Numbers and self-discipline


"Let me give you a couple of numbers. In 2008 the Republicans turned out a total of 20,799,209 in 45 Primaries. In 2016 (and I only have numbers for 40 of the 45 Primaries), the Republicans have 27,204,900. Before the night is over the Republicans will have more than 30 million votes.

The Democrats, by contrast, had 36,919,660 votes for their candidates in the 2008 battle that featured Obama and Clinton. The 2016 numbers fell off a cliff. Through 40 contests the Democrats only have 23,799,193. The Democrats will be lucky to reach 30 million when the night is over.

So, do you think a move with the Republicans increasing voter turnout by almost 12 million and the Democrats shrinking by about 7 million is meaningless?"  Larry Johnson


IMO there are two ways to look at the US political situation as of 8 June, 2016:

1.  The numbers cited above by Larry Johnson are pretty clear and the pattern persists.  IMO the growth in Republican primary voters is largely the result of an electorate in rebellion against the establishment parties.  basically, these numbers are the result of shrinkage in the US employment rate and the resulting loss of income for both blue collar working class people and recent university graduates who are heavily burdened with loan debt and unable to find employment commensurate with their newly acquired skills.  The former group heavily supports Trump and is largely indifferent to the memetic attacks on Trump that are now non-stop in the Borgist media.  This group is likely to continue to support Trump.  The unhappy college kids have largely supported Sanders but now have been frustrated in their hopes.  Where will this group go?  Who knows?  This over all situation would seem to favor Trump.

2.  OTOH there is Trump himself, a man seemingly devoted to the task pf shooting himself in the foot every day.  Will he learn to discipline himself?  That might happen but I would not bet on it.

If Trump does not clean up his act and quickly he will become a massive liability that threatens GOP control of the US Senate and its present dominant position in state governments.

If that happens the GOP establishment will have no choice but to find some way to dump him so that it can try to save its larger interests.  I have heard a rules change at the convention discussed today, a change that might ensure a second ballot with a lot of freed delegates.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

171 Responses to Numbers and self-discipline

  1. Peter says:

    The vast majority of Bernie supporters will ultimately vote for Hillary in the end. Bernie will be very vocal about how the Democratic party must now get behind their candidate in order to “beat Trump.” Obama will also throw more public support behind Hillary leading up to the election (obviously).
    It’s a pipe dream to think that all of these frustrated Bernie supporters will show up on election day and vote third party. Most will be convinced to vote for Hillary and the rest won’t show up at all.

  2. turcopolier says:

    I don’t think I said anything about Bernyites’ probable votes. You nicely ignored the rise in Republican voting and the decline in Democratic voting. Johnson’s Democrat numbers aggregate the votes cast for HC and Bernie. pl

  3. jsn says:

    The Democrats are too certain the left has no place to go and have been running their primary on voter suppression. They are deliberately alienating Sanders supporters thinking they will be so horrified of Trump they will vote for Hillary. I’m one of those Sanders supporters and I find Hillary a great deal scarier than Trump. As a commenter over at Naked Capitalism put it, Hillary is a trap and “if I had my leg caught in a trap I like to think I’d have the courage to chew my leg off to save my life.” Trump may be chewing my leg off, but at least I’ll be out of the trap.

  4. DC says:

    The Rs would be wise to dump Trump, if they are interested in their Party and our Republic. A Kasich/Nikki Haley ticket would destroy Clinton in November. Certainly, I would vote that ticket. If that doesn’t happen, I see little honorable choice but to write in Sanders, or perhaps consider Jill Stein of the Green party (I must admit, I haven’t looked very deeply into the G’s platform). The main point being that both of our mainstream parties are broken; and Peter is simply incorrect that citizens of character can be expected to hold their noses and vote for either one of the D/R rotten candidates.

  5. jeff roby says:

    Stein got about 0.36% of the votes in 2012, per the FEC. She’s now polling around 3.0%. It is traditional that 3rd party candidates see a serious drop between their polling results and the actual election, due to the lesser evil scare tactics.
    Two factors may be different: (1) many Democrats do not consider Hillary the lesser anything; and (2) we don’t know the fallout from Sanders OFFICIALLY failing to receive the nod.
    So Stein is a wildcard. If her total substantially increases over 2012 (or over Nader’s 2.74%), that would indicate trend, impacting more than would be indicated than a reading of the raw numbers.
    And so far Stein is being largely frozen out of media coverage. The defection of Sanders voters gives her a news hook, and the ice is beginning to break (Gentlemen’s Quarterly and Rolling Stone). Let’s fasten our seatbelts.

