Sanders Wins In Wisconsin, But Clinton Remains In Control In The Race For Delegates

Bernie Sanders pulled off another win, but it puts him no closer to having a realistic chance of winning the nomination.

Bernie Sanders Victory

While the delegate numbers continue to show that the odds of his actually winning the Democratic nomination are quite low at best, Bernie Sanders continues to stack up wins against Hillary Clinton in a race for the nomination that is likely proving to be far more difficult than Clinton thought it would be. Ever since Clinton won the Arizona primary on March 22nd, Sanders has swept her with wins in Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. Last night, Sanders followed those wins up with a solid win in Wisconsin, but the delegate count still suggests that Clinton is headed toward a win at some point before the Democratic National Convention:

Senator Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, his sixth straight victory in the Democratic nominating contest and the latest in a string of setbacks for Mrs. Clinton as she seeks to put an end to a prolonged race against an unexpectedly deft and well-funded competitor.

Mrs. Clinton’s defeat does not significantly dent her comfortable lead in the race for the 2,383 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination. But the loss underscores her problems connecting with young and white working-class voters who have gravitated to Mr. Sanders’s economic message — a message he will now take to economically depressed parts of New York State ahead of the April 19 primary there.

Mr. Sanders’s victory came after he had hardly left Wisconsin in recent days, pouring his energy and resources into securing a win that would help him put to rest any doubts that he could capture a major primary state, and providing his campaign with renewed focus as he strives for an upset in New York, Mrs. Clinton’s adopted home state.

He used his victory speech to remind voters of how far his long-shot candidacy had come, defining the word “momentum” as exceeding the expectations set by a skeptical news media and establishment political class.

“Momentum is starting this campaign 11 months ago and the media determining that we were a ‘fringe’ candidacy,” Mr. Sanders told a crowd of more than 2,000 on a college campus in Wyoming, which holds its caucuses on Saturday and where he is also favored to win. “Do not tell Secretary Clinton — she’s getting a little nervous,” he said. “But I believe we’ve got an excellent chance to win New York and a lot of delegates in that state.”

His victory signaled vulnerabilities that have trailed Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy amid persistent criticism of her paid speeches to Wall Street banks and her email practices while serving as secretary of state. In Wisconsin, Mr. Sanders held a significant edge among voters who said they wanted a candidate who cares about people like them. Nine in 10 voters said the Vermont senator was honest and trustworthy, compared with six in 10 who said the same about Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls of voters from Edison Research.

Wisconsin provided a friendly setting for Mr. Sanders’s brand of economic populism. Liberals made up two-thirds of the overwhelmingly white Democratic primary voters, and the economy, followed by income inequality, topped the list of voters’ concerns, according to exit polls.

As Mrs. Clinton shifted focus to New York, Mr. Sanders embarked on a week of campaigning through Wisconsin, speaking to crowds of thousands in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay and La Crosse and visiting more sparsely populated or rural areas like Eau Claire, Onalaska and Wausau.

Mrs. Clinton spent most of her time in the state in Milwaukee, where she held a discussion about gun violence at Tabernacle Community Baptist Church alongside black mothers who had lost children to gun violence or clashes with the police.

About seven in 10 black voters in Wisconsin, mostly concentrated in Milwaukee, supported Mrs. Clinton. She also outpolled Mr. Sanders among voters over 45. Mr. Sanders won among men, younger voters, independents and white voters.

Mr. Sanders also captured a majority of voters who said the economy was the most important issue, and about two-thirds of those who cited income inequality. The more than four in 10 voters who said trade with other countries took away from American jobs favored Mr. Sanders by a large margin, exit polls showed.

Mr. Sanders’s aides said his victory in Wisconsin signaled that his anti-trade message would appeal in areas of upstate New York that have been eviscerated by companies’ moving jobs overseas. “There are parts of western New York that have been severely hurt by these bad trade deals that the secretary has consistently supported,” said Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager.

Mrs. Clinton appeared ready to move forward to New York. “Congrats to Bernie Sanders on winning Wisconsin,” she wrote on Twitter. “To all the voters and volunteers who poured your hearts into this campaign: Forward!”

The victory on Tuesday, like most of Mr. Sanders’s recent wins, was expected to bring a deluge of online donations to his campaign, allowing it to buy television ads in expensive media markets in New York and in Pennsylvania, which votes on April 26.

The Sanders campaign spent more than $3.3 million on ads in Wisconsin, roughly $1 million more than the Clinton campaign, according to Kantar Media.

But Wisconsin, with a population that is 88 percent white, does not reflect the larger and more diverse populations of New York and Pennsylvania, more comfortable terrain for Mrs. Clinton. In 2008, Barack Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton in Wisconsin by 17 percentage points.

As Mr. Sanders focused on winning Wisconsin, Mrs. Clinton courted African-Americans in New York on Sunday by visiting black churches.

Mr. Weaver rejected the notion that Mr. Sanders performed well only in overwhelmingly white states, pointing to victories in Michigan and Hawaii

Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, said on Monday that Mr. Sanders’s unlikely path to the nomination would amount to “overturning the will of the voters” by trying to flip pledged delegates at state and party conventions, as was done in Nevada.

As with Ted Cruz’s victory on the Republican side, Sanders’ win here was not entirely a surprise given that most of the polling prior to yesterday showed him headed for a victory in the Badger State, something that the Clinton campaign appeared to acknowledge given the fact that they have spent more of the past several days in New York than in Wisconsin. At the same time, it’s worth noting that Sanders did outperform the polling, much of which showed him with only a single digit lead over Clinton leading into the voting yesterday. As was the case with many other states in which he has done well, though, the combination of larger than expected voter turnout and what seems to be a well-oiled Sanders ground operation worked to given him a larger than expected margin of victory. Psychologically speaking, this is certainly a boost to Sanders and his campaign, but given the manner in which Democrats allocate delegates, the actual impact on the race for the nomination is far smaller than it might seem. While the final numbers have yet to be announced, it’s entirely possible that Sanders will only actually gain less than ten delegates on Clinton, who continues to have the overwhelming lead in the delegate count. Moreover, the fact that Clinton spent the twenty-four hours before the primary in New York rather than Wisconsin shows that her campaign realizes where the important numbers are, because the nearly 250 delegates at stake in New York will dwarf whatever advantage Wisconsin gives to Sanders. Presently, Clinton has a double digit lead in the polls New York, although it has shrunk somewhat from the massive lead she had several weeks ago, as well as a double digit lead in Pennsylvania, where there are 189 delegates up for stake on April 26th.

