Monday night who booed Clinton when she appeared on television and chanted “She’s a liar!”) and can fall for unrealistic promises. But Clinton, to her credit, is not pretending to be something other than herself this time. “I come to you with a lifetime of service and advocacy and of getting results” was her less-than-soaring pitch here Tuesday.

I think it was a virtual tie and aamof the NY Times said and I repeat:

"The close vote means that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are likely to split Iowa’s share of delegates to the Democratic convention, and Mr. Sanders will be able to argue that the Iowa result was a virtual tie."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/be ... email&_r=0

As for the quote on the young ones:

A lot of what the young ones are supporting seem very justified to me and the tax system where Romney pays less than me in taxes and Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary and all the loopholes and gerrymandering continue to favor the rich-especially the 1/10th of one percent--is very unfair imo. It's disheartening the way the system is presently rigged--I'm just now thinking of the 60 minutes clip from last week where they showed certain lawyers-infuriating.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anonymous-i ... stigation/

People like Clinton and Schumer give me some concerns-I'm not sure they'll ever really try to redistribute the wealth more fairly--now I'm sorry Biden didn't enter the fray early--imo just his potential candidacy made sure Clinton didn't abandon Obama--I'm still concerned by the server situation but can only hope she's relatively finished with that--of course not for the Republicans. Of course I'll vote for her over any Republican for President-if the Democrats lose that one it will be a horror. In the end she's probably more electable than Sanders but who knows-this has been a strange political season. And I'm concerned about Sanders-let's face it 74 is kind of old. And that gun issue. Regards, Len

[karlhenning]

I think Sanders's is a voice worth hearing as part of the Democratic primary process. Personally, I am concerned not only with General Trustworthiness on the part of Clinton ("Less than four in ten Democrats think of Hillary Clinton as honest and trustworthy compared to her main challenger for the Democratic nomination, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll."), nor only with the lack of decisive dismissal of the email server issue (will Hillary turn out to be "the Democrats' Nixon"?), but also with the Big Money plus Party Machine which basically decided that Hillary was going to be the nominee, and all this Primary jazz is a sop so that the electorate enjoy the illusion of having been part of the process. "Rigged"? You make the call.

Yeah, okay: Clinton won. But by a coin toss. And so she did not deliver the triumphalist acceptance speech which she meant to give at the end of the Caucuses Monday night.

Cheers,
~k.

[BWV 1080]

Cudos to Cruz for speaking the truth on ethanol rather than pandering like the rest of the candidates

[karlhenning]

Cudos to Cruz for speaking the truth on ethanol rather than pandering like the rest of the candidates

Got to give that to him, and kudos to Iowans for voting past that issue.

Cheers,
~k.

[jbuck919]

"Triumphalist" refers to a movement in Catholicism in the 19th century and is not a synonym for "triumphal." Kudos, the usual spelling of the word in English, is singular and pronounced "KU-doss" or "KYU-doss."

There, I've now p*ed off everybody on this thread except possibly John F. Most people agree that Sanders has injected a healthy dose of liberal thinking into the Democratic primary race. Eventually, he will have to bow out in favor of the only person running in either party who is qualified to be president, and at this point I would rather that be sooner than later. If he does not do so, we might actually end up with a monster like Ted Cruz, who does not deserve "kudos" for anything unless you think he's OK because he doesn't kick his dog or beat his wife.

[John F]

A related worry is that Sanders's followers, when he inevitably loses, will be so bitter and dislike Clinton so much that they won't vote at all, which could hand the election to an even less palatable Republican nominee. That's one reason I'm for Trump to win the Republican primaries, to force Democrats out in droves to vote against him even if it means voting for Clinton. Ted Cruz might do.

The Democrats have shot themselves down before, in 1968 when opposition to LBJ who wasn't even running caused many to withhold their votes from his vice president Hubert Humphrey. Finally in October enough of them came to their senses to make the popular vote very close, and if Humphrey had carried just two more states, Illinois and California, he would have won the electoral vote and we'd have been spared Nixon, Watergate, and all that. But it was too late.

[rwetmore]

Cudos to Cruz for speaking the truth on ethanol rather than pandering like the rest of the candidates

Maybe, but his texting everyone that Carson was dropping out was pretty low and dirty.

