2015-2016 Democratic Primary Season - Bernie Math
 

I thought we could use items dedicated to the primary issues. Candidacies, polls, issues, attitudes.

As always, let's try to keep these items pleasant.

Candidates so far...

Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, former Senator from New York, former Secretary of State.

Bernie Sanders, former Mayor of Burlington, former Congressman from Vermont, current Senator from Vermont, independent, but has an agreement with the Democrats to caucus in return for tenure/committee membership.

Joe Biden, former Senator from Delaware, current Vice President, decided not to run, 10/21/2015.

Martin O'Malley, former Mayor of Baltimore, former Governor of Maryland, apparent inspiration for The Wire. Withdrew on 2/1/16.

Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, former Senator from Virginia, withdrew on 10/20/2015.

Lincoln Chafee, former Senator from Rhode Island, former Governor of Rhode Island, Republican as a senator, independent as a governor, now Democrat, withdrew on 10/23/2015.

The first debate was on 10/13/2015 in Las Vegas on CNN.

The second debate was on 11/15/2015 in Des Moines, Iowa on CBS.

The third debate was on 12/19/2015 in Goffstown, NH, on ABC.

The fourth debate was on 1/17/2016 in Charleston, SC on NBC.

The fifth debate was on 2/11/2016 in Milwaukee on PBS.

The sixth debate is scheduled for 3/6/2016 in Flint, MI on CNN.

Polling indicates Sanders has made up enormous ground in recent weeks and may be pretty much tied nationally.

Clinton has an overwhelming lead in pledged superdelegates, but pledges are not binding, as Clinton found out eight years ago.

The Iowa Caucus was on February 1, and was pretty much a dead heat between Clinton and Sanders, Clinton winning by four state delegates.

Sanders won the New Hampshire Primary on February 9 by more than 20 points.

Clinton won the Nevada Caucus on February 20 by a small margin.

I have a feeling that Clinton gets beat by the Republican nominee, so long as they run a moderate.

C'mon Bernie.

:lol:

I agree it is a huge if. But I could see Jeb Bush beating her.

So, Suffolk actually did a New Hampshire GOP Presidential Primary poll that came out today. Jeb Bush wins with 14%, but who is that right behind him.... none other than the Donald! Trump had 11% in the Suffolk poll.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal did some hypo Presidential matchups and contrary to any thought of moderates doing well against Hillary, Hillary has a 8 point lead over Jeb Bush (in addition to a 14 point lead over Scott Walker and 10 point lead over Marco Rubio).

As of right now, Clinton has an average of 5.3 lead over Bush in the polls:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Bush vs. Clinton

I don't really see Bush making it up on her, especially not after some of his recent flubs.

Bush has a lot of money behind him and that can't be discounted, but he doesn't generate much passion. Who would be excited by a Bush victory?

My sense from the media is that they're ABH (anyone but Hillary). They want Sanders, but know it's a tough sell in the General. O'Malley is well positioned, as Biden would be if he weren't Saturday Night Lived as the ill-tempered guy who makes constant gaffes.

In the end, my guess is that Hillary prevails and the media reluctantly learns to love her again. But O'Malley may surprise us.

Indeed... he (Jeb) seems Romney-esque that way. I also think in the battle of the last names for more independent types will be frightened by another Bush than another Clinton (if you think about how those Presidencies ended... which is slightly unfair for GHW Bush, but there it is).

I think the Baltimore riots weigh down O'Malley. He's going to have a hard time explaining some of his past actions to the Dem base.

Just what we need, another potential Bush versus Clinton election, only with candidates even less inspiring than the first time.

Yeah.. it's almost killed him off, I think. Not a single Dem I know (granted not a massive sample size) thinks well of O'Malley after Baltimore.

Yeah, we have the potential to have a Bush or Clinton for 28 out of 36 years. Not quite a monarchy, but...

He's not running for office in Maryland. And he won't spend any time in Maryland, because it's a solid blue state and its primary is well after Super Tuesday. If he gains traction, he's viable. People will forget, or want to forget.

Same reason why Biden still polls at 10% even though he's not announced and he's not all that popular. Elizabeth Warren would rocket to 30% tomorrow if she were interested. The Democrats need another candidate or two right now.

