I don't have that many either. Things have been pretty quiet other than a handful of anti-Trump posts.

Of course, it's possible (probable) that a number of people on my friends list from HS* are actually pro-Trump, and are just being shamed into keeping quiet.

* Mostly the ones who didn't attend college and/or are still living in the area.

I've got everybody, Trump fans, mostly from high school, anti-Trump conservatives, Berniebros, Hillary fans.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but in 2008 the election of Obama over McCain seemed to be a foregone conclusion by election day (that's at least what I remember). However, many of my left leaning friends had a strong concern that while polls may indicate that, when push came to shove, many people just wouldn't vote for Obama (because he was black or for other reasons) and McCain would win.

Maybe its a little early for this question since the GOP primary is still ongoing, but do people on the left have a similar fear that while out loud many independents are saying they won't vote for Trump for fear of being called idiot, racist, whatever, but when election day comes they will?

Regardless of that fear in 2008, Obama won quite substantially - even more than predicted.

It's mostly all over the comment sections of news stories on Facebook from outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post. There are scores of posts talking about how the publications are biased for Hillary or how they've been bought off, etc., etc. for simply reporting the news (such as Sanders has a long uphill climb, etc).

That fear specifically stemmed (at least for me and I assume most Democratic die-hards who had voted at least in 2000 and 2004) from the 2004 election where Kerry appeared to be leading in early exit polls, and then lost handily. Not saying that people stayed home because of the exit polls, but saying it was basically a pretty big kick in the balls. In addition, a lot of that campaign felt like Kerry had a really good chance because of the issues Bush had embroiled the country in. Of course, only part of the electorate (at that time) felt that way.

dola,

What I'm saying is that if you're a Democrat, and you're my age or older (or maybe a big younger), the 2004 experience (and even 2000 to an extent) means you're counting no chickens until they hatch on election day.

Even if Clinton enters November with a 20 point lead I'm not going to feel comfortable. Which, at that point, is probably irrational, but I'm going to own it.

That's basically how I feel as a sports fan.

If you're running against Northern Iowa, there's always a chance.

The Dem caucus was a really huge event in Boise. Huge lines down several blocks. People waited hours to get in. Idaho was going to be big for Sanders anyway, but I think this format helped propelled him to the 78% he got. People are willing and able to commit hours to this were more likely to be younger, without kids, college students, or unemployed. And I think his appearance here the day before really did get young people riled up and to the polls. It was just all Sanders all the time on my facebook wall.

Edit: There was a lot of talk about the fairness of this format though - it really was an ordeal to be able to take part. I voted in the Republican primary a few weeks ago (though I'm still voting for Clinton in the general election), and it took 1 minute.

My Dad, who is retired, went to the caucus in his small town in Maine. He's pretty into this stuff, and an invested Bernie supporter, and even he said it was a waste of time and we'd be better off with a primary.

Pretty big sweeping wins for Bernie today. How will this affect things going forward, I wonder? Will it create momentum to pick up steam in states he's lagging behind at this point? PA? NY?

The next state is Wisconsin and 538 says Hillary is leading after taking a lead in most recent polling. I find this so hard to believe being from there. If my facebook was any indication, there's probably 4 to 1 positive discussion to Bernie more than Hilary.

There were 132 delegates today to be had, Bernie might snag nearly 100 of them today. IF he were to keep beat Hillary in Wisconsin in the same fashion, he'd be looking at cutting Hillary's 320 delegate lead in half post-Wisconsin. WI is an important state for Bernie to win big if he wants a chance as I don't see him making a dent in NY/Md/Pa so he needs to win big to offset the losses in those states.

+45 in Washington, +63 in Alaska. That's kind of crazy. I don't think it changes the math much, but it gives Sanders some momentum that makes it impossible to ask him to tone it down or leave the race.

We're getting a lot of polls lately that show the Democrats are favored in November and that Sanders does better than Clinton in these hypothetical matchups. Still very early for matchups.

Sanders' chances? There are some large states like Pennsylvania and New York that poll heavily against him. And the matter of trying and switch hundreds of superdelegates who will have a hard time going against a Democrat to favor someone who didn't want to join the party until he wanted to run for president.

So still around 1-2%. But that's not quite zero.

