Martin O Malley reminded my of Oliver Twist

"Please sir, may I have 30 seconds?"

I watched a bit of the debate last night and honestly, whenever Hillary opens her mouth she sounds supremely disingenuous. It all sounds like total bullshit.

As for Sanders I just don't see how his brand is going to hold up if he were to win the nomination. He is every bit as far to the left as Cruz is to the right. I'd hate to have the US go in either of those directions. I agree with more of what Sanders says, but there are some really big issues I can't see supporting either like free college everywhere.

O'Mally is a non player.

All the issues that they were discussing just seemed off and somewhat inconsequential to some of the larger issues that they should have been discussing.

I don't know. I'm not impressed with any of them.

I'm a liberal democrat. I should be right in the #feelthebern wheelhouse. But I still have trouble taking him seriously. I like that's he's there to push the conversation to the left economically, but I still cannot picture him as president. And if I can't, then I can't imagine that moderates/GOP leaners will be able to picture him that way either.

I wonder where Biden would be in all this right now.

I think that anyone pragmatic at all, regardless of how progressive one is, would think that Sanders wouldn't be a great choice. The issues with ideologues is that they don't really have the skills to navigate the political minefields to actually get things done - esp when the House is going to be GOP for many years.

Interestingly, I wonder if he is in a slightly better position right now by not running. If he ran, he'd probably be second or third, having taken some of Hillary's support. But if his taking Hillary's support started to make Bernie more possible, I could see the Dem Establishment consolidating behind Hillary to prevent Bernie. I don't see a path for Biden that way.

But, let's say that there's a 5% chance that Hillary fails to seal the deal against Bernie (right now, Predict it has her around 80%, which I think is low). And the establishment starts to freak out. Then, suddenly, an Obama-endorsed Biden could swoop in as the "compromise" candidate and pretty much be forced on the party.

I don't think that would be good for the party's chances. But a Hillary that can't put away Bernie isn't good for the party's chances either, so it might end up being a "least worst" option for the Dems.

Log In - The New York Times

So what you are saying is that if Sanders becomes President, Progressives are going to be more disappointed with him than they were with Obama? ;) Provided, of course, that he returns to his pragmatic mayoral ways as opposed to his idealistic senatorial ways.

Or are they going to realize that he may do exactly what they are angry Hillary is going to do?

Progressives are going to be disappointed with any Democrat who gets elected. They aren't going to have the juice to get shit through the House and even the Senate will be a slog if it flips, because the filibuster is still a thing.

To my eternal shock, the Republicans did not immediately nuke it upon retaking the Senate (though that may be because they knew their legislation had no hope of becoming law).

TL;DR: Bernie Sanders could plan to govern from the left of Lenin and he's still not going to get his dream agenda passed. He's probably not going to be able to "out-Republican the Republicans" or co-opt them, because they've spent the last 8 years ginning up their base to the tune of "never give up, never surrender" and so any negotiation short of "I'll give you everything you want" is unlikely to be met with any enthusiasm.

That doesn't mean he'd operate the way a putative President Clinton would, but it does mean that his hands are probably going to be tied in much the same way as hers would be. What the candidates want to do may not matter as much as what the political reality for any Democrat in the White House will be.

The other thing to consider is the amount of influence the President has over the entire apparatus of government (i.e. all the Departments). A big difference between, say, Bill Clinton and George W Bush is that the former really didn't have a lot of experienced operators who could influence the bureaucracy from Day One, whereas the latter populated his cabinet with experienced operators who could, and who also knew how to push right up against the limits normally associated with the Executive Branch.

On this angle, I think Clinton is able to operate effectively from Day One whereas Sanders spends quite some time spinning his wheels until the proper people get in place and get things moving.

Yeah, Clinton being Obama 2nd term, while Sanders being Obama 1st term ;).

And also, look at it this way, if Clinton compromises to get incremental change done (and works through executive order to push other stuff), people will basically expect that. If Sanders works the same way... well, the calls of "sell out" will be quite loud. People were super disappointed with Obama a year or two ago, in hoping for 'change' they got 'politics as usual'.

Agreed 100% on those points, ISiddiqui.

In the book Double Down, they talk about Bill Clinton's views of Obama's presidency. Bill was actually impressed that Obama was able to do the hard stuff (Health Care, DADT), but seemed to fumble the small stuff. I expect a Hillary presidency to be the opposite, in that she won't spend so much political capital on something so big, but she'll work to get through smaller obstacles. For one thing, I'd expect her to be better at getting district and circuit court judges confirmed.