President Hillary and First Lady Bill. Case closed.

I've admired Bernie for a long time but cannot conceive of a scenario where he gets the nod.

Random trivia. I was born in Summer 1976. 2008 was the first election in my life in which the GOP ticket did not contain a Dole or a Bush.

Powerful families tend to stay powerful.

dola:

And a super early guess just for the hell of it in case I am right. I will predict the tickets as

Clinton/Webb
Rubio/Walker

And I think I agree with Nate Silver that, based on all the fundamentals, it really is a 50/50 race right now.

Am I wrong in thinking that no one stands a chance against Clinton in the primary? There doesn't seem to be any up and coming star who could derail her.

Has there been any talk of Cuomo running?

She'll only have trouble if she hires Mark Penn again.

Cuomo would stand zero chance in this primary. The base hates him and his constituency is basically the same as Clinton's. He'll bide his time or be like his father and never run.

Why is Clinton the huge favorite? Do the Dems think it will be Bill 2? Or is she that great a leader? Or is it the lack of other viable candidates?

Well, us Dems are looking for someone a bit more progressive than Bill ;). And Hillary has been - she was the head of the left faction in the WH during the Bill era, and has explicitly repudiated some of the Bill policies. A lot of us like her resume as well. And we're convinced she'll actually fight unlike President Obama for the first 6 years of his administration (or at least push back more).

Oh, and a good deal of us voted for her in the 2008 Primaries and have been waiting for this day for 7 years now.

Really want to see Webb get into the race, he's the one candidate from either side that I would be happy to vote for at this point.

Bernie Sanders strikes me as a better challenger from the left to Clinton than Liz Warren. He's old enough that if he leaves the Senate, he's probably not leaving 20 or 30 years of work on the table, so he can champion liberal causes without materially harming their ability to pass the Senate. Liz Warren serves Democratic/liberal ideals best right where she is, as a potential lioness of the Senate.

Also, part of me just wants him to get the nomination so Republican heads can explode when they see what a socialist ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

I'm not super enthused with Clinton, but the Republicans I'd vote for would never escape the primary. I'd LIKE to see Jim Webb get the nod, but I'd settle for Webb as a #2. If he'd take the job, which I'm not at all certain he would.

As long as Sanders can avoid peaking too soon, I really believe in his chances. He'll likely be able to murder Hilary in a debate and the Clintons bring all kinds of baggage. He is going to need to appear virile though as age is obviously a major issue to his detriment.

Had to look it up.

Bernie is 73
Hillary is 67
Biden is 72
O'Malley is 52

Reagan was 69 when elected. It's probably makeup but Hillary and Biden look better than Bernie.

Weren't you mad about this in the other thread?

If you gaze too long into the abyss...

What does "what a socialist actually looks like" have to do with my distaste for Scott Walker?

...are you suggesting Scott Walker is actually a socialist and that WI Republicans have been hoodwinked?

No, I was remembering these lines.

I should preface that by saying I dont really care...just sounded awfully similar. :)

I think there are a few reasons. Bill is certainly one. I think a lot of rank-and-file Dems would view a Hillary presidency as Bill's third term, and after the last 16 years Dems would love to revive the Clinton Era. She's also extremely smart. I think she's just as smart as Bill, although Bill is much more suave and politically savvy. There are many people who would like to see a woman president, and no one is more qualified or capable than Hillary right now. Democrats also want to win, and they think she can win.

Hillary ran a great general election campaign in the 2008 primary. Hillary would have beat McCain by even more than Obama did. She just ran a horrible primary campaign. She ran to the middle too early in the primary campaign and let Obama position himself as the anti-Bush when Democrats wanted exactly that.

I don't think Hillary is a master campaigner or politician. She still has a bit too much "get the job done" approach rather than doing things the politically correct way. Hillary's potential biggest opponent in the primary season is herself.

Hillary has the Clinton machine behind her... and after citizens united money is #1, #2 and #3. It would take an Obama level personality to beat the money...and there isnt one.

I hate guessing this far out but I'll take a WAG too just in case I'm right.