Turning to the delegate count, Sanders’ win in Wisconsin seems even less relevant. Leaving out the Superdelegates, there have been 2,464 delegates allocated in Democratic primaries or caucuses to date, leaving 1,587 pledged delegates still to be allocated. To date, Hillary Clinton has won 1,279 delegates, meaning that she has won 51.91% of the pledged delegates that have already allocated. In order to get to the majority of 2,382 delegates based on pledged delegates alone, then, Clinton would need to win 69.50% of the outstanding pledged delegates. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has won 1,027 of the pledged delegates that have been allocated to date, representing 41.68% of the delegates so far. In order to win the nomination, he would need to win 85.38% of the delegates yet to be allocated. Bringing the Superdelegates into the mix makes the difference between Clinton and Sanders even more stark. With the Superdelegates that are pledged to her, Clinton would need to win roughly 35% of the remaining pledged and Superdelegates. Senator Sanders, on the other hand, would need to win 73.60% of the remaining pledged and Superdelegates. Clinton’s goal is achievable, and it’s likely that she’ll get there sometime by mid-May. Sanders goal is, simply put, not achievable unless for some reason the remaining Superdelegates that remain uncommitted start lining up behind him and the Superdelegates that have already pledged themselves to Clinton start jumping ship. Neither of those events are very likely and, indeed, I’d suggest that they are largely impossible. Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, the only question left is when she hits the magic number.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politicians, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Dave D says:

    speaking to crowds of thousands in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay and La Crosse and visiting more sparsely populated or rural areas like Eau Claire, Onalaska and Wausau.

    Super nit-picky for this Times reporter but Onalaska is a suburb of La Crosse so not a rural area. And the population of Eau Claire is also larger than La Crosse, just farther north which I guess makes it rural?

    That said La Crosse county had over 50% turn out, which is crazy. Sanders town hall on Sunday in Milwaukee seemed pretty empty from the pictures being posted on Twitter, but was only one of two counties he lost. Maybe because the student population had such long voting lines in the Milwaukee area. I read hour and a half on the campus of Marquette.

  2. Phil O. says:

    Thank you for an analysis that considers the scenario minus superdelegates. They’ve become a way to try to de-legitimize Clinton’s lead. But even without then, she still leads, and is likely to continue leading based on the hills left to climb.

  3. Todd says:

    Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party

    Very likely.

    Sad, but likely.

    If by some (longshot) chance she loses in the fall, all ll I have to say is “F U in advance” to any Democrats who try to blame it on Sanders supporters who are actually telling the truth when we say that there’s no way we will vote for Hillary Clinton in November. Jill Stein and even Gary Johnson are likely to get quite a few more votes than they would if Sanders were the Democratic nominee.

    I don’t want a Republican to be President, but the degree to which I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be President is only slightly less strong. The condescending attitude she (and especially her supporters) display towards Sanders supporters is a huge turnoff, almost to the point that I get the same sort of feelings listening to her talk as I do when I’m flipping channels and accidentally see Sean Hannity on my tv screen.

    I’m not young, I’m not even all that “liberal”. But I am a white middle aged male, so I suppose “sexism” is the only real explanation for my feelings about Clinton (rolls eyes). It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with her (lack of) character. That would just be an unfair “attack” on a woman who has “dedicated her life to public service”.

  4. al-Ameda says:

    I’m not young, I’m not even all that “liberal”. But I am a white middle aged male, so I suppose “sexism” is the only real explanation for my feelings about Clinton (rolls eyes). It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with her (lack of) character. That would just be an unfair “attack” on a woman who has “dedicated her life to public service”.

    I’m a white male, definitely not young, and I’m not a purist.

    I like Sanders but I’m not going to vote for Bernie in the primary because I see cannot see him winning in a general election because I do not believe this is a center-left country.

    Hillary? Her problem is that she’s a known quantity, she’s a clunky campaigner, and she’s been the subject of opposition vilification for nearly 25 years and everyone is tired of it, and about half the country is tired of her and hates her. The good news is that both Cruz and Trump have negatives that are as high as her negatives.

    I wish the Democratic Party had a deeper bench, that they were running someone as young as Obama was 8 years ago, but the party is kind of weak right now. I know one thing, I want a Democratic President making the next few nominations to the Supreme Court, so I’ll be voting for whomever the Democratic Party nominee is.

  5. Liberal Capitalist says:

    @Todd:

    But I am a white middle aged male, so I suppose “sexism” is the only real explanation for my feelings about Clinton (rolls eyes). It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with her (lack of) character. That would just be an unfair “attack” on a woman who has “dedicated her life to public service”.

    And this is something that she has going for her. Still, when compared to the possibility of (R), she is hands down better.

    The whole contested convention for Republicans is becoming a pipe dream. It’s either Cruz or Trump.

    However.. if they were going to pull a rabbit-out-of-a-hat, then the name that they could go with that could actually pull off a no-guilt win for republicans is… Colin Powell.

    Moderate Republican, “dedicated her his life to public service”, 4 star general, Reagan’s Nat’l Security Advisor, former Sec of State, Shabbos Goy…

    He would win the right, and likely the middle, and strip a large part of the black vote from Candidate Clinton and would likely be a pragmatic president ala POTUS Obama.

    So, clearly, THAT will never happen.

  6. KM says:

    @Todd:

    The condescending attitude she (and especially her supporters) display towards Sanders supporters

    Considering many Sanders supporters are threatening to take their toys and go home if their candidate doesn’t win, how exactly do you expect others to react? If Sanders takes the nomination, will you be giving the courtesy of the “F U in advance” to Hillary supporters when they won’t vote for him?

    Bernie’s giving it his best shot but if he doesn’t win, then he doesn’t win. Complaining about condescension when offering ultimatums is the epitome of sore loser. He’s clearly tapping into something within the party; his loss is still the Democratic Party’s gain if it helps refine outstanding concerns or brings new ones to light. If he helped advise Hillary on her campaign, we might get the best of both worlds. I would expect him to offer up his services as adviser and if Hillary loses, for her to do the same. Both could offer something the others’ campaign clearly lacks.

    This is not a popularity contest. This is for one of the most important jobs on the planet, with deadly consequences for failure. We cannot afford President Trump or Cruz. The winner of the Democrat primary should be able to count on the support of their party, not have them walk off in a huff.

  7. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    You’re very whiny. Talk about a turnoff…

    And I’m not exactly a fan of Clinton, and I would vote Sanders if he was the nominee. (Then again, I would vote for any Democrat just for the sake of keeping the Republicans out of power, so I’m not choosy.) But grownups have to recognize that in a two-party system, there just aren’t a lot of options.

  8. Pch101 says:

    @KM:

    Guys like Todd don’t understand how much they have in common with the Tea Party. They’re all resentniks who are just looking for excuses to pout. We may as well just lower the voting age to two. (“NO! MINE! NO! MINE!”)

