I donated to Sanders Campaign last week. I'm a Kasich guy, and have been since he declared and the first deabte. He's the most ready to run, has the best resume, and frankly, is more electable than these other "electable" folks out there. But I love teh Sanders vibe.

We are in full agreement. I never liked open primaries. The party members should determine who is the party representative.

So basically the Democratic elite just needs to dig up some disingenuous dirt on Sanders in order for a Clinton comeback.

I saw a little of this yesterday - read a story where a Democratic PAC was instrumental in the machinations in the background to get Sanders either elected or re-elected in 2006 (?).

I would think this wouldn't be too hard. Really, is it even possible to get as far a being a potential presidential nominee without taking some money somewhere from a PAC, lobby group, etc.?

Isn't it generally against the interests of the party to turn away voters? There's no hint Sanders was driven by a wave of GOP ratfuckers. He pulled in a lot of new voters and the party should look to finding a way to keep them on the D side in November.

Yup. The one I remember the most was the 2002 Democratic Primary, where Cynthia McKinney got kicked to the curb by large number of crossover voters. I just did a quick check: only 6,000 people voted in the R primary that year, compared to 29,000 in the previous R primary. McKinney lost by a little under 20,000 votes, and it is widely thought that the margin of victory was provided by people who normally voted in Republican primaries.

I suppose the counterpoint to Jon/Imran would be this: if your politics are in a strong minority in your district, realistically you have *no* voice in the general election. Being able to cross over does give you the chance to have *some* say in who represents you--something you would not have had otherwise.

I think the women voter breakdown was far more telling. Amongst women 18-29, Sanders beat Hillary by 59 POINTS! Sanders overall won the women vote 55-44. That's a huge problem for her in a voter block that swung her way last time she ran for the nomination.

Looks like a lot of women just reserved their place in hell.

:confused:

The Albright comments.

According to the CNN tracker, though Sanders completely trounced Hillary, she won the delegate count? WTF is going on with these weird primaries? Does that include these superdelegates who are apparently paid before the primaries?

Yes, superdelegates.

AP has it 13 to 9 Sanders. Must be 6 superdelegates.

NH has 24 pledged delegates (delegates who vote according to last night's vote). 22 of those have been allocated thus far, 13 to Sanders, 9 to Clinton. The last two are still not allocated. It's fair to assume Sanders will get at least one, if not both.

NH has 8 Superdelegates. 6 of these have declared for HRC. As noted, they are free to switch up until the convention.

So, of NH's 32 total delegates, HRC has 15 right now. Sanders has 13. Four (two pledged and two supers) are still in play.

Dola...

There are a total of 712 Democratic superdelegates. This represents about 15% of the delegate count. Right now HRC leads the superdelegate count of those who have publicly pledged support approximately 357-14 (you see slightly varied counts at different places).

If the convention were to get down to superdelegates overruling the voters, the superdelegates will switch. There's no point in nominating someone that would so fracture the party that the general would be a foregone conclusion. The superdelegates are the most engaged political folks in the party. Most of them aren't going to risk throwing their power and influence away.

That's basically what was happening with Obama, although he did eventually have a strong enough lead that it didn't matter.

Counterpoint: there's no point in an establishment Democrat who's been entrenched in the party long enough to become a superdelegate to ever throw their vote to a Socialist...someone who's not even a registered Democrat.

Yup

Madeleine Albright's Words Backfire With Hillary Loss | The Daily Caller

Ahh. Somehow I had missed that story.

NYT exit poll.

So old, well-off people love Hillary.

Sounds Republican, doesn't it?

At least in New Hampshire, yes. Sanders still his to deal with the minority factor soon, though--especially the black voters in the South. That will be interesting to see.

Every year I have my government class take the political compass test. Every year they end up in the same spot, socially and economically progressive. Unlike the past few elections there is actually a candidate in their quadrant, Sanders. Most of the time it's their stance and on the opposite side, Obama, Bush, et al.