I was just reading someone's talk about Washington and how there are multiple caucuses, so the results aren't even finalized yet for the remaining 70 or so delegates.

very surprised by Sanders big wins last night.

I'm surprised by Alaska, I guess, at most. But Washington and Hawaii seem like perfect Sanders territories with regard to DNC voters.

Throwing out some approximate numbers, because the superdelegate issue is becoming a little more controversial. Out of about 714 superdelegates, Hillary has a soft pledged lead of 471-29.

Based on that math, she needs to win 33.0% of the remaining delegates for the nomination.

What if superdelegates were bound? I looked at it in two different ways.

1) Superdelegates are WTA to the person who won the state. In that case, Hillary has a 260-124 edge, and needs 41.3% of the remaining delegates.

2) Superdelegates are assigned proportionally with the vote. In that case, Hillary has a 199-185 edge, and needs 44.2% of the remaining delegates.

So far, Clinton has 20 wins and Sanders has 15. Hillary's unweighted average of the percentage of the vote is 49.2%.

Would changing the superdelegate process mean anything? Only if yesterday meant a sea-change from the polls. This is a very regional race, and west is where Sanders is strongest. Hillary leads slightly in the limited California polling, though, and the other major prizes (New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) should go to her fairly heavily.

Needing only 33% of the remaining delegates, this race is long over. But even if she needed 41% or 44%, it probably wouldn't end up that close because of the geography even though we're done with the southeast, where she had all ten of her >60% wins.

Sanders, too, has ten >60% wins, seven west of the Mississippi and the three northern New England states. Only 643 of the 1,754 remaining pledged delegates are west of the Mississippi - 475 in California.

This is why Sanders will not leave the mid-atlantic for the next month. To have any chance, he has to assume the polling is wrong in California and that he'll crush Hillary there. He has to win NY/NJ/PA, then make the case to flip superdelegates. Seems like that's something that has maybe a 1-2% chance of happening.

Counterpoint:


I've been impressed and a little surprised by Sanders' staying power. I'm glad he's in the race so the issues he's talking about, and the potential solutions he raises, are getting discussed, when they often don't get this kind of airtime (the solutions, not the issues).

I also think there's probably something interesting about how both Clinton and Sanders are winning states for the Democratic party to consider. Are different demographics pursuing different things? Are these two candidates just attracting complete different people. I don't know, but I hope someone does an analysis at some point.

I would argue the former. You know how there has been an uneasy alliance on the Republican side between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives? It appears the Democrats have a fizzure themselves - between interest group politics (race, sex, etc) and class based politics.

I could buy that.

Susan Sarandon claiming that she just does not know if she has it in her to vote for Hillary if Bernie does not win crystallizes why so many people have trouble getting on board with the Dems.

I guess I'd ask someone if it would be more difficult to vote for Hillary or to watch Trump/Cruz SCOTUS nominees for the next 30 years.

Yep, it's a no brainer. If you can't get option A, take option B, rather than option C, D, or F.

You know as much as Sanders' supports like to go on and on about "Citizen's United", you'd think they'd understand if a bunch of Nader supporters in 2000 decided to vote for Gore, it could potentially have been 5-4 the other way. Bush nominated Roberts and Alito in his second term, but if Gore was re-elected or a more moderate Republican (say, McCain) won in 2004, the nominated Justices likely would have been more centrist.

Random silly thought:

Let's say Bernie Sanders gets into office and passes tuition free college. How does this affect college football scholarships and all the rules that go with them?

It doesn't?

Athletic scholarships are now full cost of attendance, which is much more than tuition.

I suppose you could argue that the rich get richer because public schools could, in theory, get federal subsidies for the tuition portion of the athletic scholarship.

That argument kind of goes out the window when you've got Obama nominating Merrick Garland. For all the rhetoric about liberal versus conservative in nominations, the real argument may be about how pro-corporation potential justices are. In that respect, the nominees from both parties have been pretty similar for the last twenty years or so.

You don't think Garland would have voted with the "liberal 4" on Citizen's United?! That's silly.