As for Bernie, I'd actually expect him to start off exactly like Bill, in trying to get all this huge stuff done and failing. Whether he'll be able to (or want to) recover to the center as effectively as Bill did is a big question mark.

If I were picking simply based on stated issue positions, then I'd easily be a Bernie supporter. But that's not the only point to take into consideration, and really not even the most important. Who would be a more effective president? I think it would be Hillary.

That's my feeling too. Showy failures in year one, lame duck for the next three years.

I think you both are dead on. Sanders will bully through a few token measures, but his big stuff will be met with a ton of resistance. If he wins the election, I think he very well may decide to not run (or atleast run hard) for a second term due to his overall level of frustration. While I don't agree with a lot of his policy ideas, Bernie strikes me as someone who wants to be president to implement some changes he legitimately feels will improve the country. If he's blocked from doing that, I think the "nuisances" of being president will start to wear on him since he's not getting the policy payoffs he was hoping for. He's actually a very refreshing personality for a presidential candidate. I've found myself really wishing I could find more common ground with him as he's someone I would enjoy supporting in an overall pool of stiffs (from both sides). But, I also think he would struggle to be as effective as Bill or Obama because of his emotional investment in these changes.

I think there's going to be a lot of hand wringing on the left with people who's heart is with Bernie, but who's head is with Hillary (she'll be a little more pragmatic and net out more "wins").

This.

I also think Hillary would be far more effective staffing executive positions. I think Bernie would struggle to fill positions with people that he could count on.

Yep, and, again, very similar to Bill Clinton's struggles out of the gate in 1993.

Or Carter's. The problem with coming in as an outsider is that the insiders know how to get things done. When you staff up with a bunch of outsiders, you waste a lot of valuable time and energy trying to figure out where the levers are.

I'll agree that I think that Hillary will get much more done than Sanders could. The potential on the Supreme Court for the next 4-8 yr cycle is huge.

Ginsburg - 82
Scalia - 79
Kennedy - 79
Breyer - 77
Thomas - 67
Alito - 65
Sotomayor - 61
Roberts - 60
Kagan - 55

Edit: historical average retirement age is 78/79 or so, but I would think that's dragged down a bit by 19th century justices.

And the one thing that the Dem Presidents have really done well is SCOTUS appointments. Clinton gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Obama gave us Kagan and Sotomayor. The only one of those close to a miss is Breyer, but he's been right on almost all of the major issues. Say whatever you want about Hillary as a DINO or being tied to corporate interests, but I have no doubt she'll nail the SCOTUS nominations.

I'm still not sure what to make of him as a candidate, but the Sanders "America" commercial is maybe the best political ad I've seen.

It inspires a hope that makes me wish things were different in the house and Senate, and with governing in general.

Polling is all over the place...

Iowa Caucus, all polls reported by RCP this year:

NBC (1/2-1/7, 422 LV) Clinton 48-45-5
Quinnipiac (1/5-1/10, 492 LV) Sanders 49-44-4
ARG (1/6-1/10, 400 LV) Sanders 47-44-3
Des Moines Register/Bloomberg (1/7-1/10, 503 LV) Clinton 42-40-4
PPP (1/8-1/10, 580 LV) Clinton 46-40-8
Gravis (1/11-1/12, 461 LV) Clinton 57-36-7
Loras College (1/13-1/18, 500 LV) Clinton 59-30-7
KBUR (1/18-1/19, 570 LV) Clinton 48-39-7
CNN/ORC (1/15-1/20, 280 LV) Sanders 51-43-4

I have no idea what to expect next week. I think Hillary is still the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination, but it does seem like Sanders has a strong lead in New Hampshire.

If it's a tossup in the polls I'd expect Hillary to have the organization to pull out a win, even if very narrow. Given the polling in states where minorities are more prevalent, Bernie needs to win in Iowa and NH to have a chance going forward. My guess is he losses a close race in Iowa, wins NH by several points and gets crushed in SC and NV, leading to big losses on Super Tuesday, after which he's done.

That's my guess too, JPhillips.

I've expected Sanders to win New Hampshire for ages. Even though NH & Vermont are quite dissimilar, really, Sanders' appeal really should translate there more than Clinton's. Call it the outsider appeal, I guess.

On the one hand, I'd think that the crowd Sanders appeals to would be tougher to get to caucus.

On the other, until Clinton shows that her campaign actually understands the difference between caucuses and primaries and how delegate math actually works this time, I'd say anything is possible.