So it makes sense the youth are into Bernie. He can appeal to expectations rather than experiences. Plus.. he uhmm... sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake! :D

It's got to be somewhat bad news for Sanders though that the 18-29 age range only made up 19%. In NH, he was going to get the older voters as well (aside from the really old ones), but that wasn't the case in Iowa (Sanders won 18-29 and 30-44, but lost 45-64 and 64+) and it won't be the case in the rest of the country.

Not really interesting. Clinton already has a 394-42 delegate lead and will absolutely crush it in the south. There is absolutely no contest. We just want to pretend that there is because that is more interesting.

I'm no longer certain this is the case, because Hillary is making a lot of mistakes lately. Plus, she still has to explain how emails made it from the state department's top-secret computer network to her home server without their security markings. While it seems certain Obama will protect her from prosecution, the fallout could be significant.

For some reason, she got it into her head that she had to out-left Sanders. So she's repudiating her husband's presidency - exactly the accomplishments that made independents like him. And now he's on the campaign trail with her. That's confusing.

Meanwhile, free stuff for everyone. Just add it to the tab.

No one really believes she's that far to the left. So young people aren't just embracing Sanders and the free stuff, they're to a point where they actually dislike Hillary because they know she was someone else before the campaign started. It's not just the email server she's lying about.

Sanders has tapped into a very real problem, however. College is more expensive than it was in the past. When my mom went to Cornell, she paid for most of it with a part-time job in the cafeteria. My dad's tuition at Yale was paid for under the GI Bill. Costs increased, and by the time I was a student I had to cobble together a couple of jobs and go in-state. But I got through without debt.

Could that work today? Forget it. Unless you're on scholarship, you're going to be deeply in debt after college. And if you don't have a useful major, you're going to have trouble finding a job anyway.

I completely disagree with Sanders' solution, but this is a problem that anyone under 30 can see a lot more clearly than the rest of us can. If you ask college professors, they'll blame administrative bloat and 100 other things. I think we need university reform just as badly as we need health care reform.

Well, let's not get too wrapped up in the powerful blue/white shading imagery there. Sanders won this whole state BIG with lots of inherent advantages...so the fact that he won most of the age/economic subgroups isn't itself a shock.

Another way to look at that breakdown is to realize that in the "middle" income group from $100-200K, Clinton OUTPERFORMED her statewide numbers (even while losing). Less interestingly, she did so with the second-oldest group as well.

He is unsurprisingly killing her with the young, and there are other factors we know are driving the race... but that $100-200K band is a pretty important demographic. And that's before you introduce the new (to New Hampshire) concept of "people of color."

If that's true, it's new information. Nothing has been released confirming the emails were top-secret at the time of initial transmission.

Pretty much this IMO.

She'll absolutely dominate the SEC primaries ... but it returns to interesting, at least on paper, since she appears to be in some trouble for the mid-March round.

There was some reference last night I caught, about her strategy basically being to build an insurmountable lead & render a lot of stuff moot. That still looks to me to be the most likely outcome by far.

I mean, last night's hoo-ha was only a +4 delegates to Sanders. For all the sound & fury, the significance ...

But, being deeply in the middle of this process right now ourselves, how many people that are going to make it to a degree aren't on at least some degree of scholarship.

I mean, the "list price" for college is absurd. But who the hell is paying list price? I just had this discussion last weekend with a couple of parents & a veteran educator, the standard opening offer these days is equal to roughly half at even most private colleges. That's the typical day one with admission acceptance number that is typical. Granted, rarified air set of students & all that jazz, but those are the kids that are getting into School X. Those are the kids that the school is definitely showing an indication that they want.

The leap from 50 percent (via scholarships and/or various cost waivers) to 60 or 70 percent isn't really that tough either. It's the next level above "the average freshman enrollee" but it's doable for many of those first round kids. Now the final portion, yeah, we're finding that to be where it gets a lot tougher. And the remainder isn't insubstantial, by any means ... but it's still a long way from MSRP too.

I'm probably as inclined toward the "name" school phenomenon as anyone but, realistically, if you aren't getting that sort of offer right off the bat then you may be reaching a tier above your grasp for school choice. To me any offer less than that is a strong sign that you might need to expand your horizons in terms of where to go.

There's always vocational jobs. Or going to a community college on a university-transfer pathway.