  6. Jack says:

    I would like to make two points.
    One, Trump can’t change who he is. He’s not going to go toe to toe with Hillary on wonky policy details. So, IMO, he’ll continue the campaign that won him the primary into the general. This will likely cause deep embarrassment and consternation among the establishment Republicans. However, they miss the fact that Trump is bringing forth a more passionate voter and in larger numbers than their past standard bearers.
    Second, this election will be true to form and decided by a few states in the mid-west and south-east. I believe Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania will decide the outcome. Possibly North Carolina could also be a swing state. Hillary will win the majority of the blacks, hispanics, other ethnic minorities and many white women. The question is how many of those women? If Trump peels of a few, she may not be able to get more than him in those states. We do know however that the Borgist media, the Republican neocons as well as the financial elite will be fully backing Hillary with the intent of painting Trump as dangerous. This will be a vicious campaign on both sides. I believe the odds have to be in Hillary’s favor but I would not under-estimate Trump and the anti-establishment mood among the white working class.

  7. turcopolier says:

    Jack et al
    You, too, have ignored the numbers. pl

  8. Walter Jeffers says:

    Attributing Trump’s support (for the most part) to anything besides his opposition to illegal immigration is wrong. Middle America has awakened to the demographic threat that millions of third world people from Latin America/Africa/Asia pose to this country’s fundamental system.
    Kasich/Haley both actively seek to expand the invasion.
    On the positive side, if the demographics shift, there will be less intervention in third world conflicts. Pedro from Oaxaca could not care less about Israel’s right to exist.

  9. BabelFish says:

    The so called democratic constituencies do not vote in numbers and it appears to be declining. The current governor of Florida would be Charlie Crist if just 50% of the African American voters, registered as democrats, had voted in the last gubenatorial election. Just in one county, although a populous one.
    Even Bernie commented that ‘poor people don’t vote’. As enraged as Millennials are about student debt and the bank shenanigans dealt with in the movie ‘The Big Short’, they appear not to vote. Until we can vote on smart phones, apparently they can’t be bothered to look up from their texting to do so.
    Yeah, I’m grumpy about it.

  10. Fred says:

    The first Hispanic to win a presidential primary was United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. The MSM and the Democrats, however, keep reminding us that all true Hispanics are going to vote democratic. Which might be news to Ted and his other senate colleague, Marco Rubio of Florida and the millions of people who voted them both into office.

  11. Jack says:

    Do you believe the discrepancy of the swing in turnout will continue into the general?

  12. Peter in Toronto says:

    This future format of the great American experiment hinges on this election.
    We know what to expect with Shillary: broadly following the same foreign policy path carried over from Clinton, to Bush and now with Obama, that is to say, a Middle Eastern foreign policy monopolized by Israeli agents, antagonization of Iran and Russia, numerous, ruinous proxy wars in contested, failing states like Ukraine, expansion of the legal framework in support of globalist trade and the etheric, un-bound trans-national capital, depleting North America of any vestiges of industry resulting in social upheaval at home.
    On the home front expect more “progress” in identity politics, class warfare, gender warfare, oppression Olympics and further eroding the foundations of society.
    An establishment Republican is virtually no different, since they are owned by the same high net worth individuals.