[jbuck919]

A related worry is that Sanders's followers, when he inevitably loses, will be so bitter and dislike Clinton so much that they won't vote at all, which could hand the election to an even less palatable Republican nominee. That's one reason I'm for Trump to win the Republican primaries, to force Democrats out in droves to vote against him even if it means voting for Clinton. Ted Cruz might do.

The Democrats have shot themselves down before, in 1968 when opposition to LBJ who wasn't even running caused many to withhold their votes from his vice president Hubert Humphrey. Finally in October enough of them came to their senses to make the popular vote very close, and if Humphrey had carried just two more states, Illinois and California, he would have won the electoral vote and we'd have been spared Nixon, Watergate, and all that. But it was too late.

I think some credence must be given to the strong possibility that Bobby Kennedy would have been the candidate in 1968. (Our assassins have earned their eternity in Hell if such a place exists.) Humphrey was a classic liberal politician of his time, but he had zero charisma and might have lost for that reason alone whether or not he was in LBJ's shadow. (Of course, Nixon had no charisma either, so I might be wrong about that.) In any case, I would not compare that situation to the one we are facing now. All the Republicans are monsters compared even to Nixon, and neither of the Democrats lacks appeal for arbitrary reasons, unless like my father you can't bear the though of a woman president. The Democrats may in fact shoot themselves in the foot, but it will be from preferring what they incorrectly suppose to be the perfect over what they underestimate as the good.

[rwetmore]

A related worry is that Sanders's followers, when he inevitably loses, will be so bitter and dislike Clinton so much that they won't vote at all, which could hand the election to an even less palatable Republican nominee. That's one reason I'm for Trump to win the Republican primaries, to force Democrats out in droves to vote against him even if it means voting for Clinton.

If Iowa is any indication, there may be some truth to this. The problem is we don't know if the high turnout there was driven by motivation to cast a vote against Trump, or just due to genuinely greater motivation to cast a vote in this particularly pivotal election. If Trump gets the nomination, surely some will turn out just to vote against him who might no otherwise vote, but highly doubt it will be anywhere near equal to the number of Reagan Democrats and normally non-participants who will come out to vote for him.

The bottom line is Trump still did very well in by far the hardest place for him to do well. If just 2% of those who went for Cruz went for Trump instead, Trump would have won by a narrow margin. Rubio's surge is explained by him being the 2nd most overtly religious candidate and even pandering (rather obviously) during the last debate about his faith.

Sure there was hope by many of Trump supporters that he would win due to polls for Cruz falling in the last week in favor of Trump, but I never expected it to happen. And I think many of those paying attention to the details, including Trump himself, still knew he probably wasn't going to win there.

[rwetmore]

I predict Cruz will not win another primary and will not be the nominee (or even come close). Iowa is his peak. I think in the end it's going to come down to Trump and Rubio. How Rubio does in NH will predict if he has a realistic chance of beating Trump. That is, assuming Trump wins NH by a large margin, which I suspect he will. Rubio needs to come in a strong 2nd there to have a real shot, IMO. If he doesn't -- say he comes in third behind Cruz or Kasich, then I think it's likely Trump will win the nomination.

[lennygoran]

" If he does not do so, we might actually end up with a monster like Ted Cruz, who does not deserve "kudos" for anything unless you think he's OK because he doesn't kick his dog or beat his wife.

You're wrong there-he definitely deserves kudos-those horns should pierce below the heart but above the belly button!

Regards, Len

[John F]

All the Republicans are monsters compared even to Nixon, and neither of the Democrats lacks appeal for arbitrary reasons, unless like my father you can't bear the though of a woman president. The Democrats may in fact shoot themselves in the foot, but it will be from preferring what they incorrectly suppose to be the perfect over what they underestimate as the good.

You miss the point. I'm not talking about who the Democrats nominate, as you are, but about the possible consequences in the general election of lingering bad feeling toward the winner by supporters of the loser, whoever that is. There's a lot of anti-Hillary hatred out there among Democrats, even among well-educated Democratic women who ought to be her strongest supporters. You assume a rational electorate making considered judgments; I've shown by my example that you can't count on that, and what's been happening this year should disabuse you of any notion that today's voters are any more rational than yesterday's.