That's how European countries with "free" tuition handle this problem. But in the US, people don't accept that solution. Kids would rather be warehoused in majors that don't even qualify them for McDonald's than go to vocational school. The diploma has become more important than the future.

Average discount rates are in the mid-fourties for a lot of schools. We were at 44 the last I heard. That's a big problem, because there isn't much room left to discount.

Don't blame the students. A lot of them would be fine with vocational or two year degrees if they opened doors the way a four year degree does. They aren't stupid, they understand that the jobs they can get without a four year degree are dwindling every year. Even if that vocational degree works today, when they're unemployed later they won't have options. Many employers use the four year degree as a filter, and equate a vocational degree with a HS diploma.

Even community college is now somewhat ridiculous. I mean, I don't know what your definition of cheap is but if I were to go to the same community college I did years ago it would now cost in the range of 15-20K (Long Beach City College, CA) when you include the various fees. My daughter did JC for one semester just because she planned to leave on a mission and that one semester was around $3500 (that's in Virginia). If that's now the affordable option its pretty crappy.

I'd go so far as to make the argument that the 4 year degree is awfully damned close to what a HS diploma used to be.

Says much about how devalued a HS diploma has become.

Smells about right to my sniff test, there's enough that are far below that 50% mark for me to imagine the average being driven down in that range.

~$2600 for two semesters, I live in the RDU area of North Carolina. I know some people on this board live in Greensboro. I grew up there, tuition for GTCC is around $2000 for two semesters and the institution gives out merit/need based grant depending on the applicant.

This is all of course not considering living expenses (if any), cost of books, transportation, and assuming you don't qualify for pell grants.

We all have to pay in some way. I got a degree for "free" from the military by going to night-school (thank you greater University of Maryland school system) and still have about $100k in GI Bill (scholarship) funds waiting for me (or my daughter). But I had to give the government about 7 years to accomplish that.

Is that better or worse than not joining the military and just going to school and then getting a great paying job at ~24 and paying off $80k in debt? I think if we equate time/effort to money, it breaks even.

Well, that idea sure worked.

There are several issues here:

1). Many kids do not want to go into the labor sector. The easiest way until recently to earn six figures was to become a welder, and move to the Bakken Shale and you could write your own paycheck. However, the ratio of men to women was something like 20:1, and there is not much to do out there.

2). There are not a ton of jobs for vocational skills. Many of these jobs left the country. On top of that, many of the ones still here require a 4 year degree for some reason (I blame lazy HR people).

3). This ties back to #1, but many parents do not want their children in a blue collar job. They push their kids towards college rather than to a trade. For instance, in my industry there is a shortage of plant operators. Who tells their kids about all the great opportunities in waste water?

Change the names, and you could have plucked this from almost any Democratic primary from 2008. For all that Clinton was winning contests, she wasn't moving the needle on pledged delegates.

Some fairly big news, the Congressional Black Caucus is formally endorsing Hillary Clinton today:

Congressional Black Caucus to formally endorse Clinton on Thursday - The Washington Post

Apparently 90% of the 20 member CBC board voted to endorse Clinton, none voted for Bernie (the other 10% abstained)

Is this really big news? Bill Clinton is jokingly referred to as the first black president for a reason.

Yes. Sanders has been trying really hard this week to burnish his African-American credentials - meeting with Al Sharpton, getting some black intellectuals saying they've vote for him, or against Clinton (Ta-Nehisi Coates and Michelle Alexander) - and this endorsement kind of kicks that down.

It's really only significant because of 2008 when HRC had a lot of CBC support early but they faded to Obama. Sort of a making amends type deal.

It's important because...

Arkansas: Clinton 57, Sanders 25
Michigan: Clinton 57, Sanders 28
North Carolina: Clinton 55, Sanders 29
New York: Clinton 55, Sanders 34

Sanders has to turn these results around and the only way to do that is if the IA and NH performance helps make him more credible to minority voters.

He's dumber than I thought if he thought he would pull the AA vote from the Clintons.

Tough to go against the presumptive nominee at this point, especially one that is thought to hold grudges.

It's his only way to win, though. He has to try, or else he's completely toast.