  9. An Interested Party says:

    I don’t want a Republican to be President, but the degree to which I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be President is only slightly less strong. The condescending attitude she (and especially her supporters) display towards Sanders supporters is a huge turnoff, almost to the point that I get the same sort of feelings listening to her talk as I do when I’m flipping channels and accidentally see Sean Hannity on my tv screen.

    You know what else is a turnoff? The self-righteousness that Sanders (and especially his supporters) display towards Clinton and her supporters…I mean, you’d think she was as bad as Nixon from the way they talk about her…even though I agree with a lot of what Sanders wants to do, he comes off like he is just so morally superior to any other politician…it gets a little old after awhile…

  10. EddieInCA says:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/06/bernie-sanders-wins-wisconsin-changes-nothing.html

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/bernie-sanders-break-up-banks

    Bernie gave an interview with the Daily News that exposes how little he actually knows about policy. It was embarrassing. If you’re a Sanders supporter after reading the news reports – from all sides – of this interview with the Daily News, then you’re just 1/2 step higher than a Trump Voter.

    With all due respect, Bernie has NO BUSINESS being President with so little policy knowledge.

  11. KM says:

    @Pch101:

    I would love to see Clinton and Sanders sit down and hammer out some kind of statement regardless of who prevails. Sanders supporters have legitimate concerns Democrats would be fools to ignore and he’s clearly reaching out to them in a meaningful way. I’ve had friends tell me Hillary is a second-wave feminist who misses the points third-wave find essential. Millennials like myself are clearly feeling screwed over by a system that’s leaving us bogged down in debt with few job prospects; we’re not going to be propping up the economy by buying houses or other big ticket items when we can’t afford rent. Hillary has been in the game long enough to know what dreams of Sanders can be made real, what ones we’d need to dirty our hands to get and what ones don’t have a chance in hell.

    Meanwhile, he talks on a high level without exploring the practical ramifications of his ideas. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. It’s all well and good to talk about relief from debt and justice against the corporate system but poorly written laws hurt everyone. I don’t expect him to know everything but the man’s been in DC for over two decades now – sheer exposure to the process should have imparted more knowledge then he’s displaying. Hillary and her team would be able to advise on how to take the high energy/interest and direct it towards actual policy.

  12. Pch101 says:

    @KM:

    I’m all in favor of finding a way to include Sanders on the Clinton ticket if he agrees to play nicely. (I think that his socialist persona that could be fatal if he was the nominee would be less valuable to the GOP if he is in a junior slot.)

    But Sanders may prefer to “go rogue” for the sake of maintaining his appearances as an independent, since that’s part of his brand. Ultimately, he’s running for himself, not for the Democratic party.

  13. Moosebreath says:

    @Todd:

    “If by some (longshot) chance she loses in the fall, all ll I have to say is “F U in advance” to any Democrats who try to blame it on Sanders supporters who are actually telling the truth when we say that there’s no way we will vote for Hillary Clinton in November. ”

    If by some long shot Bernie wins the primary, and he loses in November because the Republican slime machine tars him as a near-Communist, then we will be saying F U to people like you. For decades.

  14. C. Clavin says:

    OT…I see Obama is going on Fox News this Sunday…given his IDGAF attitude lately, it should be very entertaining.

  15. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Sanders supporters who are actually telling the truth when we say that there’s no way we will vote for Hillary Clinton in November. ”

    aka “I’m taking my ball and going home. You guys suck!”

    *foot stomp*
    *pout*

    GTFU …

  16. Facebones says:

    You know what else is a turnoff? The self-righteousness that Sanders (and especially his supporters) display towards Clinton and her supporters…I mean, you’d think she was as bad as Nixon from the way they talk about her

    Honestly. The part that bugs me the most is when I here college-aged Bernie supporters pass around anti-Hillary smears that were completely invented by Republicans. I heard one Bernie Bro demand that she give a straight answer on Benghazi, FFS.

    Bernie and Hillary are really not that far apart on most issues, and to act like she’s the spawn of Dick Cheney and Maggie Thatcher is ludicrous.

  17. bookdragon says:

    @An Interested Party: THIS. A thousand times this.

    For every condescending Hillary supporter there is at least one if not many more Bernie supporters who are just as obnoxious to Hillary supporters. And it’s worse than condescension – for supporting a candidate we think is intelligent and capable and – guess what? NOT the Whore of Babylon – we get called corporate tools, shills, ‘cold-hearted calculating bought b*itches’ (yes, I have gotten that from a BernieBro), etc.

    However, I do not hold it against Bernie personally. I prefer HRC, but if he’s the candidate I’ll both vote for him and GOTV for him. Because I care what happens to my country and to the people who aren’t in positions where they can can ride out the worst a Cruz or Trump would do as president.

  18. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Todd: Wouldn’t it be ironic if Jill Stein or Gary Johnson were able to collect enough votes in any particular state to create a electoral vote shift? If you don’t want to vote for Hillary, that’s fine. In about 35 or 40 states, that decision means nothing–allowing for the GOP locked states where voters would vote for the clone from Hitler’s nose before they would vote for someone as evil as Hillary (and get off my lawn you Hillary-loving hooligans!). But don’t be so naive as to think that you really have a choice other than D or R.

    If you really don’t want a GOP President, hold your nose and do what you have to, or live in a state where your vote doesn’t matter.

  19. wr says:

    @Todd: “I don’t want a Republican to be President, but the degree to which I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be President is only slightly less strong. The condescending attitude she (and especially her supporters) display towards Sanders supporters is a huge turnoff, almost to the point that I get the same sort of feelings listening to her talk as I do when I’m flipping channels and accidentally see Sean Hannity on my tv screen.”

    Because the single most important aspect of the presidency is president’s tone of voice and your feelings about her personally.

    There were enough “democrats” in 2000 who shared this feeling they gave the election to Bush, and watched him nearly destroy the country and half the world. And no doubt sniffed how it was all Al Gore’s fault because he didn’t read them a bedtime story after he tucked them in at night.

    This is nothing but narcissism. My feelings are more important than the fate of the world. If it’s a choice between being annoyed by Hillary’s voice and having President Cruz take away health care for tens of millions of people, destroy the social safety net, and pack the Supreme Court with reationary hacks who will reign destruction on the constitution for decades, I’ve got to privelege my own precious feelings over what I know will happen. And it’s all Hillary’s fault because she doesn’t make me feel all warm inside.

    Maybe you should save your votes for The Voice, where this is a perfectly respectable attitude, and leave actual politics to people who can see further than their own nose.

  20. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Todd: Or maybe you should just admit that you really don’t give a shirt about who’s elected as long as her last name doesn’t begin with a C.