Judge Merrick Garland: A Moderate Liberal on Election Law Issues, With Questions About Boldness | Election Law Blog


I mean Garland may not be a super-liberal (mostly because he's just a sacrificial lamb by Obama to show how silly the Senate GOP is being), but being against Citizens United is a Democratic position, regardless of whether you are moderate or liberal on that side of the aisle.

Every justice appointed by a Democrat that heard the Citizens United case dissented.

And also, will veterans be able to cash in their GI Bill for cash since they would be entitled to a free college education anyway?

Room and board, books, and other stupid fees still exist. Universities could just jack up the prices of living on campus.

I looked on his website but I'm not sure exactly how the "free tuition" thing would work. Would all state colleges just become federal national colleges? Or would every American get a grant that would cover the cost of any public college anywhere? Presumably, there would also have to be legislation preventing the state colleges from charging above a certain amount that could be covered by grants (if that's even constitutional to direct the activities of a state entity like that.) Would school still "cost" 6 figures with the federal government just picking up the tab for everyone, or would it be more like a takeover where the feds run everything and set costs and slash everyone's budgets as needed?

Maybe Sanders is promising people teach for free as well...and new free campuses.

Free meaning taxes, of course, but for most, essentially free.

I'm not sure it's much worth considering since it's not happening no matter what. Either Bernie is a shrewd politician who's floating this free tuition thing merely to point out how expensive college has become or he's a ridiculously naive idealist who thinks he can wave a magic wand and make things happen. All the Bernie supporters tell me he's the latter and that he would never do the former.

I understand the frustration with having large debts and a degree that doesn't provide you with many job skills. But are there many college professors who advocate this approach? There's enough trouble today with all the scholarships available and students who simply aren't interested in attending class or working toward an education. This would definitely turn most colleges into extended high schools.

But, apparently you will be able to major in e-gaming in the future, so all's good. Especially if I can get FOF into the curriculum.

Well when basically every job mandates a college degree, whether it actually matters for the work or not (do you really need a college degree to be, say, a manager of a CVS?), maybe making college an extended high school would be ok.

Free or cheap college education needs to happen at the state level. When the federal government took the issue on with loans and grants, the cost of education exploded, and pro-profit scam schools popped up everywhere to get some of that free money.

A lot of states have managed to send a lot of their best students to their public schools for free or cheap, though, interestingly, Vermont doesn't seem to be one of them. (I saw that only 20% of Vermont's most recent incoming class was from the state - so obviously the school and the state are not even big fans of the in-state discount.)

I think the Sanders' plan actually does want to use the states - maybe the feds reimbursing them, I'm not entirely sure.

Clinton's plan involves making college cheaper, but not necessarily free. Direct aid to states, lower rates for loans but requiring people who get loans to work 10 hours a week to pay some of it back (likely for the state university, I'd imagine), loans being repaid based on income, easier refinancing, stuff like that.

That's another thought that has occurred to me. I remember in basic training we were asked what motivated us to join the military. The majority of people said it was because of the GI Bill. And it is a great benefit, you taxpayers probably covered $50k for my college education. I wonder what carrot the military will have to come up with to sustain an all volunteer military.

I imagine that if Sanders was so powerful and successful that he somehow got the free tuition thing through Congress (or if he converts the country to a dictatorship), we'd also have a much, much smaller military.

Well Europe does it and stuff

States would essentially be putting up 1/3 the price tag with the federal government putting up the rest under Sander's plan.

Of course we know that every red state would agree to go along with this plan from the (democratic) socialist president cuz they're both red or something.

Oh, don't get me wrong. My argument isn't against the actual policy. It's just not a politically viable solution. Bernie couldn't get it passed even if he had majorities in both houses, which he won't have (and certainly isn't helping happen with his refusal to give money for downballot candidates).

Why not instead of cheaper or free college, we make the high school diploma worth more than toilet paper? Maybe offer more specialized training at that level? Would that be feasible? Reasonable? It was good enough for the generations that came before mine.

Because their competition in China and India was still living in the sticks at the time.

The whole free college thing is one of my biggest hangups with Sanders. It's simply not a feasible option, and it encourages the idea that a true college degree is the best solution when it really needs to be done by someone with drive and dedication.

Delta Airlines did a study and found that the pilots that make get their degrees in 4 years performed better and had fewer training issues than pilots who took longer. It's not simply a matter of getting the degree, it speaks to the nature of the individual on how they go about it, what obstacles they had to overcome and what they achieved.