I think some credence must be given to the strong possibility that Bobby Kennedy would have been the candidate in 1968.

Possibly, but that's beside the point of revisiting this history, which is to show that Democratic voters have at least once thrown a presidential election that they should have won out of an irrational fit of pique toward their nominee, and that could happen in 2016 for the reason I've given. It's not about voting for the Republican, it's about not voting at all.

As for Kennedy's chances, since you bring it up, in 1968 the Democratic Party's rules were different. Hubert Humphrey didn't enter a single primary; LBJ withdrew too late for that. And Kennedy wasn't the only anti-establishment candidate - Eugene McCarthy won primaries too and more of the primary vote than Kennedy, and it was his strong 2nd place in New Hampshire that had pushed LBJ to withdraw. However, the convention was under the control of the party establishment, and Humphrey was nominated on the first ballot. Whether this would have happened even if Kennedy had lived, we'll never know, but I think it's very likely.

[jbuck919]

I don't see Democratic voters abandoning their candidate in the general election beyond the normal level of voter apathy. There is no situation to compare with the sitting Vice President being unable to disown Vietnam. I guess John F and I disagree on that.

[karlhenning]

"Triumphalist" refers to a movement in Catholicism in the 19th century and is not a synonym for "triumphal."

You're right there.

If you genuinely thought you'd vexed me, though, John, you've another think coming ;)

Cheers,
~k.

[karlhenning]

A related worry is that Sanders's followers, when he inevitably loses, will be so bitter and dislike Clinton so much that they won't vote at all [....]

If you struck the speculative adverb inevitably, I see your point. In fact, long before I had heard of Sanders, I disliked Clinton sufficiently to entertain the hypothesis that there just might be a Republican candidate I should prefer voting for (such a candidate has not arisen). The leopard cannot change its spots, and so I do not hold any great hope that Clinton will somehow become less complacent and smug (and boy was she lucky that the right-wingers turned that Benghazi hearing into a Clinton success story), but pardon me for feeling that the Coronation-Ready Candidate has not earned my vote (yet?) She was a lousy campaign manager eight years ago (as was Romney four years ago, and it was his election to lose, glad as I am that he managed that feat), and I am not sanguine that she is materially better this cycle. (Oh, she's wicked good at raising piles and piles of dough, no argument there!)

Still, don’t be fooled by the Clinton campaign crowing about “winning” Iowa. Pause for a caucus reality check here: Judging the victor by differences of tenths of a percentage point is ridiculous when counting delegate numbers, not tens of thousands of individual votes.

A win is a win when you’re talking about Florida’s electoral votes – not when you’re measuring state delegate equivalents. Sanders’s performance offered concrete electoral proof of the power of his anti-establishment appeal and demonstrated his capacity to compete on par with Clinton, whose organization had far more time and resources on the ground in Iowa. This isn’t the blow the state inflicted on Clinton in 2008, but it isn’t a victory either.

Cheers,
~k.

[lennygoran]

I don't see Democratic voters abandoning their candidate in the general election beyond the normal level of voter apathy.

I agree with you-for the most part their debates have been civil-not like those Republicans-the stakes are so high to make sure one of the Republicans doesn't get in I can't see large numbers of Democrats not voting for Clinton just because she beats out Sanders. I think the Robert Kennedy Hubert Humphrey
situation is quite different-I don't see any strong violence happening during the Democratic convention. Regards, Len

[karlhenning]

E.J. Dionne's latest piece, "Why Democrats can't seem to decide between Clinton and Sanders," I find quite interesting.

Cheers,
~k.

[John F]

I don't see Democratic voters abandoning their candidate in the general election beyond the normal level of voter apathy. There is no situation to compare with the sitting Vice President being unable to disown Vietnam. I guess John F and I disagree on that.

Fair enough. We shall see, and I certainly hope you're right.

But I'm not just speculating about Hillary hatred among Democrats, including women. If I could find it, I'd post a Washington Post opinion piece I read this week by a reporter who ran up against that hostility in person. That may be overstated, and again, I hope so. I also hope Clinton wins the nomination early enough, and Bernie Sanders endorses her heartily enough, for his supporters to cool down, realize what's at stake, and troop to the polls in force to vote for their party's nominee even though she's not their personal choice.