Clinton/Castro
Bush/Kasich

If Clinton's the nominee, she needs someone different from her. If she's running against someone from Florida, she needs someone who helps here there. Julian Castro ticks off a lot of boxes. Helps that he's smart and a Democrat in a red state. Granted, he's never really had to win a race in deep red area, but he could certainly help make Florida a race and at least make the GOP spend resources in Texas. If Rubio is not on the GOP, having the first Hispanic on a presidential ticket would be a huge legacy for Clinton and the party.

My gut right now says it's a Bush-Walker race. I think those two guys are going to suck up too much money for Rubio and others to make it a race. Walker is actually better positioned to win a primary, but I think Bush will make it a question as the whether he's presidential and electable. Given that I think Bush and Walker are going to go at each other, will make it hard to put him on the ticket. If Bush is the nominee, I think Kasich is a no-brainer from an electoral college perspective. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida -- a Democrat absolutely must win 2 of the 3 to win the White House right now. The GOP could tilt the board in a big way with a Florida/Ohio ticket.

If there is a media bias, it's towards a good stor;y. A Hillary coronation isn't a good story. They need conflict. The media would love to see a contentious Democratic race regardless of who is running. That's why you're getting people actually pretending Bernie Sanders is a qualified candidate -- it makes for an interesting story.

I may change my opinion if and when we see more of him, but my impression is that O'Malley may be the dullest Democrat in modern times. He's more stiff than Gore on his stiffest day. He may be smart, but he always sounds like he's struggling to articulate what he's saying.

I think the only other Democrat with the star power to take on Hillary is Liz Warren. I still don't think she's 100% polished and I think she's a bit too lefty to win a general election, but she would give Hillary fits just like Obama did.

And Mark Penn had no idea how caucuses worked.

Ah. Nah. You misunderstand. What I'm saying is I remember 2008 when people were losing their fucking minds over a black Democrat running for the Presidency and were throwing all kinds of stupid shit at him. HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM HE'S A SOCIALIST HE WASN'T BORN IN THIS COUNTRY AND HE'S PROBABLY SLEEPING WITH YOUR DAUGHTER

All of that over a guy who's been socially left on a couple issues, but has generally governed closer to right-of-center.

Bernie Sanders is an actual, literal socialist. He prefers the term "democratic socialist," but that's pedantry. He's a socialist. Barack Obama was only ever a socialist in the minds of people who wanted to tear him down but were concerned enough about looking socially respectable that they didn't say what they REALLY thought of him. So they cast about for other epithets.

So when I say "Also, part of me just wants him to get the nomination so Republican heads can explode when they see what a socialist ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE" that isn't about "pissing off Republicans." If THAT'S all I wanted Hillary Clinton would do just fine, and she's not particularly liberal.

This is less about "I want the guy who pisses off Republicans" (Bernie's not my first choice for the Democratic nominee and may not be the second) and more about "how would Republicans respond to a living, breathing socialist after the vitriol they hurled as a dog whistle for 'not the black guy'?"

Which isn't at all the same thing as "he pisses off [ideologues I don't like] so he'd probably be good at Presidentin'."

A moderate ? Where ?

I think Sanders wins if he gets the nomination. There are even Republicans who have said they'd vote for him in the general. He's doing a great job of addressing the middle and working classes, and framing this election in terms of economics and class warfare, IMO, and that's resonating with the anti-1% feeling in the country right now.

Edit: A lot of people also say he's the first politician they've actually believed the things that he's saying, and that honesty has a lot to do with his broad support, IMO.

Jim Webb is officially in. Will be interesting to see if he can gain any traction, definitely hoping he can.

Didn't he decide against running for re-election in the Senate because he hates campaigning? How is this going to work?

He's going to do the Fred Thompson and hope it works this time ;).

Yes.

But given his recent statements on the confederate flag it may be better to keep silent rather than campaign.

I don't know, his response seemed pretty appropriate for a historian with southern roots.

I find it funny how at first people were saying Bernie has no chance whatsoever, and now they're saying he can win Iowa and New Hampshire, but has no shot at the nomination.