College life was pretty sweet 20 years ago. I just toured Western Kentucky in the fall with my 8th grade son, who wants to get into a program there. I was struck by how much more it's like living at a combination social club, sports club, and dinner club. It's a life you'd almost never get the chance to live again outside of it. It's amazing, in fact, but it felt like so much of the focus was just on the life and not really on the degree you'd be getting.

Free tuition just accelerates this. It brings in a slew of people who have no real interest in next level success, or what the hell to even do with it. College still needs to be one of those things you look hard in the mirror to decide if it's your best option. There's no reason it needs to be turned into extended high school.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Seems like expanding loan forgiveness programs would be a much better start.

Or mandatory work for the government after graduation. Also, minimum grade requirements for "free"....get a D or an F...pay up before you continue on....similar to military tuition assistance.

Basically, the military in reverse. Quite expensive though....if everybody enjoys the benefits that the military does, it would quite literally cripple those who pay taxes (unless of course we have no intention of paying and just add it to our national debt).

I worked for the Treasury Dept out of college as a bank regulator and always thought that would have been a good place to have that sort of program. I chose it over making more money in finance initially because I knew quality of life would be better, and I could move into the private sector down the road (which I did). But it's hard for the regulatory agencies to compete with the banks in luring and keeping talent, and this would be one way to even the playing field a bit.

When I got hired, I was at orientation and the top dog in our district was giving a talk. One of the other new hires asked him if the agency had any sort of student loan assistance program and his response was "yes we do, it will show up in your bank account every two weeks".

These thoughts are sort of half-baked, but I'm going to dump them here anyways in the interest of discussion, not necessarily because I want to stand behind them with conviction. That said...

I guess as a society we need to decide why we want people going to university and then incentivize appropriately. If the answer is simply "companies want degrees before they will hire now, so we need to get people degrees so they can get jobs and pay taxes" then I think the answer is to put less money into funding universities, not more. Take that money and find ways to incentivize companies to train people themselves, on the job or otherwise.

However if the answer is that we feel sending people to university creates a better society through higher levels of education, grander life experiences, etc then funnel the money into the institutions and place the burden on the general tax payer, not the student themselves (just like K-12).

One problem with this approach is grade inflation. Which began in the '70s when male students had to maintain a certain average to avoid the draft.

If kids have to maintain a GPA and universities are in the business of getting all that free assistance from the taxpayers, universities will give them a GPA.

The latest round of inflation is due mainly to massive increases in tuition in the last 10-15 years. To compete, universities have to present a feel-good, less diverse experience.

I think reform is necessary, but more along the lines of getting rid of this country-club creep, more limited liberal arts courses, and an elimination of the administrative gains of the last couple of decades. Since the '90s, administration has doubled, and more and more courses are being taught by adjunct professors, who make a fraction of what a public school teacher makes.

Returning to a focus on education rather than administration and the country-club feel will lower costs (and improve the quality of education).

This should go in concert with more vocational training. Many places in Europe do provide free universities, but far fewer kids go to university and vocational training is encouraged.

As for employers, they'll adjust to the job market.

It is pretty telling that the U.S., with its crazy-expensive college tuition, still has a higher rate of college graduates than a bunch of countries with free or almost-free college tuition, like Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.

Edit: Most Americans, and most citizens in those countries, aren't "competing with China". It is important that we have a secondary educational system good enough to identify the very best and brightest and to make sure they have access to higher education. But for the rest of us, it's really more of a case-by-case basis thing whether it benefits us, or the economy.

Germany has (or had 15 years ago when I was an exchange student) the best approach I'm aware of. Get good grades in high school, we will prepare you for and heavily subsidize you to go to college? Are you halfway through HS and either goofing off or not smart enough to keep up with the top of the class? Then we will prepare you to go to vocational school and get a job or an apprenticeship at 18

Like Jim says we just coddle people. Everyone is a special snowflake and deserves to get awesome grades and to go to college. And of course lots of people getting rich while convincing people they will be the next Steve Jobs with their associate information technology degree from ITT Tech and saddling young people with massive debt that they will spend 20 years getting out of doesn't hurt either. I have no idea where the sweet spot is for the percentage of young people who go to college but I'm pretty sure we passed it a long time ago.

