|
So does anyone have a good article about the reasons for the racial divide in the democratic primary? I'd like to understand it a little better (since I'm a clueless white guy), but I emphatically do not want to start the holy war, so I was looking for a good off-site resource.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Pro-Hillary media figures trying to convince skeptical left-liberals should be writing about the thus-far-successful McAuliffe governorship. He got all the same flack for being a Third Way stooge etc, and had turned out to be pretty good. (But lol they'll probably go on writing about Bernie Bros on Twitter.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Pro-Hillary media figures trying to convince skeptical left-liberals should be writing about the thus-far-successful McAuliffe governorship. I have to admit he got a lot of help (lol) from the General Assembly, who have given him a huge number of terrible, awful, no-good, very bad bills to veto for free Progressive PointsTM. He has generally been quite a good governor, though. It's really nice to have someone using their slimy car-salesman charm for you instead of on you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So does anyone have a good article about the reasons for the racial divide in the democratic primary? I'd like to understand it a little better (since I'm a clueless white guy), but I emphatically do not want to start the holy war, so I was looking for a good off-site resource. This isn't quite what you're looking for but it's a good starting point, since it investigates some of the pat answers people give for why black people vote the way they do https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/bernie-sanders-black-voters-firewall-primary/ The biggest part of the equation is probably just that Hillary has older, stronger ties to the black democratic machine in the south.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So does anyone have a good article about the reasons for the racial divide in the democratic primary? I'd like to understand it a little better (since I'm a clueless white guy), but I emphatically do not want to start the holy war, so I was looking for a good off-site resource. Jamelle Bouie argues it's the longstanding personal ties between the Clinton family and black politicians - that's here. Jeet Heer argued that Bernie's class-first rhetoric is off-putting to minorities concerned about racism. That's here. Molly Ball argues that Southern black voters are quite moderate and focused primarily on finding a candidate who can win in November. That's here. Other interpretations that I've seen but don't have ready links: 1) old ppl back Clinton over Sanders and black vote is older than white vote. 2) Southern voters in general are more conservative than Northern, and the black vote is expressed most clearly, in the Democratic primaries, in Southern states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The biggest part of the equation is probably just that Hillary has older, stronger ties to the black democratic machine in the south. That's what this NPR article seems to conclude as well: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468185698/understanding-the-clintons-popularity-with-black-voters
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's what this NPR article seems to conclude as well: Also this one in the Atlantic. quote:“Bernie posted a very interesting picture about how he was marching with the civil-rights movement, but we didn’t hear much from Bernie after that,” he [Billie Murphy] said. “I’m sure he has his heart in the right place.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's what this NPR article seems to conclude as well: Yeah, I'm not southern but my family were big fans of both Bill and Hillary in the 90s. One of my aunts always insisted Bill was the first presidential candidate who could look black people in the eye.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Also this one in the Atlantic. That being said, future populist progressives probably won't have to face a Clinton (viewed as being both from the south and with a strong history of working with minorities), so it'll likely be an easier road. And for the general, unless/until the GOP stops being the apple of the KKK's eye, there's probably not much to worry about there aside from "how much" you win over minority blocs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:As a former VA resident: loving god dammit, I thought we were done with Cuchinelli back before I moved out to Oregon. The man was an abysmal failure of a politician and I have some trouble understanding why the legislature would even try to vote him onto the Court. I guess, in proper Republican fashion, they just hate McAuliffe that much more. Who would Cooch be replacing? If they're replacing another conservative justice then at worst it's the maintaining of the status quo, just with a bigger idiot in the mix. If it was a liberal justice then this is extremely frustrating, especially due to the lengths the legislature went to scuttle McAuliffe's pick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Who would Cooch be replacing? If they're replacing another conservative justice then at worst it's the maintaining of the status quo, just with a bigger idiot in the mix. If it was a liberal justice then this is extremely frustrating, especially due to the lengths the legislature went to scuttle McAuliffe's pick. He would be replacing a fairly liberal but near unanimously-respected justice, who had previously been appointed by the governor in two successive temporary recess appointments. If they wait a few days longer, they will be recessing, and he'll put her up for a third.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
I can't imagine Rubio sticking it out after tonight. There must be enormous pressure from the GOP for him to drop out so Cruz can try to topple Trump.Raskolnikov38 posted:All the while a vestigial Kasich goes all the way into the convention. The Quatto Strategy. Jonas Albrecht fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I can't imagine Rubio sticking it out after tonight. There must be enormous pressure from the GOP for him to drop out so Cruz can try to topple Trump. All the while a vestigial Kasich goes all the way into the convention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:That being said, future populist progressives probably won't have to face a Clinton (viewed as being both from the south and with a strong history of working with minorities), so it'll likely be an easier road. Though it's not really clear how much populist anger will be a thing in the future. Like 8 years ago, the Iraq War was a big deal and a major reason why Hillary lost the primary. Now it's a thing that some Bernie supporters use to justify their support (a lot of the other supporters weren't even teenagers when the invasion happened).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I can't imagine Rubio sticking it out after tonight. There must be enormous pressure from the GOP for him to drop out so Cruz can try to topple Trump. They're turning into a Cruz-Trump fight with a chance of a convention schism. How many ways can an aging white man sit on his own balls in one try?