I mean, I get the reasons they're putting out there for that, but I'm just over here like, "He's building up momentum at a really fast rate, and if he does win Iowa and New Hampshire, national awareness of and interest in him will increase."

It seems as though people (and the media) are misunderstanding just how strongly his honesty and pro-middle class stances are resonating with voters all along the political spectrum. Frankly, I think he's more electable than Hillary.

LOL!

Sorry, that just makes me laugh. People are pushing up Bernie because they want a narrative in the Democratic primaries (I think the latest poll in Iowa had Hillary up by 30). That's really it.

Evenn 538 says Bernie can win Iowa and New Hampshire.

Did you just read the headline or the actual article ;). The "could" was, well Sanders is at 30% in Iowa and 32% in New Hampshire... he "could" win. He just has to make up 20 points.

We might as well get it over with and have Sanders vs Trump. I wonder if that would be more likely to end up with a civil war or a viable third party candidate?

People are pushing Bernie because he comes across as a person of integrity versus Clinton who is seen as a machine politician.

You know who was a person of integrity? Jimmy Carter. Yeah.

Anyways, I'm reading through the methodology for CNN's poll on 6/30 and I find it incredibly fascinating. One of the things that sticks out, is that it seems Sanders's base is rich white liberals.

Sanders's support among whites is 19%, but only 9% among non-whites. His support among people making over $50k is 19%, but only 11% for those making under $50. His support among liberals is 27%, but only 7% among moderates. And interestingly (probably based on his lack of non-white support) his support among suburban voters is 17%, but 11% for urban.

I'd bet a lot of that has to do with name recognition. If you live in Chicago or Dallas or pick your city, and you aren't really engaged in politics, have you even heard of Sanders?

I'd actually wager, to be honest, it has to do with that liberal/moderate thing. African-Americans tend to be more conservative (esp on social issues) than most white liberals. Same applies for those making under $50k vs. those making over $50k.

I'm sure it's a combination, but I'm struck every election by how few people actually pay attention to what's going on. Elections are decided by people that choose their favorite beer buddy 24 hours before going to the polls.

Which, of course, ends up being a factor of money in the end (who can plaster ads) ;).

I was in Portland on Monday night for Bernie's rally. I've never seen the civic center so full and I have never in my life seen so much enthusiasm for one person.

This blows my mind.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politi...ter/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley apologized on Saturday for saying "All lives matter" while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

The demonstrators, who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.

I didn't think any Democratics would behave like that. Strange coalition, that. :)

As well they should have shouted him down, TBH.

While on the surface it seems confusing, when you look at what's actually going on, it makes perfect sense.

You see, when you have a particular issue like this, where you're trying to call attention to a group that is disadvantaged in some way, when you say something like, "But what about X?!", it repositions the conversation and negates the original argument and focus. It also makes the What about X person look like a pedantic asshole who is patronizing the people discussing the primary issue.

In this case, it's taking the conversation about police brutality towards African-Americans, which is a specifically focused issue, and diffusing it towards a general all lives matter. While all lives matter is a true statement, by uttering it, you've now moved attention from this very spotlighted issue to a generic conversation about police brutality, which ignores the multiplicity of unique factors that are involved in African-American and police relations that lead to a disproportionate amount of law enforcement brutality visited upon blacks.

Similarly, a couple weeks ago, I was in a Facebook conversation discussing a political cartoon where Hillary Clinton was criticized for her looks. The original poster, who was in my high school graduating class and is now a tenure track sociology professor at Notre Dame, pointed out that while disagreeing with Hillary on the issues was certainly fair, attacking her appearance was a gendered thing - one that very rarely happened to male politicians, but often does to female politicians.

In swaggers a guy who says, "I think this should be extended to ALL people being criticized for their physical appearance. Women should not get a special pass on this."

Real patronizing and MRA style, right? I pointed out that American society is constructed around the notion that the primary currency of a woman is her appearance.

He blusters his way against that, gets shot down by pretty much everyone, and the original poster remarks, "In principle I think everyone is on board with a universal protection. But that obscures the documentable fact that women are subjected to job irrelevant physical commentary at much greater rates than men. It's not to say men are never subject to it, or that when they are that they shouldn't be defended. They should. But there is not a systematic problem on the same scale as there are for women."