  13. JiuJitsuMMA says:

    I support Sanders & I know most of the other Sanders supporters like me will throw their support to Green Party Dr. Jill Stein, who has the same platforms as Bernie -she
    is actually more of a peace, anti-war candidate than Bernie & wants diplomacy
    -she wants less foreign intervention, no more wars, etc
    I know it will be more of a protest vote but current voting rules in most states are if you write in ‘Sanders’, your vote will NOT be counted unfortunately because they don’t count write-ins per the rules (dumb rule, I know)
    She’s actually for CUTTING taxes for the middle-class & has the same gun policies as Sanders (she says people can own guns with background checks & sensible local regulations)
    -she actually has less baggage than Sanders (she has never called herself a ‘democratic socialist’ so the Republicans can’t demonize her as a ‘commie’ or ‘socialist’)
    She’s for
    1) no more wars except for actual self-defense
    2) a GI Bill-type benefits for all US citizens of free university & a public-option universal healthcare or similiar Medicare-for-citizens plan
    3) LOWER taxes for the middle-class with higher taxes on the top 1% & Wall St bankers
    4) cutting sales taxes, NO VAT
    5) energy independence free from the Middle East & oil by investing in Green Energy
    6) end the war against marijuana, legalize/decriminalize it as seen successfully in Colorado, Cali, Netherlands, Portugal, etc
    7) pro-choice
    Because the US issues it’s own fiat currency & owns it’s own central bank unlike the EURO-using countries,
    this allows the US to create money to fund it’s investments/spending without higher taxes (this is how Japan, Singapore, & China can have 15%-30% tax rates while having massive gov ‘deficit’ spending, because all gov spending is income for the private sector)
    Increased demand/spending stimulates increased hiring & increased production, which increase supply of goods & services that offsets the increased money supply & keeps inflation LOW,
    if you double the number of apples, prices of apples stay relatively the same even as you double money supply
    .. see more Modern Monetary economics at link below:
    Economics myths deubnked here (verified by Federal Reserve officials & Nobel Prize Laureates) 1)
    Green Party & Jill Stein on issues here:

  14. Charles Michael says:

    Yes, obviously,
    Question is: are these numbers related to a huge numbers in abstentions from Democrat side and/or increase in Republicans participation.
    And other question, considering the large number of abstentions at final stage (November)how will this clear trend translate.
    From what I read Trump has brougth a full new segment of voters, supporting him during the primary.
    On the contrary the Democrat party to protect Hilary Clinton entitlement has permanently done its best to minimize the voters capacity to express their choice.
    From a poll (BBC tonigth) the Sanders supporters woukd vote 52 % for Clinton, 15 % for Trump, other for others candidates or don’t know yet.
    And the Sanders rebellion is not over yet, by far.

  15. Kooshy says:

    Colonel, I think you are totally corect in your analysis, I have exact same take, with difference of the young college voters will choose not to vote. IMO this group are discusted of both nominees.

  16. Will Reks says:

    I do not take any issue with the numbers. A writer for 538 explored this trend some months ago. His take seems to be that the Republican primaries saw greater turnout because they were far more competitive and that it is not a great indicator of general election performance.
    I think the GOP would be risking chaos where they to steal the nomination from Trump. He’s not the type to roll over and his core supporters would be furious.
    Something to consider with Trump is that he seems to alienate one voter for every one he might attract to the voting booth. He may have good luck in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania but may end up in trouble in Florida due to the high Latino population.
    HRC, however, is a very weak candidate and he still has a chance, however slim. We will see if there are a lot of previously missing white voters who live in places where they can make a difference for Trump.

  17. turcopolier says:

    Charles Michael
    “are these numbers related to a huge numbers in abstentions from Democrat side and/or increase in Republicans participation.” What else would they be, or don’t you like the possibilities? pl

  18. turcopolier says:

    will reks
    “His take seems to be that the Republican primaries saw greater turnout because they were far more competitive and that it is not a great indicator of general election performance.” that sounds like a weak explanation to me. pl

  19. turcopolier says:

    How can it not? The question is “how much? pl

  20. 505thPIR says:

    Imagine if you will a Trump Presidency. Here is one angle to consider: His business empire such as it is. Who is going to run it? He certainly won’t have the time to do so. Sooo, likely, one of his kids. I betcha big bucks that he won’t be able to keep his fingers out of it. Will surely have some back-channel stuff going on. There is probably a good chance that he will run in to a conflict of interest situation and either by blunder, ignorance or even deliberately influence the process. The Clinton foundation stuff could be “Trump Change”….Also, what an inviting angle for foreign intelligence services to get some kind of leverage on him or his minions. Interesting indeed.

  21. ked says:

    No, Col, it is not meaningless. However, it is not necessarily meaningful either. Primary turnout may not be reliably applied linearly to the general election – especially in these days of hyper-gerrymandered districts and open primaries and easy party-switching. Not to mention the behaviors we will observe in the campaign.
    The analysis you make (as I understand it) suggests that greater turnout this cycle will be Trump-populist in nature. I believe that some of that segment will lose drive by Nov, even as some of “silent centrists” emerge to secretly vote for his opposition.
    I expect highly dynamic events (wild theatrics / public tantrums / party-palace coups / October Surprises (Weekly! on America’s Got Crazy!)… the upshot of which will be a greater than typical turnout in Nov (a pretty low standard) that will yield a predictable outcome (seen from the future, looking backward, considering the long arc of trends and choice our polity makes). Should be entertaining … maybe both parties will collapse from exhaustion… & not revive.