  21. al-Ameda says:

    @wr:

    There were enough “democrats” in 2000 who shared this feeling they gave the election to Bush, and watched him nearly destroy the country and half the world. And no doubt sniffed how it was all Al Gore’s fault because he didn’t read them a bedtime story after he tucked them in at night.

    2000 was all of that, and for a really fine example, let’s go to the ‘Way Back Machine,” to 1968 shall we?

    At which time, following the tumultuous (an understatement, to be sure) 1968 Chicago convention, liberal anti-war supporters of Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, were extremely dismayed and sat on their hands, waited too long to get behind Hubert Humphrey. By the time some of them came around and supported Hubert, it was too late – Nixon won by a slim margin: 44% to Humphrey’s 43%, and the rest, as they say, is history.

    If Bernie’s people do that – sit it out because they’re not running the ticket – then they will probably get the all-Republican government that they deserve.

  22. Grewgills says:

    @Todd:
    You shouldn’t let political arguments with Clinton supporters dissuade you from voting for her in the general anymore than Clinton supporters should let Berniebros turn them off of voting for him in the general in the unlikely event that he is the eventual nominee. You had a much more reasonable position on this weeks (months?) ago. You have more than once acknowledged that she is closer to you on the issues than any of the current candidates and you know how important the SC nominations that are coming up are. Please make a decision with your head rather than your heart come November.

  23. Ben Wolf says:

    Todd,

    Just write Sanders in if he isn’t the nominee. I will.

  24. Ben Wolf says:

    @Grewgills: Voting for Clinton is the emotional act.

  25. Boatman1976 says:

    I’ve found that mentally substituting “Reptilians” for “Republicans” and “Dinocrats” for “Democrats” makes the election season much more interesting:

    “Ted Cruz’s win in Wisconsin threatens the lead of the current Reptilian front runner Donald Trump.”

    Just say’n.

  26. KM says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Serious question: what do you think the write-in will do other then register your protest? Do you really think there’s going to be enough for him to be elected or are you gambling there will be enough pro-Hillary people your write-in won’t have a negative effect?

    Follow-up question: Are you OK with the Republican nominee winning because people wrote-in for Hillary instead of Sanders?

  27. Tillman says:

    @Ben Wolf: Voting for either one is an emotional act. What’s great is both cadres have convinced themselves they’re clearheaded and making a conscious decision, and the other side is self-righteous and arrogant. Amazing the kind of debate you get when everything is tied to one’s preferred (or bought) image rather than any objective fact, ain’t it?

    Take the Sanders interview that shows he was a buffoon. His interviewers called him the Mayor of Vermont. They confused the Treasury Department with the Federal Reserve at least twice. Sanders is lambasted in the media for adopting a position on authority granted by Dodd-Frank to break up big banks that is identical to one Clinton took months ago. But enough outlets have run pieces on how lightweight he is that enough people swallow the instant common wisdom. Kinda like the widespread email scandal of last year in how so many were convinced there was wrongdoing, but the moment you got into the nuance of what happened Clinton came off way better. Or take Sanders’s famous bloviating on foreign policy, or his lack of an adviser-developed worldview. It doesn’t matter that this is the inferior to Clinton’s tautology based on outdated presumptions of American exceptionalism because no one’s debating policy, they’re debating image.

    You can’t have a nuanced argument with people in the middle of primary season. For every great response you’ll get insults and presumptions. There’s so much projection flying around. “Sanders supporters are resentful like the Tea Party” is the line here, and yet I can’t count the number of times people have expressed resentment about Democratic voters not going for Gore in 2000, projecting it onto Sanders supporters. Sanders uses Republican talking points against Clinton while Clinton lifts defenses of political donations from Scalia opinions. (Get it? Both of them are comparing their primary competitors to scary Republicans.) People talk past each other about images they’ve curated in their own heads or bought from someone else and cause so much acrimony while ignoring how minimal the difference in policy between Clinton and Sanders is.

    And yet supposedly the Democrats are the better party.

  28. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Assuming your state allows write-in votes. Many require that the written in candidate have filed a declaration of intent to run as a write in. In the absence of such a filed declaration, these write in votes are simply discarded.

    By “many”, I am referring to: AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NY, NC, ND, OH, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV and WI. NJ only counts write in votes if there are enough of them to be material to the outcome.

    AR, HI, LA, MS, NV, NM, OK, SC and SD do not allow write in votes at all for the presidential election

  29. Pch101 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Voting for Clinton is the emotional act.

    I have no idea what that is supposed to mean (and I’m not holding my breath that it means much.)

  30. Todd says:

    @wr:

    There were enough “democrats” in 2000 who shared this feeling they gave the election to Bush, and watched him nearly destroy the country and half the world.

    BS … Gore was a flawed candidate who ran a horrible campaign. Clinton actually reminds me a lot of Gore.

    This is nothing but narcissism. My feelings are more important than the fate of the world. If it’s a choice between being annoyed by Hillary’s voice

    It has nothing to do with being “annoyed” by her voice. I think her approach to foreign policy is dangerous … I find the prospect of her taking those 3am phone calls downright scary. I also have a real problem with southern “Clinton Democrats”. They are largely responsible for making most of the compromise legislation that the Obama administration was able to pass worse than it had to be. For instance, every single Senator who worked to move the PPACA further to the right in exchange for their vote, lost their reelection bid anyway .. every one of them. These are also many of the same Senators who weakened the Dodd-Frank bill in the name of compromise. These type of politicians are a large part of the reason that I’m not a Democrat.

    Look, I won’t actively work against Hillary Clinton, and I certainly won’t vote for a Republican. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to lift a finger to support her candidacy … or to defend her actions in office if she’s elected. I expect her presidency to be a minor disaster, that will only look good in comparison to the major disaster that electing a Republican would be.

    With Clinton at the top of the ticket, the Democrats major primary electoral theme seems to be “hey, at least we’re not as bad as the other guys”.

  31. Todd says:

    @KM:

    The winner of the Democrat primary should be able to count on the support of their party, not have them walk off in a huff.

    Many of Sanders supporters, including myself are Independents, or very newly registered Democrats. I have absolutely no obligation to vote for the Democratic nominee. To simply assume that Sanders voters should simply fall in line and support a candidate they don’t believe in … at all … is the condescension.

  32. Davebo says:

    @Tillman:

    Take the Sanders interview that shows he was a buffoon.

    I don’t think he came off as a buffoon at all. He just showed that he obviously has ideas and goals he’d like to meet but really has no idea how to actually accomplish them.

    An excellent example is the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act which he introduced in the senate a week after announcing his campaign.