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I wanted to try (I just woke up, so not very coherent yet ;) to clarify why the protesters did what they did.

Males are never attacked for their appearance? Nobody has ever said anything about Chris Christie's weight or Donald Trump's hair?

And what's the deal with Relay for Life? Don't they know that people die from other diseases besides cancer?

Very rarely != never

And the OP did acknowledge that Donald Trump's combover was essentially equivalent. As for Christie's weight, which also came up, OP pointed out that they were talking mainly about job irrelevant criticisms of appearance. And with Christie's weight, possible health issues that could impact Presidential duties come into play, so that at least has some job relevancy merits (to what degree is certainly debatable, of course).

But isn't a generic conversation about police brutality absolutely the conversation we should be having in the sphere of politics? It is the conversation that can get the most accomplished and save the most lives.

For example, let us say over night with a wave of the wand we can get all police forces to be extra cognoscente of how they treat African-Americans. Do we honestly think the police officers with the worst attitudes and with the worst training still wouldn't find a way to screw up and get people they can't relate to killed? It will just be Hispanics, or young people who aren't black who don't act a certain way, or anyone that they deem as trouble from the get-go. So how about instead of an African-American-centric campaign we train police officers to see that their instinct should be that all lives in front of them matter, regardless if that person is African-American, Hispanic, a disrespectful youth, etc.

This was never a race only problem, although African-Americans absolutely get the worst of it. To address the situation by only focusing on "black lives matter," or by not letting those in power focus on police brutality as a whole, keeps real permanent change from happening. That way of thinking essentially says that other minorities and groups treated poorly by police officers don't matter.

One of those articles you read and wonder if it's The Onion.

Exactly. It's kind of like the #NotAllMen stuff.

And the other interesting thing about that forum is that it wasn't just O'Malley who got shouted down. Bernie Sanders got savaged as well:

Activists disrupt forum featuring candidates O’Malley, Sanders - The Washington Post

It seems that both Sanders and O'Malley aren't all that experienced in dealing with minority issues (Sanders in particular seems to speak of those issues solely in terms of income inequality). That'll kill both of them.

Nope.

It's a behavior problem ... and worse than useless idiots like these protestors aren't willing to accept that, taking responsibility for the behaviors that create the pseudo-"brutality' problem is the last thing you'll see from that sort of vermin. And it's the last thing you'll see from them regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

The problem isn't race and it isn't police.

Completely disagree. In my mind it is nothing like that. NotAllMen was a response to yesallwomen, so it was the privileged class in the discussion making the conversation about them. The real equivalent would be saying "Police Lives Matter."

Saying all lives matter is to say that there is an unprivileged class that goes beyond African-Americans, that it should be our goal to protect lives of all our citizens first and foremost. Is it OK when a unarmed Latino is gunned down in Texas? When an elderly Indian man is nearly killed in a white Alabama suburb for taking a walk? When any kid's life is put at risk by a police officer because of their attire or because they are too young and stupid to know how to properly act?

Just because it is an issue that affects African-Americans dis-proportionally, doesn't mean it is only an African-American issue, and it shouldn't be treated as such politically. Even shrewd Hillary got "caught" saying all lives matter and had to correct herself, because they all know that is what they should be saying.

That only makes sense if O'Malley said: Black Lives Matter, Latino Lives Matter, Indian Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. He didn't. He said Black Lives Matter, White Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. The All Lives Matter movement is basically based on the same notion of the privileged calls making the conversation about them.

Political misstep, because that is exactly what he should have said and probably wanted to say.


That makes no sense from the Democratic candidate perspective. Even from a cynical standpoint, it makes more sense for O'Malley (or Sanders or Clinton) to cater to minority protectionism than worrying about including "white" in their speeches.

All lives matter as used by Democratic candidates is a notion that more people need protection than just African-Americans. (Although they certainly need more of it against police brutality and negligence.) Again, protecting the privileged class in this debate would be saying "Police Lives Matter."

Thanks for reminding me why I am not a Democrat lol (not that the Pubs are really giving me much reason to stick around...).