This won't be as extensive as my post in the Republican thread, but with 6 days to go before Iowa:

• Clinton's lead is expanding nationally
• It's neck-and-neck in Iowa
• Sanders has a healthy lead in NH
• Clinton has a healthy lead in SC

Here's what I think happens:

1. It's very close in Iowa, which creates a lot of talk but doesn't really change anything.

2. Sanders wins NH easily. Clinton wins SC & NV easily.

3. Clinton dominates Super Tuesday.

4. Sanders stays in until he's mathematically eliminated, and then concedes.

5. O'Malley drops out after he finishes 3rd in Maryland.

Because of the expectations game, I think that Sanders' likely win in NH won't mean much.

And, b/c New Hampshire voters seem to like to be contrary, I would not rule out a Clinton win there. Just like President Obama was "supposed" to win there after his Iowa win over Clinton, but they ended up going for her.

Interesting that we haven't had a post here in six days, despite this being Caucus Day.

My prediction: Clinton by 7-8 points. Despite the increasing problem of the emails, State has successfully delayed the release of what may be the most damaging information. Clinton has too strong an organization in Iowa. And everywhere but New England, really. The nomination entirely depends on the question of how she avoids indictment rather than anything Sanders can do.

*nods*

My prediction:

During the re-alingnment period, the O'Malley supporters flip to Sanders as an 'Anti-Clinton' movement.

Final vote:

Sanders 48
Clinton 47

Wouldn't there need to be an investigating prosecutor for an indictment?

I'll go Clinton by 5.

Don't know, how did it work for General Petraeus?

It's more what the FBI will recommend. Obama will not let her see an actual indictment.

She's only up 2% with 69% in. Granted, the way Iowa counts delegates is odd - it seems in a close race, the precincts with odd numbers of total delegates play a much bigger role in the overall result.

But to come from as far back as he was... I think Sanders should see this as a good day.

On the negative side, he's struggling in the polls with minority voters, and Iowa/New Hampshire are as non-minority as you'll find. He's solidly in this race now, but he has to move the needle within the month, or he'll get buried by the combination of the SEC primary and the endorsements. So his chances, again, are far more related to the email investigation than to the voters.

Fernando Peinado on Twitter: "This is how the #IowaCaucus works. A tie is solved tossing a coin @HillaryClinton wins https://t.co/yZDTUKFJXQ"

lol

Iowans

O'Malley dropping out, not that he was ever in it.

With 89% in, Clinton's lead is only 3 delegates (49.8% - 49.6%). O'Malley may have dropped out, but he's holding steady at 7 delegates (0.6%) - a lead of 6 over Uncommitted.

This one is a bit dense. But the story has a chance to blow up if the caucus numbers stay close.

Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus

tl;dr

Clinton precinct captain lies about whether her side did a full headcount on the second round of caucusing. Clinton wins by a narrow margin which causes a one delegate swing 5-4, rather than losing 4-5.

In other news, there are supposedly three cases where the delegates came down to a coin flip. Clinton has won all three reported coin flips.

From what I'm hearing:

1) the voter fraud thing was debunked

2) the coin flips were for county delegates, which aren't the same thing. Delegate counts, at this point in time, are extrapolations from the results of the county delegations. One (or three) extra county delegates can affect the final delegate count, certainly, but there are so many more of those that it's noise in the data more than anything else.

The 21-21 split for state delegates currently being reported would not be 24-18 for Sanders if those county delegates had gone the other way.

The point is that it's a bad look with the Clintons, who have skirted the line on shady business a time or two. Whether it would have made a difference or not isn't really the story.

The coin flip thing is just odd. It's a ridiculously arcane thing to be part of the process for choosing someone who'll eventually have a 50/50 chance to be the leader of the free world.

Hillary Clinton has a history of "bad looks," though. She's not nearly as Teflon as her husband is/was. Hell, she more or less declared victory tonight and, well...it's not that clear-cut.


You mean like the concept of a bunch of people getting together to take a headcount on who supports whom, rather than voting electronically or via paper ballot? Arcane like that? ;)

Ha! That's kind of what I was thinking. The Iowa caucuses are just strange all over.

But how can that be when the media is anti-Sanders? ;)

Plus winning three coin flips in a row is only a one in eight possibility, so it wouldn't be the most outrageous thing in the world anyway.

So why didn't O'Malley get any traction? He has a presidential look, and he is fine on paper. How did he stay in the low single digits? I'm not saying he would win. But why such a poor showing?

He didn't seem particularly charismatic. He reminded me a bit of Mitt Romney that way. Presidential look, fine on paper, low charisma. May have worked in a down year, but you had two very good candidates in Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (who took O'Malley's hoped for left leaning voters).

I can't think of a single group in the Dem coalition where he would be the first choice over Sanders or Clinton. The Baltimore riots and his history in Baltimore really hurt him as well.

Because he's Tommy Carcetti.