Super Tuesday Open Thread

Given the voting pattern in this primary, I’m inclined to say that the counter argument seems more convincing to unprivileged people. Privileged people can afford to bet on a big change and risk getting nothing.

However, there is a legitimate problem with focusing on pragmatism; it can become an excuse for inaction. If they content themselves too much with little changes then they may pass up real opportunities for big ones. But we’re anticipating a Republican House until at least the next census, and a Republican sweep in this race could make that permanent.

@guy

Hillary has been fairly consistent about being slightly left of center and at making slightly left of center things happen.

I suppose that by the standards of the current American Overton Window you could say that, but it’s certainly not true in any overall sense. Clinton is a moderate conservative, and always has been. Bernie Sanders, now, he’s (very) slightly left of center.

@EJ

Is it even possible to discuss gun policy rationally in America?

No. Not even a little bit. Part of the problem is that even many otherwise sensible people here still worship the Constitution with more fervor than their ostensible religion, and act as though every part of the Bill of Rights was handed down from the heavens and has always been interpreted exactly the same way by everyone.

@katz – That’s interesting info.

My other main concern is primarily fueled by (admittedly) anecdata:

I know a good number of people who identify as independent but who (when they do vote) usually vote for one party, at least at the national level.

A surprising number of these borderline apoliticals have expressed fervent support for Sanders (…and some for Trump :-/ ) but have said that they’ll “just not vote” if he’s not the nominee.

Bottom line: I’m concerned that in a Trump/Hillary match up, Trump’s vote will = (registered Republicans who don’t like him but, regardless of their assertions during the primaries, will hold their nose and vote R) + (Republicans, R-leaning swing voters who are voting explicitly against Clinton) + (Trump’s otherwise non- or seldom-voting supporters whose unnervingly fascist posts show up in comments sections)
while
Clinton’s vote will = (Democrats / D-leaning independents who would have voted for anyone the Democrats put up, even Sanders + those who are explicitly voting against Trump) – (D-leaning and swing independents who will either abstain or write-in if Bernie’s not the nominee + seldom-voters who are neither scared enough by Trump nor excited enough by Clinton to bother voting)

tl;dr: Even factoring in polled positives and negatives, I’m concerned that there will be enough of an enthusiasm gap among independents and unmotivated voters to push Trump* over the finish line.

Edited to clarify: I’m not saying, “Bernie must be nominated or DOOOOM!” but that, ack – if Clinton’s the nominee (and I think she will be) there will need to be a real push to get out every single possible vote in order to defeat Trump.

* I have similar concerns regarding a Cruz/Clinton match up, though the “math” is a bit different.

@M:
That’s the best thing ever.

@EJ – Bioshock Infinite was so resonant with many in the US because its themes hit so close to home.

@Alan –

When the issue of electability and ‘not scaring the voters’ with anything too radical has cropped up, their view is that incremental change is something only privileged people can want. Their argument is that, for oppressed categories of people, they can’t afford to wait for things to happen in stages. Of course the counter argument is that it’s better to make accommodations to get at least some change rather than be cast out into the electoral wilderness.

Conversely, one of my arguments has been that a more “radical left” in the US would be beneficial because, even if its aims couldn’t necessarily be realized, their discussion and pursuit would be a needed counterweight to the increasingly radical right.

I mean, I was born in 1980.
My lifetime’s witnessed a steady shift right of the Overton Window*.

* With the notable exception of LGBT+ rights and some elements of gender equality, though there are definitely elements that have tried to wrest it back, especially in the last few years.

@mockingbird

In all seriousness, one thing that worries me about the general election is that Clinton’s strongest showings have been in states that go red (with notable exceptions including Virginia, a lately “purple” state).

I wouldn’t worry so much about that.

Obama won the 2008 primary by winning similar huge margins in red states and winning caucuses dominated by progressives. And Illinois for obvious reasons.