  22. turcopolier says:

    An interesting theory of how the numbers however large may be meaningless. pl

  23. ked says:

    One would have to take a closer look, but many of the flood of GOP votes in the primaries are in states that are already solid for the GOP (most of the South, Plains & (some) West. That extra participation does not yield electoral votes.
    You are on target concerning the importance of swing states. Which are they? & How they might swing? 130M voted in the ’12 General… will 10% more come out this go-’round? We may see turnout unequaled since the turn of the 19th century – when it was on a downtrend rather than upward (as for the most recent three). We haven’t experienced four consecutive increases in turnout since FDR.
    This will be a hard one to predict / project via the usual means statisticians employ. However, things will become clear no later than about about three weeks prior to the election itself… if these candidates make it that far.

  24. Jack says:

    Good point Fred. The Cubans in Florida have traditionally voted Republican.
    The question is how many hispanics in Ohio, Michigan Pennsylvania, North Carolina? Will they vote in sufficient numbers for the Borg Queen?

  25. LG says:

    To me the numbers are telling. It is not just that Republican voters are angry, they seem to have been so even in the last election. The rising numbers seem to show that GOP voters feel that they’ve finally found a candidate that responds to their concerns. No more Mitt Romney secretly sneering at them.
    The opposite is the case for the democrats. The declining numbers indicate that they aren’t much enthused by either candidate.

  26. Jack says:

    I am curious and will research the distribution of this swing in turnout across the different states. I take aggregate numbers like the national polling data with a grain of salt.
    I believe Hillary starts with better odds as I believe the Democrats have an electoral college advantage. Romney won 206 electoral college votes. He lost Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia by around 100,000 votes give or take. So, its very conceivable that the enthusiasm for Trump in these states combined with less enthusiasm for Hillary could carry him over the finish line. I however believe that by mid October the forces arrayed against him and their scaremongering would drive up the lesser evil enthusiasm for Hillary. It will be close and IMO, will break one way or another. Either Hillary or Trump will get an electoral college landslide.

  27. Bobo says:

    Looking at these numbers and others you come up with the following.
    2016 Primary Vote 29-R and 28-D, 2012 Presedential Vote 65-Obama and 60-Romney or 129 total thus 57-44% did not vote in 2016 primary ( all numbers in millions and rough).
    2116 voter registration as of May (Gallup) 27%-R, 28%-D & 45%-I.
    2010 voter registration 29%-R, 31%-D & 38%-I
    These are just numbers and only tell history. Make of them what you want as I purport that they only tell one thing. There is a large movement of Americans into non traditional parties.
    Now I’m not one of them poorly educated blue color workers the MSM would make you think are the only Trump supporters, nope I’m a senior Medicare eligible great grandfather who puts in 60 hours a week and knows that our children and grandchildren are
    not getting the opportunities that you or I did. Most make it in life but a lot do not and that percentage is a lot higher than when we were young. WHY. This government we have has been stale for the last twenty years and more worried with what is going on with the rest of the world than within our own borders,
    Change is needed and Donald Trump is the only protest vote out there with a shot of making it to the White House. Yes, he is a pig, stupid or whatever you want to call him but mark my words he will be in the White House come 2017. Why, look at the growth in the independents. People who are not aligned with traditional thought.

  28. Jack says:

    Nate Silver completely lost the plot with Trump. Not sure if it was his models or personal bias. In any case he wrote a very weak mea culpa.

  29. The Sheep Look Up says:

    I am no fan of Trump. But he has accomplished many things already for which we should be grateful. If nothing else, he formally ended the Bush dynasty, trashed W’s legacy, and spoke the truth about the NeoCon’s war in Iraq.
    But most important, he has opened space on the right for ideas that have been shut out by Movement Conservatism for decades.
    Movement Conservatives had zero chance of appealing to the very large generation of millennials for one simple reason: they are failures. People under 35 see them as compromised, hypocritical and, most importantly, incompetent.
    But Eight years of Obama has swung many toward a similar, if not as vehement, view of DNC liberalism. Many favor Sanders, but this is not necessarily because of his ideas. He is perceived as anti-establishment. Thus many of them will not follow the expected movement and simply shift towards the center and vote Hillary. They are up for grabs.
    On Florida: Trump’s wall, immigration policies, and rhetoric are ant-Mexican. They are NOT anti-Latino. To reason otherwise is to fall into a Cultural Marxist trap. Outside of media, activist and academic circles, neither Cubans nor Puerto Ricans feel much affinity with Mexicans and certainly do not like to be lumped together with them.
    Will Trump be able to take advantage of this? Maybe. But there is room for a wedge here, if he is able to start pounding on it.