    We aren’t talking about some interview question here but actual proposed legislation coming in at a whopping 4 pages long and provides not only no detail but not even guidance on what would constitute “too big to fail” and of course how the breakup should be accomplished.

    Not surprisingly, no senator signed on to co-sponser it.

  33. Grewgills says:

    @Todd:
    It’s not expecting you to “fall in line”, it’s expecting you to make a rational decision based on the only likely outcomes in a pivotal election. You have already shown that you know what the rational decision is when you said

    I expect her presidency to be a minor disaster, that will only look good in comparison to the major disaster that electing a Republican would be.

    Voting third party if you are in a swing state is helping usher in the major disaster, rather than helping to mitigate the potential damage. That is not a rational action. Of course, if you are in a state that is guaranteed for one or the other sitting on your hands won’t matter, so feel free to register your disdain, but don’t complain if it ends up being Trump or Cruz and you didn’t do your damndest to stop it.

  34. al-Ameda says:

    @Todd:

    To simply assume that Sanders voters should simply fall in line and support a candidate they don’t believe in … at all … is the condescension.

    “Simply fall in line”? Hardly, Democrats are not Republicans.
    Also, you don’t think that Sanders’ adherents would expect Hillary’s adherents to “fall in line”? I definitely do. I have no general reason to believe otherwise. Honestly, doesn’t it come down to how much pride people are willing to swallow to get some or much of what they want instead of .. nothing?

    Look, I’m sure that many voters who cast for Ralph Nader in 2000, probably were put off by the prospect of voting for Al Gore, and in Florida those Nader votes (probably considered by Nader adherents to be very principled, in contrast to votes for Al Gore) contributed to a narrow George Bush victory. The same dynamic will be in play in November.

  35. Steve V says:

    @Todd: Your Hillary hatred is starting to look a little irrational. Assuming that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be basically similar to the Bill Clinton presidency, which I think is fair and which I think most people assume, you’ll have to remind me what was so horrifying about the 1990s that we must avoid reliving it at all costs. Given the other choices, reliving the 1990s doesn’t look half bad to me.

    Regarding terrifying 3am scenarios, if the choice is between Hillary and a guy who says he wants to turn some portion of the Middle East into glass, is that really a difficult choice?

  36. KM says:

    @Todd:

    To simply assume that Sanders voters should simply fall in line and support a candidate they don’t believe in … at all … is the condescension.

    To be frank, it’s actually resentment. You’re free to vote for who you want but who you want won’t be in the running anymore. They didn’t succeed in their quest and thus lost their chance. Your choice is realistically A or B while write-in C is a political footnote in the long run that will not give you the desired outcome. You resent having to make this choice and “settle”. Settling, however, is the name of the game when there can be only one. Over our entire historical party system, there have been millions of voters who’s candidate didn’t make the primary cut and had to choose between the party victor or the other guy. This indignity you speak of is centuries old. Expecting party loyalty to one’s chosen party is not condescension – it’s inherent in its nature of a freely-joined group (why else would you join it then??). While it’s certainly not an obligation or mandate, it is an reasonable expectation.

  37. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    If anyone can explain to me how this thought process is any different from the Tea Party line, then I’d like to hear it. From here, it looks like the same BS, just on the other side of the aisle.

  38. Davebo says:

    @Pch101: I don’t think it’s fair to compare that thought process to the Tea Party.

    And we’ve been here before, recently. Judging from the outcome after the initial anger and people seem to come around.

  39. Steve V says:

    One more thing. Ok, let’s all agree that Al Gore was a flawed candidate. Now that we know what happened from 2000 to 2008, do you wish that he had been president instead? Being absolved of blame for Gore’s loss is one thing, but having to live with the actual results is another matter entirely.

  40. Ben Wolf says:

    @Pch101:

    You’re very whiny.

    Talk about a turnoff. . .

    [G]rownups have to recognize that in a two-party system, there just aren’t a lot of options.

    Guys like Todd don’t understand how much they have in common with the Tea Party. They’re all resentniks who are just looking for excuses to pout. We may as well just lower the voting age to two. (“NO! MINE! NO! MINE!”)

    There’s a pattern here of making personal attacks.

    I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. . .

    That much is certain.

  41. Ben Wolf says:

    @Tillman: No. Todd has been quite eloquent over the last year in making a reasoned argument for not voting Clinton: her lack of ethics (ethics are by definition reasoned).

    The many making a habit of personally attacking Todd are acting out fear and anger. Their insistence Hillary must be supported because Republican is wholely a fear reaction and one unworthy of a rational and ethical being.

  42. Pch101 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    There’s a pattern of whining.

  43. Pch101 says:

    @Davebo:

    I don’t think it’s fair to compare that thought process to the Tea Party.

    – The inability to understand that he holds minority views.

    – The unwillingness to realize that grownups have to compromise when their views are not widely held.

    – A proclivity for having tantrums if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants.

    Sorry, but that’s a first-class seat on the Tea Party Express, he just has a window seat on the left-hand side of the train.

    I can completely appreciate the idea of not caring for a given candidate, but the belief that some other candidate who has even less support is somehow entitled to win just because is delusional at best.

  44. the Q says:

    ” …..reliving the 1990s doesn’t look half bad to me….” so we will have a “peace dividend” under Hillary as she cuts the Pentagon budget by 20%? More blacks incarcerated for minor offenses? A dot.com bubble and the repeal of Glass Steagall? NAFTA? The Clinton mafia of hacks enriching themselves at the public’s expense? (See Rubin’s 350 million at Citi) The deregulation of derivatives which cratered the economy 7 years later?

    Bill was phucking an intern in the Oval office Harvard 92 so maybe you should GTFU when you whine about how much whining their is over the prospect of this serial sexist inhabiting the hollowed halls of the White House again. If that clown would have resigned and let President Al Gore in office for 2 years, we would not have had W and the war (which HRC supported). And this country would be in much better shape.

    And the fact that none of you mentions the very real possibility of criminal indictment (not by the FBI) from the FOIA civil suits, you are whistling past the graveyard.

    Hillary is all that is rotten about the corporate Dems who have presided over the greatest number of wingnuts in the House, a GOP majority in the Senate and more state governorships and GOP state legislatures in the last 40 years.

    By constantly looking the other way as to the sellouts in the party the last 20 years (Daschle, Bayh, Frank, Dodd) we get what we deserve, a shrinking middle class, stagnant wages for 15 years, a huge increase in income inequality and now you are shoving down our throats one of the chief supporters of those policies. WTF are you thinking?

    Oh yeah, Attila the Hun is preferable to Ghengis Khan. Thank for that illuminating reason.