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/2008_democratic_presidential_primaries_by_states_carried.jpg

He still decisively won the 2008 GE by winning traditional blue states and purple swing states that he lost in the primary.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Politics/Maps/2008PresElection.gif

It just is. Someone used the color coding on an electoral map for a news program and it stuck.

@Alan
Historically, electoral maps in the U.S. have used blue to designate victories for one party and red for the other, but there was very little standardization as to which party got which color, and different networks used different arrangements (although there was a trend towards red for the party on the left, for the reason you note). In 2000, the controversy over the election results led to a lot more electoral maps on the news, and everyone converged on the CBS/ABC red for Republicans blue for Democrats scheme, which has remained a part of the political discourse ever since.

A quick google search shows that, apart from all the colours beginning with “deep”, there is a “DEbian red”. I can see how that could confuse the issue though.

Funnily enough, in NATO exercises, NATO forces are the ‘blue’ team and the opposing forces are the ‘orange’ team. Guess we don’t want to make it too personal.

@Alan

Funnily enough, in NATO exercises, NATO forces are the ‘blue’ team

Yup; that’s been the case as long as there’s been a NATO; originally orange designated the Warsaw Pact nations, but since that’s not really a thing anymore they just use if for ‘the other side’. It’s so entrenched that ‘blue on blue’ is a common term for friendly fire incidents. Why those colors I have no idea and cannot conveniently find out.

TW: Endless primary wonkery

As of now, Sanders has won every caucus (Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska and Maine) except Iowa (~tie), Nevada and American Samoa.

He’s only won three primaries (New Hampshire, Vermont and Oklahoma) and lost nine.

For non-Yanks:

Caucus: A type of meeting used by political parties to discuss various issues. A presidential caucus is a political meeting where participants indicate their preferred candidate for president and begin their state’s process of selecting delegates to their party’s national convention. Caucuses are usually the first stage in a multi-step process. One of two methods used to select delegates (other being a primary).

Caucuses are weird. It make selecting a party candidate a more communal, discussion based process with an event that involves several hours of debate and an open vote. Caucuses demand a very well organized local campaign and almost always favor the more ideologically “pure” candidate.

Outside of his home state Texas and Oklahoma, Cruz has only won caucuses because he has the best organization and his main base, the Evangelical right, dominate Republican caucuses.

People who argue that Sanders’ caucus wins means he has an distinct advantage among white voters are ignoring the fact that Obama won those same caucuses with bigger margins of victory. Democratic caucuses are dominated by progressives because so few voters are dedicated enough to put that work and time in to participate.

Participation is limited in more populous states and comical in the less populous ones. Seriously, Kansas’s results were Sanders 26.5k vs Clinton 12.6k.

While I understand the arguments against caucuses, I like that they give a progressive candidate a small foothold against an establishment candidate. Sanders’ problem is that you can’t win the Democratic nomination if you only have that foothold while (1) getting decimated in non-white voting and (2) repeatedly get your ass-kicked six ways to Sunday in major Non-New England primaries. For instance, Texas was a major disaster for Sanders and polls show him getting curb stomped in Florida.

Also, people who think the latter half of the primaries are going to favor Sanders more are ignoring the difference between closed and open primaries.

Luckily for Sanders, many of the March 8th and 15th elections are open or semi-open so Independents can vote for Sanders. Unfortunately for Sanders, many of the later key primaries are closed, which means only registered Democrats can vote in them. In blue states which have closed primaries, such as New York and Pennsylvania, Democrats are disproportionately female and the majority are moderates and liberals who voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2008.

As a geek, I can’t wait for the Michigan primary. It’s an open primary, so Sanders sorta pro-gun industry stance could help him in state rift with militias. There are lots of other reasons this will be a fascinating primary, but this has already crossed into Teal Deer territory.

About “bluish” states, just delete North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Missouri from the list above and the rest are all the states that Obama won by less than 10%. The list is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Close_races

Where I said “looks good for Hillary,” I got that info from fivethirtyeight.com and realclearpolitics.com