Oh, good, the Democratic Primary thread is turning into just Republicans who literally can't help themselves.

Since I don't have super mod powers (except in the subforum where everyone plays TCY2), I just want to give everyone a friendly reminder that I'd like these primary threads not to go the same way every other political thread goes.

We all have our hot-button issues. And we all feel relatively passionately that America would be a better place if everyone agreed with us on those issues. But we don't. And sometimes that makes us divide ourselves into red and blue, because that's a simple way to look at things and our elected officials are, if nothing else, prone to campaign based on simple, digestible concepts.

But when we complain about the lack of quality in our candidates (and there are more than 20 on the two teams now), we're really complaining about ourselves, because this partisan b.s. gives rise to a system where the only qualification is catering to one team and really pissing off the other team.

It's been 14 1/2 years since we've had a president who gave a damn about working with the other team. I think we've forgotten what governing is about and all we do is proclaim our politics. I'm guilty of that, too, even though I'm about equally split on my feelings regarding hot-button issues important to D's and R's.

I'm so old I remember when Obama spent most of his 60 vote period trying to negotiate a bipartisan solution to everything.

LOL :D

Read a satirical article today, of which my favorite line was regarding O'Malley "Weaknesses: He's Tommy Carcetti from The Wire." I know that's a comparison lots of other folks have made, but I still laugh every time I see it.

Age will be a topic in the 2016 campaign. Our oldest president at accession was Reagan, at 69.

The Democrats have had, in their history, the following elected first-time ascendants:

Obama 47, Clinton 46, Carter 52, Kennedy 43, Roosevelt 51, Wilson 56, Cleveland 47, Buchanan 65, Pierce 48, Polk 49, Van Buren 54, Jackson 61.

In other words, the last time we elected a new Democrat president over the age of 56 was before Lincoln.

Today's candidates and their ages on 1/20/17:

Chafee 63, Clinton 69, O'Malley 54, Sanders 75, Webb 70.

Since Clinton has a huge lead, but seems very vulnerable in the general, party leadership is trying to draft Joe Biden, who would be 74 at his inauguration.

Is this a problem for a party that has relied on new voters so heavily in recent years?

Or has the internet age simply guaranteed that anyone under the age of 60 who knows how to use a computer has so many skeletons that running for president is impossible?

Is this (yet another) reason the Republicans should find a way to get rid of their current 70-year-old front-runner?

So where are those Democratic debates at?

They already had them...internally...the party decided for you!

As a solid Democrat, I am not feeling good about this upcoming election.

We're getting Clinton because . . .

And from what I can tell, the Democrats's strategy in the general is some combination of Trump will run as a third party and old white people keep dying and Hispanic people keep breeding. So we will win!

So our nominee is our nominee because she's our nominee. And she will win the general because of large-scale demographic trends independent of the actual campaigns.

That doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker.

Well, I'd rather depend on this than widespread voter suppression efforts. I think that's a worse bumper sticker.

To be honest, I think people downplay the level of excitement beyond Clinton. I mean, I guess in some ways I have a small sample size because I hang out with rabid Hillary supporters (and folks working on the campaign), but I've heard "I've been waiting to vote for Hillary for 8 years" quite a bit.

She's also doing quite a fantastic job on social media.

I also think she'll do very well in the general as well. I think Rubio or Bush would make it close, but anyone else and she'd sweep the floor with them.

The Dem strategy (so far) appears to be focusing on income, racial, and gender inequalities and how the GOP doesn't seem to give a shit about any of that.

If we get Clinton, it's because people voted for her. If we don't it's because people voted for someone else.

That's one thing that bugs me when people talk about candidates. The party doesn't pick a poor candidate, the voters do.

I think there's a schedule of six debates planned. Google would tell you.

#feelthebern

Ah, there they are!

I kinda want the comedy Joe Biden option, sort of like how the GOP has Trump.

I wonder about the primaries, but none other than Half Pint herself has announced she will be running for Congress in my district (though I probably won't be living here anymore when it comes time for the General).

Her husband (Timothy Busfield, from West Wing) has ties to Michigan. They moved to a small town called Howell a few years ago. They've become involved in local politics to some degree, but haven't held office. She made some news last year when she promised that she and Busfield would build a new theater for the area - but only if incumbent Governor Rick Snyder was defeated. He wasn't. No new theater.