  45. Grewgills says:

    @Pch101:
    That isn’t fair for several reasons. Todd isn’t an ideologue, nor is he in an ideological minority that wants to impose it’s will on the American people. Politically he is closer to a DLC style Clinton democrat than to the average Occupy Wall Street Bernie supporter. He’s also right to be suspect of how hawkish her foreign policy is (she supported a no fly zone over Syria) and her over-friendly relationship with Wall Street. I support her in spite of those things because I think that on balance she’s the most qualified and most temperamentally suited candidate left in the running.
    He was much softer on this a few months ago and, if I remember correctly, even stated he would vote for her over any of the Republicans, when there were still over a dozen of them. I would guess he’s been worn down by all of the vitriol sent his way over not supporting Clinton and that has moved him off of his previous, I think Sanders is a stronger candidate and I’d rather see him win to his current no Clinton no how position.
    He’s always been a reasonable middle of the road kind of guy and I’m hopeful he’ll come around by election day. One thing is certain though, hectoring him and demeaning his concerns won’t help bring him (or any other Sanders supporter) around.
    Our goals here are more or less the same. The best way to achieve them is to step back, breath, and work on persuading rather than point scoring.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    KM:

    Expecting party loyalty to one’s chosen party is not condescension – it’s inherent in its nature of a freely-joined group (why else would you join it then??).

    You seem to not be paying attention. The person you are addressing said he is an independent, which means the concepts of “one’s chosen party” and “freely-joined group” do not apply. By definition, independents are people who have rejected your concept of “party loyalty.”

    Sanders is doing exceptionally well among independents. For example, in Wisconsin he won 72% of independents who voted in the D primary. Support by independents used to be considered a sign of electability. It should especially be considered a sign of electability now, since 39% of voters currently identify as I. That’s the highest number ever.

    al-Ameda:

    you don’t think that Sanders’ adherents would expect Hillary’s adherents to “fall in line”? I definitely do. I have no general reason to believe otherwise.

    What you are missing is similar to what KM is missing. You are treating the situation as symmetrical, when it is not. “Hillary’s adherents” are disproportionately D rather than I. Yes, it is appropriate to assume that Ds would “fall in line” and vote for any nominee selected by the D party. On the other hand, Sander’s supporters are disproportionately I. No, it is not appropriate to assume that Is would vote for any nominee selected by the D party. By definition, they have declared a lack of loyalty to the D party.

    For better or worse, the track record of Clintonism has convinced a lot of people that the difference between R and D is not big enough. Sanders motivates those people, and Clinton does not, and no one should be surprised when that lack of motivation is a problem for her in November.

    If that shit really hits the fan, you can blame those people for allegedly not learning the right lessons from historical episodes like Gore and Nader. But you could also blame yourself for supporting a candidate who could not motivate independents, instead of a candidate who could.

  47. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @the Q:

    Great – the foul mouthed Hippie weighs in. Thanks for sharing 🙂

  48. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Davebo:

    The problematic part of that bill is section 4. If enacted, it would collapse the economy in the space of a day, maybe two. It’s clear and convincing evidence that the guy who wrote it has zero understanding of the monetary & banking systems.

    If he’s this glaringly inept – and the person who wrote that bill is frightenly inept with respect to banking – on what is supposed to be his core issue, the one he’s supposedly spent decades immersed in, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence about his ability or his acumen.

  49. DrDaveT says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    “Hillary’s adherents” are disproportionately D rather than I. Yes, it is appropriate to assume that Ds would “fall in line” and vote for any nominee selected by the D party. On the other hand, Sander’s supporters are disproportionately I. No, it is not appropriate to assume that Is would vote for any nominee selected by the D party. By definition, they have declared a lack of loyalty to the D party.

    This would make perfect sense in a normal election, in which the Republicans were not trying to decide whether to nominate Mussolini or Torquemada.

    In this actual year here, any failure to vote for the D candidate is an active, deliberate attempt to put Mussolini or Torquemada in the White House. No one who is not wholly credulous of everything said on Fox News can believe that Hillary Clinton has “ethics problems” that even begin to approach the level of disaster for America that an R win would entail.

    I’m not a Hillary fan, but if you aren’t doing everything you can to keep Trump and/or Cruz out of the White House, you would seem to hate America.

  50. Ravi says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    OMG. I thought you were exaggerating, but you’re absolutely right. I’m not sure why the bill even bothers to set a deadline for breaking up TBTF entities. Once you cut off their access to the Fed’s discount window, the bank runs should take care of the rest in no time.

  51. PJ says:

    Looking at the exit poll for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, you’ll learn that 10% of Sanders voters aren’t liberals and 11.5% are idiots.

  52. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Ravi:

    The discount window would be problematic, agreed, but the real problem is that it denies these listed banks access to any program or facility enabled by the Federal Reserve Act.

    Just a few examples – Fedwire access? Gone. FedACH access? Gone. Interbank routing for payments transiting in or out of EPN “too bigs” to a non-EPN bank? Gone. The electronic payments system would collapse almost immediately – certainly within one overnight. Paper checks? Gone – Fed routes them electronically now too.

    No mortgage payments clearing. No utility bills being paid. No merchants being paid. We won’t even get into the liquidity crisis these banks will face when their inability to engage in overnight to ensure their liquidity runs up against their reserve requirements. On face it looks to bar these banks from even being members of the Fed at all. The runs wouldn’t take long to start, but the banks would already be dying by the time that they began. Whoever wrote this abortion of a bill is an abject moron.

  53. Todd says:

    @Pch101:

    If anyone can explain to me how this thought process is any different from the Tea Party line, then I’d like to hear it. From here, it looks like the same BS, just on the other side of the aisle.

    I can’t speak for all (or possibly even most) Sanders supporters, but for me it’s nothing like the tea party … primarily because it’s not an ideological issue. Truth be told, early in this process, my preferred candidate on the Democratic side was Joe Biden (if he’d gotten into the race). I’ll stop just short of saying that I think that Clinton is “corrupt”, but I will say that unlike all of the made up (by Republicans) “scandals” during the Obama administration, it’s absolutely believable that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be “scandal” plagued; and in at least some cases there would be actual fire to go with the smoke.

    Again, not speaking for anyone other than myself, I don’t even base my vote on “policy” proposals … because I understand that in our system of government no President is going to be able accomplish very much of what he or she promises on the campaign trail … yet for some reason we (the electorate, and the press) expect them to make promises anyway. Character and judgement are the qualities I look for. President Obama is strong in both regards. I don’t think Bernie Sanders is perfect by any means. However, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, I question both her character and her judgment. For instance, I don’t view the email thing through the same lens as Republicans; there is most likely no “there” there. But even absent criminal or ethical concerns, setting up the private server in the first place shows bad judgement. Same thing with the Wall Street speeches. She was perfectly within her rights to give those paid talks, but you’d have to be either naive (which the Clintons are not) to not easily foresee the (at least optical) political problem they could cause during a campaign. If she is capable of such bad judgement on relatively inconsequential matters such as these, how can I (as a voter) trust her on more important issue like national security?