Karl: I saw that piece, and here's a link to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Dionne's analysis of all the candidates makes sense to me.

[lennygoran]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Dionne's analysis of all the candidates makes sense to me.

Great article-thanks for the link! Regards, Len

[John F]

I believe karlhenning underestimates the American aversion to what they consider to be socialism. From an Op-Ed piece by Nicholas Kristof:

A Gallup poll last year asked voters what kind of person they would be unwilling to consider voting for. Six percent of Americans say they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic, and 7 percent wouldn’t support a black or a Jew. Some 24 percent wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate, and more than a third would refuse to vote for a Muslim or an atheist. However, the most objectionable kind of person by far was a socialist. Fifty percent of Americans said they would be unwilling to consider voting for a socialist.

Maybe Bernie Sanders could convince them that a “democratic socialist” isn’t exactly a socialist, or maybe he could charm some voters into rethinking their beliefs. He has done just that very successfully in Vermont, a state where he now wins elections by overwhelming margins, and skeptics have been underestimating him for 35 years. But if a Democratic nominee starts off with half the voters unwilling to consider someone like him, that’s a huge advantage for the Republican nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opini ... nders.html

[karlhenning]

There's certainly a point in there. But I don't believe Sanders would start off with half the voters unwilling to consider someone like him—by the time he reaches the nomination (if he do), some portion of the electorate will have given him some ear. Again (and elsewhere John B was making the point that Americans, as a polling class, are next door to asses ; ) I think that a lot of the reaction is kneejerk jumping at a shadow (which you, John, may be factoring into your belief that I am underestimating the situation).

I think it will remain an interesting race, and the Sanders-Clinton debates will be matters of intelligent engagement.

Cheers,
~k.

[karlhenning]

There must have been people who voted for JFK who, before he entered their awareness as a thinking, speaking fellow citizen, would never have considered voting for a Catholic.

Cheers,
~k.

[karlhenning]

I also get that (aside from sober consideration that Sanders as the nominee remains at press time a long-shot) the Senator from Vermont has a learning curve, arcing from "this state of affairs is obscene" to "this is a realistic, actionable item" (which, of course, was part of E.J. Dionne's piece).

I wince a little at the names Trump and Sanders shoulder to shoulder in the headline, but there is sober reflection here:

Sanders, Trump won't be able to keep their promises. And that matters.

[ article at csmonitor.com ]

Voters frustrated with illegal immigration are pinning their hopes on the Great Wall of Trump. If they’re Bernie Sanders fans, they’re looking forward to the breakup of the big banks, Medicare for all, and free tuition at all public colleges and universities.

In truth, none of this is going to happen, no matter who is elected to the White House. That’s not because these candidates, once in the White House, will turn into a squish. It’s because of the way the Founding Fathers designed the United States government – to take baby steps, not giant leaps.

Cheers,
~k.

[karlhenning]

Okay, last one for the moment (just found this fascinating editorial). Nota bene, although I prefer Sanders to Clinton, I do not clamor for a recount.

The Des Moines Register says, go back and get it right:

The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Cheers,
~k.

[John F]

I don't believe Sanders would start off with half the voters unwilling to consider someone like him—by the time he reaches the nomination (if he do), some portion of the electorate will have given him some ear.

Undoubtedly, but he wouldn't need just "some portion of the electorate," he would need some 70 million votes to win, depending on the opponent of course. In 2012, a shift of 3 million votes and two states to Romney and he would have won.

We seem to have different views of human nature, and particularly of American human nature. Prejudice is all about not giving those one despises "some ear" - kneejerk jumping at a shadow is what prejudiced people do. If you look at my voting record, I'm a kneejerk liberal Democrat, and no amount of persuasion here or elsewhere is going to get me to vote for a conservative and/or Republican; I only listen to them to pick out stuff I can find fault with. Cards on the table. But of course I'd never admit to irrational prejudice - I know I'm right, and that's that.