  30. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I think comparing the aggregate primary numbers is somewhat misleading.
    More contested the race is, the larger the turnout. Republicans had a lot more candidates with concomitantly larger uncertainty on who might ultimately win out. Each candidate had far greater incentive to get people out and the voters had greater interest in getting their input in. The Democrats, on the other hand, tried to ensure that the primaries would be just a coronation for HRC, without any “real” contest. Where Sanders made things more interesting, turnout rose substantially. In other races, where the outcome was largely preordained (e.g. much of the South), turnout was dismal. In some cases (e.g. CA yesterday), some more conspiratorially people there were be attempts by some Democratic insiders to actively suppress turnout (some lefties are insisting that the AP story was such an attempt. Similar accusations came up earlier, although I don’t remember the details.)
    I suspect that some aspects of increase/decrease in turnout reflects strategies of the candidates, up to a point. HRC seems confident that she can win on the basis of the conventional Democratic votes, especially against Trump (who seems being dangerously misunderestimated, to use GWB’s lingo). If so, trying to mobilize new voters and owe them promises and favors is not something she is eager to do. Demographic trends may be somewhat to the advantage of the Democrats (per Ruy Texeira’s argument) but I think it might be dangerously overrated–especially if, as HRC seems determined to do, politicians waste such advantages along the way (if much of this advantage is with the more youthful demographic, why go out of way to frustrate the youths as she and her allies seem to be doing, for example?)

  31. Fred says:

    To quote a great African American singer: “What have you done for me lately”. How did NAFTA treat Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania? How about the follow on Obama years of hope, change and racial healing. Not to mention health care. Hispanic Americans work for a living in the same economic envirnonment white people do. A point lost on some political science types triangulating campaigns and advising “journalists”.

  32. kao_hsien_chih says:

    It’s not just Silver: it’s the entire class of political analysts. By the poll numbers alone, that Trump was a much more serious candidate would have been obvious (the rise of Sanders, however, would have been lost even in that realm too).
    The problem is that people got blinkered by their own “conventional wisdom.” People who watch too much politics think that conventional politics is the way things are “supposed to be” and tend to systematically reject what doesn’t fit the usual narrative. (a rather dense and rather off topic exploration of some of the proclivities in political analysis, how people bury themselves in their notion of “normal” politics without thinking things through, is found in this essay: Months got spent with alleged experts of all kinds confidently reassuring everyone that what was taking place could not possibly be taking place and the “normalcy” would reassert itself (and I wonder if some Republicans are still fantasizing about how to reassert this “normalcy,” if through the most abnormal means, in the aftermath of how Republican leaders seem to have gone off the reservation after the gaffe by Trump on that judge–which, I think, is more the sign of someone who is over his head rather than someone who is actively malicious, but that’s my opinon)….
    I guess we’ll know the rest of story in less than half a year’s time…

  33. kao_hsien_chih says:

    “Hispanics” are too varied a group to generalize so blatantly. Different groups will respond differently to different messages. For starters, a lot of Hispanics are not immigrants, recent or otherwise. Many old-time Hispanic voters in the Southwest, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans aren’t impressed by immigration rhetoric, pro- or anti-.
    At minimum, about 15-20% of the Hispanics are reliably Republican. For example, there are many Hispanic small business people, of all backgrounds, who are ardently Republican. That’s roughly the share that Romney got in 2012. I think that’s about the rock bottom for any Republican, and many of these folks seem to like Trump quite a bit.
    One has to think that, at least among those without immigration ties, Trump has to carry considerable potential appeal. For example, Puerto Ricans, by and large, might be heavily Democratic, but they share more characteristics with non-Hispanic working class than with recent immigrants form Latin America and could be impressed by Trump’s economic message. I don’t think Trump could capture the vote of the average Puerto Rican, but I could see him easily outperforming Romney or some other stuffy regular Republican with these demographics (although, given how dismal Romney was with practically all minority voters, that would not be difficult, I would think.)