    In short, I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because of who she is … not because I’m “mad” if Sanders doesn’t win the nomination.

  54. Pch101 says:

    I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because of who she is

    If you don’t vote for the one of the major party candidates, then you are by default voting for that person’s opponent. This is a matter of arithmetic, and there is nothing that you can do about it.

    No, I’m not making this up. You see, unless you vote in Maine or Nebraska, all of your state’s electoral votes will be going to the candidate who gets the most votes. A majority is not required; a plurality is sufficient.

    The net result of this reality is that spoilers or no-shows are naturally going to help the guy who you like the least, since your vote is not in the pool to offset someone else who is voting for the greater of your two evils. In effect, a Republican voter in your state is casting your ballot for you.

    This is part of my point about being a grownup. Grownups are supposed to be able to perform basic arithmetic exercises such as this one.

    If you live in a state where the margin of victory for the lesser of your two evils is large enough that your vote makes no mathematical difference, then knock yourself out and feel free to protest. But if you live in a swing state, then don’t whine about the consequences because you were part of the problem. It’s just math.

  55. Todd says:

    @Pch101: I live in Arizona. There’s virtually no plausible scenario where Arizona would be a tipping point State, therefore I do have a little more freedom to vote my conscience.

    The Democratic nominee does still make a little difference though. If Sanders is the nominee, I will volunteer for phone banks, donate money, and encourage my friends and family who do live in swing States to do the same. With Clinton as the nominee, none of that is going to happen … and it won’t be just me.

    I think she’ll win anyway; especially against Cruz or Trump. But she’ll enter office as a relatively unpopular President, and I honestly don’t expect that dynamic to change. As I stated above, no Presidential candidate is likely to be able to keep many of their campaign promises. However, with little political capital to spend, a President Clinton is likely to have hard time moving even the relatively unambitious agenda that she has laid out.

    As for this:

    But if you live in a swing state, then don’t whine about the consequences because you were part of the problem. It’s just math.

    Don’t worry, it won’t happen. If Clinton is nominated, and we somehow end up with a Republican President, I won’t whine, and I won’t even say “I told you so” to you all of you who insist that Clinton is the “most electable” candidate. I’ll simply buckle down, hope that there isn’t too much damage over the next 4 years, then work to help ensure that those on the leftward half of the political spectrum make a better nominating choice in 2020.

    BTW, in 2000 I was a registered voter in Florida, and I did vote for Gore. I don’t blame Nader voters for the outcome. I blame the Gore campaign. That election should have never been close enough to be “stolen”.

  56. Ben Wolf says:

    @Pch101:

    If you don’t vote for the one of the major party candidates, then you are by default voting for that person’s opponent. This is a matter of arithmetic, and there is nothing that you can do about it.

    This is a matter of perspective, not mathematics. False dichotomy is no less a logical fallacy than ad hominem.

  57. Todd says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Also, you don’t think that Sanders’ adherents would expect Hillary’s adherents to “fall in line”? I definitely do. I have no general reason to believe otherwise.

    This comes down a little bit to how we use the word “expect”. I don’t “expect” Clinton supporters to fall in line behind Sanders if he’s the nominee in the same way that they “expect” it from people like me … as in it’s some sort of moral obligation. However, I do actually expect that mainstream Democrats (who generally support Clinton in the primary) would be very likely still show up and vote in virtually the same numbers whether Sanders or Clinton is the nominee.

    As a logic problem, this actually bolsters my position. It’s not a stretch to say that if Sanders is the nominee Independents and newly registered Democrats will be more likely to show up, along with traditional Democrats who will vote for their party’s nominee. It’s also not at all inconceivable that a fair portion of Sanders voters will choose someone else and/or stay home if Clinton is the nominee. From the perspective of Democrats who fear that every vote might matter in a tight election, rather than haranguing Independents and young voters with the inevitably ineffective lament “what, do you WANT to help elect Trump?”, wouldn’t it make more sense to just nominate the candidate who would almost certainly turn out more left-leaning voters in November?

    BTW, I don’t buy the myth of the swing voter. In 2016, it’s almost inconceivable to imagine that there’s a significant number of people out there who are thinking about voting for Trump or Cruz, but would somehow switch to Democrat if the nominee is Clinton instead of Sanders. In their minds, anybody with (D) after their name is a “radical socialist”. Likewise, the number of Democratic leaning voters who would vote for Trump or Cruz because they think Sanders is “too extreme” is almost certainly very small. In fact, I’ve yet to meet a Democrat who personally wouldn’t vote for Sanders … but I’ve met plenty who are scared that “others” would find him “too extreme”. Who are these “others”? … and what makes you think they’d vote for Clinton?

  58. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’ve met plenty who are scared that “others” would find him “too extreme”

    My interpretation is that they personally find him “too extreme,” but for various reasons they prefer to not admit that opinion (maybe because they’re not sure they know how to defend that position). So instead it’s easier to project that opinion onto nebulous “others.”

    Just a guess. It’s also my guess that this interpretation applies to some of the comments here warning about his alleged lack of electability.

  59. EddieInCA says:

    Bernie’s “unqualified” comment towards Clinton just made me finally open the wallet. I donated $100 to Clinton, and will do so weekly until I hit the maximum allowed by law.

    Way to go, Bernie.

  60. An Interested Party says:

    Ack, all this infighting ultimately accomplishes nothing other than helping Republicans…surely we can all agree that either Hillary or Bernie would be infinitely superior to anything that comes out of the GOP and proceed accordingly…

  61. EddieInCA says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Agreed.

    Problem is that Bernie has crossed the line and given the GOP an easy ad. It’s an unforced error on Bernie’s part.

  62. al-Ameda says:

    @Todd:
    First, let me preface my comments by saying that I consider your comments on the Clinton/Sanders, Democratic Party stuff to be thoughtful and honest.

    BTW, I don’t buy the myth of the swing voter. In 2016, it’s almost inconceivable to imagine that there’s a significant number of people out there who are thinking about voting for Trump or Cruz, but would somehow switch to Democrat if the nominee is Clinton instead of Sanders.

    I agree. I’m not big on the idea that there are a lot of so-called “independents. To me, because the environment is so polarized, turnout is very important.

    In fact, I’ve yet to meet a Democrat who personally wouldn’t vote for Sanders … but I’ve met plenty who are scared that “others” would find him “too extreme”. Who are these “others”? … and what makes you think they’d vote for Clinton?