Since Bernie Sanders isn't going to win the nomination, it's all hypothetical. We may learn after it's all over how many Democrats voted against him and for what reasons, and then if you like we can revisit this topic. I'd certainly be pleased if the word "socialist" is no longer a killer in American politics. But I'll believe it if I see it.

I think it will remain an interesting race, and the Sanders-Clinton debates will be matters of intelligent engagement.

That's for sure. But my bottom line, and my top line too, is winning the presidency in November, and as much of Congress and as many statehouses as possible. From my perspective, then, the debates aren't an opportunity but an obstacle, with one candidate making wild unkeepable promises which may nevertheless drown out the other's sensible, practical approach to getting many of the same things done. I wish they were over, the primaries were over, and Hillary Clinton could set about the serious business of drubbing Donald Trump.

As for the Des Moines Register's demand that the Democratic caucus results be audited yet again, get over it. What's really needed is for the Democrats to change their laughable caucus procedure - coin flips to decide winners, for heaven's sake - to a straight primary vote like all the other states, or at least to something like the Republicans' more straightforward rules. And even so, the Iowa results amount to a very small hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, a few miscounted votes will not affect the final result; we're not talking about Florida in 2000. Forget it.

[karlhenning]

Again, not that you address me here, I am quite a distance from it, let alone over it. I think the editorial is of local importance, rather than of any necessity to the present primary process. With that understanding, I entirely see an Iowan wanting to clean things up and adopt best practices, seeing this cloud as letting the side down.

Cheers,
~k.

[karlhenning]

[...] But my bottom line, and my top line too, is winning the presidency in November, and as much of Congress and as many statehouses as possible. From my perspective, then, the debates aren't an opportunity but an obstacle, with one candidate making wild unkeepable promises which may nevertheless drown out the other's sensible, practical approach to getting many of the same things done. I wish they were over, the primaries were over, and Hillary Clinton could set about the serious business of drubbing Donald Trump. :mrgreen:

I agree that if El Tupé were running against her, Clinton would likely win in what just might be a drubbing. They both enjoy toxically high Unfavorable ratings, which partly cancel one another out.

But say the G.O.P. gets an unexpected infusion of sanity, and they nominate someone much less clownly. Do we really fancy Hillary's chances against a Republican who is not handicapped by negative baggage? To what degree do we depend upon faith-based suppositions that (for only two instances) the e-mail server fiasco finally does smolder away, and nobody really watches how she smirked when replying to Anderson Cooper about the $675 million?

Cheers,
~k.

[John F]

Say the G.O.P. ... nominate someone much less clownly [than Trump]. Do we really fancy Hillary's chances against a Republican who is not handicapped by negative baggage?

Even in that case, which presently seems unlikely, she ought to win handily. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nationwide; those who claim to be uncommitted have turned out for the Democrat in three of the last four elections; on the other side, even Marco Rubio has been sounding like a Cruz/Trump clone recently to get the votes of the Republican base. Under the circumstances, Clinton's having mishandled some e-mails that were not marked classified when sent to her, and how much she was paid as a private citizen for giving speeches, are side issues. The Republicans will of course keep trying to make hay out of them, but that shouldn't make her a less attractive or at least acceptable potential president compared with any possible Republican nominee. All that said, we will see.

Everyone carries negative baggage. Bernie Sanders has gotten a free ride so far because his chances looked poor, but that's changed and no doubt investigative reporters are on his case. Trump's $1.5 million fee per speech makes Clinton's fees look like chump change. Cruz wasn't born in the United States. None of this should affect anyone's vote for or against any of these candidates, but no doubt they will. I think they cancel out.

[lennygoran]

Everyone carries negative baggage. Bernie Sanders has gotten a free ride so far because his chances looked poor, but that's changed and no doubt investigative reporters are on his case.

I see he's getting some heat on veteran's afdfairs.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... ns-affairs

Regards, Len

[karlhenning]

Everyone carries negative baggage. Bernie Sanders has gotten a free ride so far because his chances looked poor, but that's changed and no doubt investigative reporters are on his case.

Absolutely, both because his chances looked slender, and because (* ahem *) the media found it easier to tail along with The Daily El Tupé Noyz. By all means, let the Senator be tried in the, erm, fires.

Cheers,
~k.