  34. NotTimothyGeithner says:

    Fear mongering led Obama to poll behind Mittens. Obama only snapped out of his funk when he reembraced progressive rhetoric. There were a flurry of “how Obama got his groove back” articles. Fear based campaigns dull over time. The Democrats were apocalyptic about what would happen in 2014 if arch enemy Mitch McConnell became Senate majority leader. They were apocalyptic in 2010.
    It might seem trite, but it’s easier to attract flies with honey than vinegar. The same is true for politics.

  35. different clue says:

    I do not know what “will” happen here in Michigan. I do have a feeling that many people in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania remember that it was President Clinton who finally achieved the NAFTA, WTO membership “for” America, MFN Status for China, etc. which have destroyed so many jobs in those three states from then to now. And Trump may well be shrewd enough to remind people of that all over again and to ask whether they want Bill Clinton influencing economic policy all over again.
    Which will be a real question, because Hillary made it one when she said that she would put Bill Clinton in charge of “revitalizing the economy”.

  36. different clue says:

    Peter in Toronto,
    The only class warfare I have seen these last few decades is the UpperClass/OverClass war of aggression and disposession being waged against the rest of us.
    The “One Per Cent” didn’t get that way by accident.

  37. Herodotus says:

    Forget the duck-speak.. This will be a race won by who can get the vote out. If these numbers persist and more people dislike Hillary over the Donald (They both have enough baggage to fill to fill a container ship). Then Trump can pull it off. Locally or coat tails? IMO? None.
    There is one thing for sure. There will be more cow manure slung in this race than there are cows in Texas.

  38. JMGavin says:

    The numbers are probably a good indicator of more “core” GOP voters vice Democrat voters, however, the Democrats also had a very good “Get Out The Vote” ground game for the general elections in 2008 and 2012. I don’t know that the Republicans can match that (or have even really tried).

  39. Charles Michael says:

    I was underlining the obvious conclusions: Trump has reached non-voters and Sanders has awaken a Big doubts in the Democrat base voters about the “left” leaning of HC.
    Some here seemed to have missed the point of these little known figures.
    And yes, considering the size and the importance of the USA, I not voting French, feel very concerned by what disasters Hillary Clinton could choose to bring about anywhere on the planet.
    Simply put: anybody but Hillary.

  40. Charles Michael says:

    Very well put.
    These figure shows a double trend that give Hope and Faith: about Charity I shall keep it for the probable victims of a HC revengeful presidency.

  41. Is my understanding correct that the Trump campaign largely broke?

  42. Amir says:

    I can assure you that the Sanders supporters will not AUTOMATICALLY vote for the Wolverine in Sheep’s Clothing. There is a movement of Progressives Against Clinton Dynasty in full swing and personality is not the only issue here.
    It is much easier to combat a wolf that one recognizes than one which is hidden in the herd and that is what distinguishes Trump from Hillary. Obviously, it is better to have the Herder Bernie but lacking that, the Wolverine should not expect support from the lambs.

  43. Freudenschade says:

    The best analysis I’ve seen on this is from Politico (yes, their opinion and reporting pieces are sometimes problematic, but their polling pieces are usually pretty solid). This article explains how the voters that trump has attracted are new to the primaries, but are, for the most part, reliable GOP voters in the general.

  44. Nana2007 says:

    Someone at black agenda report, I forget who, summed it up- this is the implosion of the gop. The dmob is holding steady. I was prepared for buckets of blood to rain down on the bright face above the stylish white Nehru caftan pantsuit whatever parading around morning tv today California blah blah…no dice.

  45. HankP says:

    The evidence seems to show that primary turnout is associated with how competitive the primary battle is, and doesn’t predict who will win in the general election.

  46. Nana2007 says:

    Thanks Herodotus, I was trying to think of a way how this was all democracy in action.

  47. elaine says:

    If the Republicans try any shenanigans @ the convention to usurp the will of
    the voters we will get 4 more years of whatever you want to call the last 8.