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Who else is excited for the Castro / Cain VP debates? Who's Cain? Are you talking about the black token before Carson? The pizza guy that had a pokemon theme song line in a speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Debunked. Their study wasn't actually a study, but a wall of words blaming Monsanto for everything and appealing to Naturalistic Fallacies. Ah, I never saw any of the original sources and it was presented in a way in the news that didn't give off any naturalist vibes by a trusted public media source here, hence I gave it the time of day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I can't imagine Rubio sticking it out after tonight. There must be enormous pressure from the GOP for him to drop out so Cruz can try to topple Trump. I don't know, it seems like the best #AnyoneButTrump strategy is for everyone to stay in the race to deny him as many delegates as possible going into the convention, if Trump gets to 1200-and-whatever it's over. Depending on how Rubio's voters split up if he drops out (Trump might be second choice for some, some will split between Kasich and Cruz, some might stay home), Trump might gain delegates thereby. In proportional states any Rubio voter that stays home means a bigger share of the state's votes go to Trump, in proportional states with a 51% winner-take-all threshold it could increase Trump's chance of winning the whole slate. There might be some strategy in Rubio or Kasich strategically withdrawing from certain winner-take-all states where they're arguably splitting the moderate vote (Rubio pulls out of Ohio, Kasich out of Florida) but I don't know if there's still time to do that. If I were the GOP I'd be telling them to announce a joint campaign, each pull out of every winner-take-all state where the other is ahead, and agree that if they succeed in snatching the nomination thereby, whichever one has the second-most delegates is guaranteed the VP spot. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
I've done it, I've found the most pants on head retarded election analysis of all time. Trump Near-Certain to Defeat Democrat in November According To Primary Model quote:With Donald Trump as the nominee, Republicans are highly certain to win the presidential election on November 8, 2016. Trump will defeat Hillary Clinton with 87 percent certainty, and Bernie Sanders with 99 percent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Could somebody explain why American presidential elections are so long? Is there any reason the primary campaigning window couldn't be, say, a month, at the end of which every state votes and the party nominee is elected, followed by a month of campaigning for the general? Would either party suffer more than the other if the whole election cycle was shortened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Could somebody explain why American presidential elections are so long? There's a poo poo ton of money in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
If Primaries were short the candidate with the most name recognition would win 100% of the time instead of most of the time. Also it would be absolutely impossible to have a dozen people on the ballot. Having it be a long process weeds out most and allows others to make a name for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Could somebody explain why American presidential elections are so long? Having every state vote at once is disadvantageous to underdog candidates. For example, everyone expected Hillary to win in 2008, and it was only Obama picking off early states that allowed him to generate momentum. More to the point though, you wouldn't be getting rid of the circus if everything was from August to November - you'd just be keeping in a bunch of candidates that would've otherwise dropped out. There would still be lots of media blitzes for important and/or swing states, they'd just be for 6 months straight until the primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Could somebody explain why American presidential elections are so long? We are the stupidest people on the entire planet, and we are fine with suffering so long as our political enemies suffer slightly more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
The primary process is the only way for there to be some factional consolidation and hashing things out inside the parties and with all the various interest groups, because the election itself is a two-party affair and the stakes are so high in it. So you take a year for the parties to sort themselves out and to let all the factions blow off steam by voting for Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee so that they'll eat their vegetables in November. The primary can also be the only way for certain electoral demographics to actually be relevant, like the Democrats in Oklahoma. Trump has toppled this apple cart and that's why the establishment is freaking out. The same process can be fast-tracked in parliamentary systems because the political factions in the country actually have their own parties, they get to campaign on their own platforms, and then the Great Sorting Things Out happens in the negotiations to form a governing majority after the election. You'll note that if the situation is particularly complicated, these negotiations can take a lot more time than the actual preceding election campaign. (Presidential elections are mostly beauty contests in these systems, but even they have a run-off if no candidate wins 50% of the popular vote in the first round, so Trump-like candidates can't leverage a passionate 25% vote share into national office.) Of course you can have FPTP systems with two major parties that also have short campaigns (like the UK); in this case the cloak and dagger happens in the party leadership election, which in essence is like the US presidential primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Primaries could probably be shortened by, say, a month, without any harm being done--though I doubt it would affect when campaigns actually began at all. One thing I would like, would be if the parties managed the primaries at the national level and would vary who started when. Seems absurd that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina should be so important. But of course, the chances of that changing are slim, as the current system works--relatively. Though Iowa has shown for the past several cycles to not be able to determine a drat thing for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
This year the primaries started in February instead of January like 2012, and it's had barely a noticeable effect. There's no real reason why the primaries couldn't begin in March or even April, but the major parties have felt that having that several month period of consolidation from the primary election into the Convention and then into the GE campaign proper has been worthwhile. Even in the modern post-1972 primary system, primaries usually began in late Feb or early March. The race to the front in 2008 and 2012 happened because states started jostling for the prime spots in the calendar to feel special.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