[jbuck919]

Eventually, someone is going to play the age card, however indirectly. Clinton is no spring chicken, but Sanders would be 74 when his term would begin. (Reagan was 69.) I'm sorry, but things have not advanced so far that a person that old should take on the responsibilities of being President of the United States. I've seen it pointed out, though I don't have a link, that the Democrats have a serious problem in having no up-and-coming contenders like FDR (52 when he took office), JFK, or Barack Obama. I could even mention Theodore Roosevelt, who was the "other Republican" of course, but who was a great president and the youngest man ever to assume the office. Young politicians these days tend to be like my own Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Harvard Graduate, who barely met the age qualification when she was elected. They are infatuated with the idea of a reformed Republican Party being the answer to the nation's ills, and are dreadfully deceived in that notion. I fear that they will all be coopted by what the Republicans are really about long before they can draw the party back into something resembling political normality.

Anyway, back to Sanders, he speaks great ideas, but he is not a viable candidate. Even if he were elected, he lacks the combination of savvy and stamina of either Obama or Clinton and would be mowed over by the two Republican branches of government. Stop hoping for him, just stop it.

[John F]

I'm 74 myself, which may be why I don't consider that age a disqualifier in itself. But of course all kinds of things can happen by the time Bernie and I reach 78, not to mention 82. A study of President Reagan's speech patterns in press conferences etc. suggests that early though of course not disabling signs of his oncoming dementia appeared during his 70s while he was still in office. But George H.W. Bush, not that much younger when he became president, showed no such signs. I wouldn't generalize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/healt ... imers.html

[karlhenning]

[...] Stop hoping for him, just stop it.

I see your point . . . but tell it to New Hampshire:

Sanders tops Clinton by 2-to-1 margin in New Hampshire

Those who plan to participate in the Democratic primary are also more open to both of their party's remaining candidates than Republicans are to their party's current front-runner, Donald Trump. Overall, just 19% of likely Democratic voters said they would never back Clinton, 8% would never back Sanders, and 52% say both candidates are OK.

(And John F.: I know, the Granite State is just one small primary early on : )

Cheers,
~k.

[John F]

Sanders tops Clinton by 2-to-1 margin in New Hampshire

Hold on, nobody's actually voted yet and won't until Tuesday. Anyway, that's pretty much as expected, right? New Hampshire has usually been friendly to candidates from their New England neighbors.

Those who plan to participate in the Democratic primary are also more open to both of their party's remaining candidates than Republicans are to their party's current front-runner, Donald Trump. Overall, just 19% of likely Democratic voters said they would never back Clinton, 8% would never back Sanders, and 52% say both candidates are OK.

If that's typical of New Hampshire voters, good for them. It doesn't touch on how the rest of the country thinks.

[karlhenning]

Sanders tops Clinton by 2-to-1 margin in New Hampshire

Hold on, nobody's actually voted yet and won't until Tuesday. :) Anyway, that's pretty much as expected, right? New Hampshire has usually been friendly to candidates from their New England neighbors.

The former Senator from New York was the victor last time she was here; so, yes, you're right, but there's history. It's complicated ; )

If that's typical of New Hampshire voters, good for them. It doesn't touch on how the rest of the country thinks.

To be sure. ’Tis a fascinating race.

Cheers.
~k.

[karlhenning]

BTW, did you watch the debate? I had choir rehearsal (started teaching them some Byrd and de Victoria), and could not. What are your takeaways, John?

Cheers,
~k.

[jbuck919]

BTW, did you watch the debate? I had choir rehearsal (started teaching them some Byrd and de Victoria), and could not. What are your takeaways, John?

Cheers,
~k.

I may be the wrong John, but I haven't watched any debates. What is the point? The last substantive presidential debate worth watching was probably Kennedy vs. Nixon. (When it comes to the general election, I wouldn't be surprised if there is no debate at all if the Republican handlers determine in advance that their candidate cannot be prevented from sounding in comparison like the fool he is.) If I want to be entertained, I'll watch the Antiques Road Show or Iron Chef. I would much rather have been present to watch you teach your choir some Byrd and Victoria. You could even have used me as a temporary baritone. When will they develop that teleportation machine anyway?