Totally right. During the mythical period when a high school degree still meant something, the United States did not have a manufacturing-based economy.

So Bernie just flipped Nevada apparently. Wisconsin will be interesting, that's for sure.

Here's one projection of how Sanders could win enough delegates (not including super-delegates).

It’s Really Hard To Get Bernie Sanders 988 More Delegates | FiveThirtyEight

He'd need to be +16 in Wisconsin, +4 in New York, and +57 in Wyoming to keep pace with this.

I have a hunch Bernie is going to do quite well in Wisconsin. Not saying he'll get the +16 Silver mentions, but I don't see Hillary winning the state.

The polling seems to indicate a 5-10 point win for Sanders in Wisconsin.

+14
The polling in Pennsylvania and New York currently indicate that Hillary is in the lead by 7-15 points but that Sanders is slowly gaining, I expect that will continue as we get closer to their primaries in a few weeks.

It will be interesting to see how much Bernie starts to get on the offense with attacking Hillary. It will only get easier to attack her with all the ammo he has. If she ever gets connected to Panama Papers, that would be uh, bad.

I'm in the boat that would be fine with either candidate, Hillary or Bernie, but I lean a little more towards Bernie.

A quick update:

Wins: Clinton 20, Sanders 16 (18-15 in states).
Caucus Wins, in states: Sanders 10, Clinton 2.
Primary Wins, in states: Clinton 16, Sanders 5.

Total Vote, estimated by RCP: Clinton 9.35m, Sanders 6.95m.

Pledged Delegates: Clinton 1302, Sanders 1088, 1668 remaining.
Unpledged Superdelegates: Clinton 474, Sanders 32, 208 remaining.

Estimated Total: Clinton 1776, Sanders 1120. Clinton needs 32.6% of remaining delegates to clinch the nomination.

Total if superdelegates were assigned WTA: Clinton 1562, Sanders 1222. Clinton would need 41.5%.

Total if superdelegates were assigned proportionately based on vote: Clinton 1505, Sanders 1279. Clinton would need 44.4%.

Coming soon:

4/9: Wyoming Caucus (14). This is the last state caucus.
4/19: New York Primary (247). RCP Average: Clinton +11.
4/26: Maryland Primary (95). RCP Average: Clinton +31.
4/26: Connecticut Primary (55)
4/26: Delaware Primary (21)
4/26: Pennsylvania Primary (189). RCP Average: Clinton +18.
4/26: Rhode Island Primary (24)

Sanders was +3 in Wisconsin, according to the RCP average. He won by 13.

Remember that all Democratic primaries assign delegates proportionately.

Yes, Sanders has momentum, but it's largely geographic and based on strength in caucuses. Clinton is still probably 98-99% likely to win this outright - no nonsense about contested conventions.* We can revisit this if he's 55-45 or better in New York, which seems highly unlikely.

* - standard disclaimer about FBI stuff - you've heard it before.

Pretty good article about Bernie's lack of coattails for downballot races and the fact that (unlike Hillary) he's not assisting congressional candidates. That's a pretty big deal, since he needs a majority way more than she does.

Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in Non-Bernie Democrats | Mother Jones

Bernie hanging around is a function of Dems' overconfidence that Hillary will beat Trump or Cruz.

If the GOP had settled early on a mainstream pick like Bush or Rubio, I think that the Dems would have already kicked Bernie to the curb so Hillary could start the general.

The Mother Jones article makes a good point too, that while Sanders may say he's for certain downballot people, his anti-Democratic party rhetoric results in his supporters just voting for him and basically treating Democrats the same as Republicans in all downballot races. It couldn't be further from the truth in, especially, this Wisconsin Supreme Court election. I remember seeing a few things on Facebook about how crazy this justice was the day after - well, if the Bernie votes voted for her opponent, that likely wouldn't have happened! But, of course, the parties are all the same except for special snowflake Bernie... gaaah!

That's also why I feel little sympathy for those whining about superdelegates. Bernie hasn't and isn't doing anything for the party folks, so of course they aren't jumping in to support him.