They are leaving Howell soon, but to a log cabin they're building off in the country somewhere near here.

So, it will be interesting to see if Melissa Gilbert can contend for this seat. It's Mike Rogers' old seat. Rogers was a big name in the House, noted for his work on Defense. But he retired and a Republican (Mike Bishop) won a close race last year. This is a weirdly gerrymandered district, so turnout in specific areas makes a huge difference. It's also a less red district as new neighborhoods like mine have been built.

She's very popular, being Half Pint and all. Who could dislike little Laura Ingalls? They put her on the big float at the Howell Christmas parade. But can a Hollywood type who has only been around a few years win office? Who knows.

Interesting that they chose Howell of all places to settle into for awhile given the awful reputation that it has among "enlightened" people, especially down Ann Arbor-way. Pretty much everyone in Ann Arbor thought everyone in Howell was a Klansman when I lived there.

Give them credit for being sentient people who think for themselves then.

One thing about Ann Arbor - and I grew up there - is that residents like to believe they're cosmopolitan, but they're anything but. When I was in college, I paid my way through as a sports reporter. I got out and knew every high school in the region. It was sometimes surprising.

Howell got its rep because a former Klansman "retired" in Cohoctah Township, which is north of Howell. He didn't hold events out there, but he was a bad guy. Then, when he died, someone made the mistake of holding an estate sale.

Because Ann Arbor is what it is, word got out that Howell was a den of Klansmen rather than Highlanders (the high school nickname). Livingston County votes Republican and Washtenaw County votes Democrat. In Ann Arbor, Republicans don't even bother fielding city council candidates.

So there are/were some bad characters out in Howell, and some lived out in Cohoctah, which is very, very rural and remote. But the vast majority of people I knew out there were horrified by the reputation and did everything they could to make people feel the opposite. Particularly younger people and people around the high school.

Gilbert and Busfield rented a house in Howell - they were perfectly comfortable there, and the town worships them despite their politics. I don't know where their new house will be, but I doubt they'd remain in the area and I doubt she'd run for Congress if she felt any of that crap was true.

Aren't they all?

Well this is nice to see.

Poll: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37 | Boston Herald

As of this posting Bernie Sanders is leading Iowa's extremely informal "Corn Caucus"

State Fair Poll Results

Like PA. Most statewide office votes are 50/50ish but we've got a 5/13 split on congress and almost all of the districts are non competitive.

Sanders quits event after things turn too difficult for him to handle.

'Black Lives Matter' Activists Disrupt Bernie Sanders Speech - NBC News

1) Welcome to like, 2 weeks ago.
2) The event was held later that night and drew thousands.

Didn't see it mentioned here. But yeah, with all the Republican coverage, I can see how this got lost.

EDIT: Sorry, I see it was mentioned here...should probably stop by this thread more than once every 3 or 4 weeks. :)

I'm firmly on board with Sanders, and I hate every other candidate. I just want someone in office with a track record of consistently doing what they think is right, not changing constantly to match what the lobbyists and corporations want. Sanders, to me, represents the will of the people more than anyone, even if the people in a lot of cases still don't get that unity is a much stronger form of opposition to the current state of things than divided bickering.

I am also of the opinion that the black lives matter protesters who disturbed the rally were sent there by an opponent of Sanders, because he even gave them the floor to speak and they had nothing to say.

All that said, I have very little faith in the process, and that will likely continue for the rest of my life. As much as I want to see an end to the world the way it is now, I don't think it is reasonable to expect anything but further splintering and discord going forward. The people as a whole are idiots, and they mostly all have the right to vote. My vote won't be enough to change that, even though I am actually interested in voting for the first time in my life in this election. There is finally a candidate out there that I believe in. Can he change things single handedly? I doubt it. But maybe it would be a small step in the right direction. The people need to speak louder than the corporations and show that we will not be misled.

Bernie! Bernie!

#feelthebern

I just can't get behind him because he's in the union's pockets. Not that I'm finding myself being able to get behind anyone else, though...