How big is it that Michigan is going for Sanders? The reddit echo chamber is going full tilt trying to spin this as Bernie actually having a chance, but does it change anything? How were the delegates proportioned?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
McCloud posted:How big is it that Michigan is going for Sanders? The reddit echo chamber is going full tilt trying to spin this as Bernie actually having a chance, but does it change anything? How were the delegates proportioned? No not really. At the very least they tied in actual delegate amounts. He's gonna need more, bigger wins to overtake Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Yeah, the most optimistic I would be about this is maybe looking it at like it could be a momentum shift.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
I just wish all these people would show up for midterm elections. We could have poo poo-canned Snyder 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
McCloud posted:How big is it that Michigan is going for Sanders? The reddit echo chamber is going full tilt trying to spin this as Bernie actually having a chance, but does it change anything? How were the delegates proportioned? CNN had a rare moment of insight and clarity when they said that for all the wins that Sanders is racking up, the fact that some of these states are proportional means that he needs to win states by 60-40 margins instead of sub-5% margins if he's going to stand a chance, because he's not going to convince any superdelegates to jump ship if they head into the convention behind in pledged delegates, or even if he draws parity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:CNN had a rare moment of insight and clarity when they said that for all the wins that Sanders is racking up, the fact that some of these states are proportional means that he needs to win states by 60-40 margins instead of sub-5% margins if he's going to stand a chance, because he's not going to convince any superdelegates to jump ship if they head into the convention behind in pledged delegates, or even if he draws parity. Hillary's blowing him out of the water in the south too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:CNN had a rare moment of insight and clarity when they said that for all the wins that Sanders is racking up, the fact that some of these states are proportional means that he needs to win states by 60-40 margins instead of sub-5% margins if he's going to stand a chance, because he's not going to convince any superdelegates to jump ship if they head into the convention behind in pledged delegates, or even if he draws parity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Yeah, the most optimistic I would be about this is maybe looking it at like it could be a momentum shift. It's not so much a momentum shift as a momentum continuation. Momentum did slow a bit after Super Tuesday, which many saw as Sander's key chokepoint. He survived it and even surprised some. No-one thought he would even get to Super Tuesday just a few months ago. It's been an amazing primary to watch, and I can't help but be impressed at a campaign that makes up like, a 50 point national deficit and also pulls out some clutch, poll reversing wins in states that he was meant to be dead in. As it is, there are murmurs on the big internet-based news sources like The Young Turks, that if he can keep going past the 15th, the upcoming states are Sander's best opportunity to close the gap. All of Clinton's strongest states will be behind her and many speculate that the upcoming states will swing for Bernie. Victory likelihood is still narrow, but it's not non-existent. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
At this point, it's all but guaranteed to be Clinton vs Trump in the general. It's possible that there might still be ratfucking at the GOP convention this summer, but that would involve consciously throwing the election to Clinton in exchange for a non-Trump nominee, which I think the GOP establishment is too vain to actually pull the trigger on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:It's not so much a momentum shift as a momentum continuation. Momentum did slow ab it after Super Tuesday, which many saw as Sander's key chokepoint. he survived it an even surprised some. Noone thought he would even get to Super Tuesday just a few months ago. It's been an amazing primary to watch, and I can't help but be impressed at a campaign that makes up like, a 50 point nationnal deficit and also pulls out some clutch, poll reversing wins in states that he was meant to be dead in. Contrary to the cluster gently caress of the Reddit echo chamber, it's really really good for the Democratic party. Gets people excited about not-trump/Cruz. It's a sane primary with actual discussion as opposed to the poo poo tornado of the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
McCloud posted:How big is it that Michigan is going for Sanders? The reddit echo chamber is going full tilt trying to spin this as Bernie actually having a chance, but does it change anything? How were the delegates proportioned? It's a good symbolic win but it only matters IF he can translate this unexpected victory into winning both Ohio and Illinois next week. He will get crushed in North Carolina and Florida and thus most likely be beaten in delegates again BUT a string of wins in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois would look really drat impressive and the primary schedule really opens up for him afterwards now that the southern states are all done. He'd still be an underdog but it would be a real race. Conversely if he gets swept next week its all over and he'll be under immense pressure to drop out. He won't and shouldn't because he has value in staying in the race until at least May but he won't be campaigning to win. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's a good symbolic win but it only matters IF he can translate this unexpected victory into winning both Ohio and Illinois next week. He will get crushed in North Carolina and Florida and thus most likely be beaten in delegates again BUT a string of wins in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois would look really drat impressive and the primary schedule really opens up for him afterwards now that the southern states are all done. He'd still be an underdog but it would be a real race. Conversely if he gets swept next week its all over and he'll be under immense pressure to drop out. He won't and shouldn't because he has value in staying in the race until at least May but he won't be campaigning to win. Clinton's leading by some 8 points in Ohio and a something like +30-40 points in Illinois. Don't think that's going to happen, despite Michigan's upset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 10:03
|
|
Cat Army 
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Do all of the Dem primaries reward delegates proportionally? I know some of the GOP primaries are winner-take-all but I don't know if that's the case for the Democrats. A quick google says all of the Dem primaries are proportional.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 10:07
|
|