Bernie is probably *starting* to do some of that, or at least pledging to do so. However, if you are a sitting Democratic governor, senator or House member from a tough seat--superdelegates, all--a Clinton has probably campaigned for you at least once. That's another reason why I don't think Bernie will flip many superdelegates, even if he can somehow find a way to significantly close the gap in pledged delegates.

So, this stuck out:

That's disingenuous. Caucuses don't count votes like primaries. If we applied his percentages in the caucuses he's won to average voter turnout in the states he's won, we'd have much closer vote totals.

For example, he won 72.7% in Washington, which has a population of seven million. There's no way that wouldn't be at least a twenty point win even if WA had run a primary. WA has averaged about a 60% voter turnout over the past few decades. How many more votes would he have than the 20,000 listed for winning the caucus in a landslide? He's won all but two caucuses. That's a quirk in the system-- not an actual representation of voter sentiment.

I wouldn't combine the vote totals, either, except as the roughest of measures. But the other factor here is that caucuses and primaries are completely different animals. With a caucus, you have to be some place at a specific time, often (especially with the Democrats) for a long time.

In some states, and Washington is the perfect example, there's no caucus tradition. There's no fanfare. Only 26,000 people attended Democratic caucuses in Washington. They meet at someone's private home, and it's largely word of mouth. So you naturally get a less diverse spread of voters. To extrapolate a vote percentage to the entire voting population isn't a sound statistical hypothesis.

Secondly, caucuses are linked to regions. It's mostly big states with smaller populations and mostly states west of the Mississippi. The demographics happen to favor Cruz and Sanders.

So it turns out Sanders won more Missouri delegates after all, and Clinton's lead is cut back down to 204.

Yet Sanders people are all ranting that the process is rigged because Sanders won Wyoming and they split the pledged delegates.

Actually, to be fair, looks like Sanders won 56-44 of the popular vote but Clinton has an 11-7 advantage in delegates.

I believe that WY only had 14 delegates at stake for the vote itself (the others superdelegates, likely). And they were split 7-7.

It appears their rule does have a tendency toward an even split in this situation. To get an 8-6 split, your candidate must reach at least that implied percentage... 8-6 represents a bit more than 57%. Since Sanders won around 56%, he was just short.

Personally, I think I'd prefer a system that apportions the delegates most closely to the actual result (and here, 8-6 seems intuitively closer) but the "at least" rule is not completely unfounded.

.

I see 18. 7 for both and 4 soft commits to Hillary.

Right, but the additional 4 are not awarded based on the primary result.

The issue was just that there's three categories of Democrat delegates in Wyoming, 8 are allocated "by congressional district", 4 are allocated as "at large" regular delegates, and 2 are allocated as "at large" Party Leader & Elected Official delegates." Proportionally, Sanders got 4.4 of the congressional district delegates, which rounds down to 4, 2.2 of the at-large delegates, which rounds down to 2, and 1.1 of the PLEO delegates, which rounds down to 1.

Or, it was a conspiracy set in motion by the "crooks on wall street", one or the other.

Wyoming Democratic Delegation 2016

I guess I need lay assistance, what does the above website refer to when it says there are 18 delegate votes and that Hillary won 11 of them, while Sanders only won 7? And what are these guys upset about here?



I'm just among the masses of lowly uneducated citizens.

This is the old pledged delegate/superdelegate difference. Pledged delegates are what are up for grabs in primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates are nominally attached to states, but are really party people (elected officials, important persons, etc.) who are free agents. So in the pledged delegate count, it split 7-7 as Quik explained above. Bernie just missed the threshold to pick up an extra delegate. All four superdelegates have committed to HRC, but they are not bound by that commitment and can switch at any time. They are also not bound by the state vote. HRC holds a massive superdelegate lead. Again the superdelegates are nominally assigned to states, but they're really free agents in the process.

14 delegates.


4 delegates

Despite winning the popular vote 56%-44%...
And with no regard for the popular vote, 4 Wyoming delegates voted for HRC......but they haven't...so currently they are listed as 4 votes for HRC.


Right, these are buffer votes...are they paid-for votes? Establishment votes?