    That gets to my point, which is that those people can sit it out and indirectly contribute to the election of a worse alternative – Cruz or Trump. Again, turnout.

    I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee – I know who I want making nominations to the Supreme Court.

  63. Pch101 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Basic facts just rub you the wrong way, apparently.

    You don’t understand the concept of two-party systems with first-past-the-post elections that allow the winners of pluralities to be made the winner. That’s a pretty lousy deficiency for you to have if you are going to pretend to understand presidential politics.

  64. Ratufa says:

    @Todd:

    With Clinton at the top of the ticket, the Democrats major primary electoral theme seems to be “hey, at least we’re not as bad as the other guys”.

    From the point of view of people who want major changes in our system, that was true for the candidacies of Obama, Gore, and Bill Clinton, as well. And, with the election of Bush, we had a test case for, “Just how much worse can it be if we elect the Republican?” That test case resulted in immensely expensive (in both money and lives) military adventures, human rights violations, major tax cuts, and John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. The fallout from all of that will continue for many years.

    Also, keep in mind that, when a President gets elected, it’s not just the individual that gains power. The members of the political coalition that the President and his/her party depends on to stay in office also increases their influence on government policy.

    Speaking for myself, if it comes down to Clinton vs Cruz (or any other Republican), I’ll follow Chomsky’s advice when asked about voting for Obama. To paraphrase: Vote for Clinton, but without illusions.

  65. Pch101 says:

    @al-Ameda:

    In Todd’s case, it probably makes no difference, as Arizona reliably votes Republican by a several point margin.

    However, if the GOP convention turns out to be a nuclear bomb that provokes a significant number of Republicans to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate on the first Tuesday of November, then there is some chance that Arizona could defy the odds as it did in 1992.

    Although it is claimed that Ross Perot’s 1992 third-party run hit both sides equally, I suspect that Arizona may have been exception, as Clinton was able to win the state with 46% of the vote while Perot had 8%. The Dems probably have a lock on the map, anyway, but it wouldn’t hurt for the GOP to meltdown for the election.

  66. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Tillman: From just past the center line: He shoots! He scores! The goalie never even saw it coming!

    Thank you for your comments. They almost always capture some element of the discussion that others are missing.

  67. Moosebreath says:

    @Pch101:

    “However, if the GOP convention turns out to be a nuclear bomb that provokes a significant number of Republicans to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate on the first Tuesday of November, then there is some chance that Arizona could defy the odds as it did in 1992.”

    First, if that occurs, Clinton is looking at something in the 400 electoral vote range, so Arizona won’t matter even then.

    Second, nuclear bombs everywhere are insulted by the comparison to the GOP convention.

  68. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @the Q: Still in all, if the choices are Atilla and Genghis, choosing the more preferable is the wisest available choice. On the other hand, I will admit (and in fact have) that the difference is negligible (allowing that as an old wealthy enough white male, SCOTUS decisions have minimal impact on me personally–long live Ayn Rand and selfishness).

  69. Moosebreath says:

    I found this article a bit optimistic, but worth reading to keep our eyes on the prize:

    “There are a lot of Democrats who look at this and say to themselves, “Well, gee, it’s not all that exciting to see neoconservatives and Wall Street executives and corporate media moguls rallying to our likely nominee.”

    I recognize the potential problems for anyone with a progressive agenda, but this is what a realignment looks like. And the truth is, sheer numbers do more to promote a progressive agenda than purity. Rahm Emanuel handed President Obama a big congressional majority filled with very conservative Democrats, and they got more done than any Democratic Congress since Lyndon Johnson was in office. After most of those conservative Democrats were wiped out in 2010, the Democratic Party membership became much more cohesive and much more progressive, but they accomplished absolutely nothing.”

  70. stonetools says:

    For the purity trolls like Ben Wolf above, time to unleash this epic piece of advice from TBogg:

    comment left over at digg regarding Ralph Nader:

    The Democrats really hate Nader because he points out the fact that they are asking those of us on the left to vote for them but they aren’t doing anything for us. Did they end funding for the Republican’s crime spree in Iraq? No. Have they moved for UHC? No. Have they tried to stop corporate crimes? No. Have they tried to reform the tax code to be progressive? No. Have they tried to protect homeowners from predatory lenders? No. Have they defended our constitutional rights? No. Take back the FDA from the corporations? No. The FCC? No.

    The Democrats don’t deserve my vote. They aren’t helping the left, why should the left help them?

    Let me see if I can explain it this way:

    Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.

    You don’t live there.

    Grow the f##k up.

    This piece of advice seemingly will never be not relevant.

  71. stonetools says:

    For the purity trolls like Ben Wolf above, time to unleash this epic piece of advice from TBogg:

    comment left over at digg regarding Ralph Nader:

    The Democrats really hate Nader because he points out the fact that they are asking those of us on the left to vote for them but they aren’t doing anything for us. Did they end funding for the Republican’s crime spree in Iraq? No. Have they moved for UHC? No. Have they tried to stop corporate crimes? No. Have they tried to reform the tax code to be progressive? No. Have they tried to protect homeowners from predatory lenders? No. Have they defended our constitutional rights? No. Take back the FDA from the corporations? No. The FCC? No.

    The Democrats don’t deserve my vote. They aren’t helping the left, why should the left help them?

    Let me see if I can explain it this way:

    Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.

    You don’t live there.

    Grow the f##k up.

    This piece of advice seemingly will never be not relevant.

  72. Pch101 says:

    @stonetools:

    A populist is someone who has 80-90% of the country against him, yet is convinced that he speaks for the majority.

  73. al-Ameda says:

    @Pch101:

    A populist is someone who has 80-90% of the country against him, yet is convinced that he speaks for the majority.

    These days many, many Trump supporters refer to themselves as
    “the silent majority” – true believers tend to believe that what is self-evident
    to them surely must be to most people.

  74. Pch101 says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Which is just another reason why “populist” is usually a synonym for “idiot with an attitude problem.”

  75. the Q says:

    Harvard Law, you vapid pedantic ponce, I am in my 80s, have voted Democrat always and have watched the current crop do more to damage the New Deal legacy than Goldwater or Reagan.

  76. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @the Q:

    Yawn

  77. DrDaveT says:

    @DrDaveT:

    This would make perfect sense in a normal election, in which the Republicans were not trying to decide whether to nominate Mussolini or Torquemada.

    Whoa.

    2 days later, Paul Krugman blogged:

    Why Cruz is Worse Than Trump. On economics, that is. On other issues — well, who was worse, Mussolini or Torquemada? Decisions, decisions.

    What do I win?