Bottom Line: Pledged Delegates (14) + Super Delegates (4) = Delegates (18)

Sanders - 56%
Clinton - 44%

Sanders - 7 delegates
Clinton - 11 delegates

Now I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

Probably been said before but he was never part of/supported the Democrats before this election. There's no reason for Bernie to expect the Democrat super delegates to suddenly support him now.

So, the answer is....don't win over the people...be a part of the Establishment/Insider clique if you want to be the Democratic nominee.

It's not a conspiracy, but the rules do provide a hefty "home field advantage" so the parties nominee beats the people's nominee....if they are different but close.

Not sure what
The ratio is between pledge and super delegates....

Clinton had the same SuperDel advantage over Senator Obama. But then he got a lead in pledged delegates. And the Supers came over. Superdelegates are politicians. They will follow the will of the people by and large because that tends to be in their own interest.

If Sanders were leading Clinton in pledged delegates, we would be having a very very different conversation now. He'd have a legitimate argument that the supers should come over to him.

As it is, she leads him in pledged delegates, and she will lead him when the voting is all done. And she beat him in most of the purple states. Other than "I did a lot better than people thought I would," I can see no argument for Bernie deserving the nomination. Clinton beat him.

Ahh, okay, well that makes sense and is much more palatable. Thanks!

It makes sense that actually being a member of the party should help one win that party's nomination. Sanders was free to run as an independent, but he's never been a part of the club he's trying to take over now.

That also makes sense. Fair.

I get that. And it applies to Trump as well. But why, then, should we as taxpayers fund these primaries? These are clubs, and if elite membership is some sort of seniority thing, which makes sense, they should fund their own damned nominating contests.

I'm fine with that. I'm also very much in favor of closing all primaries to party members (like they do in Europe), but some states mandate open primaries as well.

The other upside is that you wouldn't have all these states climb over each other to get a plumb primary date.

BTW, that link to the Morning Joe that Dutch linked just makes me realize how stupid that show actually is. Scarborough just wants to yell rather than actually figure things out. We broke it down and explained it at FOFC FAAAAAR quicker than they would have.

We should have our own political cable show.

It might just be me being more willing to understand now that I do t have anybody to root for. :)

Wait, how does closing the primaries change the mad rush to be "first"?
What am I not following here?

(I don't disagree with you or Jim on either point in that sequence fwiw, I'm just not following how either change would eliminate the whole firstfirstfirst madness. That's all about attention grabbing by the states, hoping to feel important)

:withstupid:

Compare Frontline ratings to Fox/MSNBC/CNN (and also realize how much saner and more valuable talking about stuff for one hour a day instead of 24 is). Rational explanations and compromise do not get idiots to watch you for 8 hours a day.
Disagree with this part. Nobody would campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire if they weren't first. Now, whether we want any states to have outsize importance, or if those are the states we want to be the epicenter of the early debate is a bigger question, but clearly under the current system making yourself unique or early does increase the amount your constituents are heard/pandered to.

So you agree with me then, not disagree.

Because that what I was saying, it's attention grabbing in order to feel important. I meant (primarily) to the candidates/campaigns who will give them 15-18 minutes of pandering to & pretending to give a shit about whatever interests(s) the voters in IA, NH, or whomever else jumps into a key date early happen to have.

It was in response to this:


If States aren't involved, that means the Democratic Party decides everything, including dates of primaries. They can say "this is when the primaries are" and the State legislatures would have no input.

Okay, it was that extra step (assuming the national party offices would decide dates) that I hadn't taken along with you.

Effectively, then, Jim just described/proposed a caucus system run entirely by the parties be the method in every state. Because the expense of voting machines, etc. pretty much makes traditional voting (as we think of it) a non-starter.

I was thinking of the change being more along the lines of states remaining involved for the reason of practical realities but with the parties being responsible for picking up at least portions of the costs.

Sorry for the confusion, it was completely legit (and apparently got Ben too) & I appreciate the patient clarification.

No worries... I realized in re-reading that the second paragraph could have been seen as a continuation of the first rather than referencing back up to the quoted.

Do States that go early have additional primaries later in the year? Cause that's kind of silly if they do.

PA has an interesting (D)Senate primary race. Everyone in the establishment is hoping this McGinty lady will win but Joe Sestak is ahead by about 10 points.

Yes, it got me, and yes, now I'm with you with the clarification.