  48. I’m a Bernie Bro, and if he doesn’t win the nomination, I definitely plan to vote Jill Stein. Never Hellary!

  49. LondonBob says:

    Hillary is such a weak and uninspiring candidate the Democrat race became competitive the Republican one. In the end Trump comfortably won with the most votes in Republican history, despite being a political novice, having little campaign infrastructure, the special interest arrayed against him and a large competitive field. The problem for the media is I am guessing they are as highly disliked and distrusted as they are here in Britain, and there are just too many alternative options with the growth of the internet, for their attacks to work.
    In 08 Obama got a large number of black voters out for the first time and that carried over to the election. Trump has done the same with many blue collar white voters, that will also carry over. Trump still to win by 5 points, that disastrous jobs report last week is the first of many. Trump is correctly positioned on all the big issues.

  50. LeaNder says:

    If I recall correctly, BabelFish and you wrote, you’ll write in Bernie in November, on a different thread. That may have been before recent results came in.
    That would be an invalid vote. No?
    Over here it makes sense to vote for other then the two central parties, conservatives and social democrats, whatever that may mean today. Not least to sent signals concerning coalitions. But in the US it does not seem make any sense. In 2000 the Ralph Nader voters could have made a difference. Had they decided differently maybe, no Florida recount would have been necessary.

  51. LeaNder says:

    But how could it be ever more then symbol politics in the US?

  52. LeaNder says:

    good point, Fred.
    Over here in elections we are given trends or movements from one party to the other. Obviously it wouldn’t make sense to target specific groups considering the percentages. …
    Made me enter something in google and pick the first link that showed up. In other words random pick:
    Interesting is the non-Hispanic white election pattern. Not sure how that can fit in the first general trend, in which you see the general trend. kao seems our expert on that. But from the top of my head, a result of media attention?
    Second link Pew. Supposedly the most diverse electorate ever:
    And thus a target?
    I watched recent election coverage on C-Span. No idea how they choose the people calling in. But assuming it was first served first along party lines, lots of Trump supporters were black. Acoustically, if you wonder. Apparently, one was asked from the blue color section. Working in a shop. Satisfied with it, but worried.

  53. LeaNder says:

    Hadn’t been here, when I responded to Fred. But yes, identity politics have their limits. The rest is lazy thinking. More maybe misreading given numbers? Would it help to occasionally shake them up from a different angle?
    I have not really taken a serious look at US media around election, beyond Pat’s attention to it. But if the sample of black voters calling in as conservatives on C-Span, it may get even more complex. … Media reality versus their own?
    Besides, do either, democrats or GOP really care about small business?

  54. LeaNder says:

    Thanks for putting the “1 %” in question marks.
    A couple of days ago, I stumbled across a curious web site giving me Russian knowledge of a specific investment firm Lavrov indirectly referred to in an interview published on South Front. Someone around here linked to it …. Looking it up, I wound up on an apparently Rumanian website giving me a glimpse of Russia on matters. On Wikipedia I was informed that the investment fund, or its parent company, based in Cyprus at least at one point, among other matters, made a plus of an average of 250% each year. Now, someone has to pay for such gains. No? But there are fund or other leverage enterprises I encountered that are doing even better. And strictly, its a bit of a casino from my perspective. …
    In other words, and I hope you realize, I am babbling once again. The larger filter-down theory* in money may well be dead for longer now.
    * it feels there was a better term. Basically the idea that it doesn’t matter if the rich are rich, since after all it creates jobs on which people can survive.

  55. Colonel, the primary turnout doesn’t translate, necessarily, into a reliable indication of preferences in the general election. Over half of the GOP turnout was against Trump, but their candidates dropped out because Trump still maintained a plurality. The voter logic may change significantly for the general election.

  56. LeaNder says:

    she actually has less baggage than Sanders (she has never called herself a ‘democratic socialist’ so the Republicans can’t demonize her as a ‘commie’ or ‘socialist’)
    I did not get much of the Sanders campaign. But I vividly remember at one point I stumbled across a video that made me cringe. Full discovery: Sanders dancing among the kids. Nothing wrong with it, really. …
    What I wondered about at that point in time though, was exactly what you suggest above. How did the campaign deal with the “socialist” image campaign wise.
    I made a test once, on were would I be as American voter. Obviously got some Green results among others. The idea from looking at the results never left me.
    What would change if we could vote on issues of no matter what candidate instead of on parties?

  57. turcopolier says:

    Lee A. Arnold
    “not necessarily” is the operative phrase here. pl

  58. LeaNder says:

    The Clinton foundation stuff could be “Trump Change” …
    What would be of interest to foreign intelligence, US presidents money affairs and possible related corruption angles? Why do I doubt this? At least in a general way.

  59. jonst says:

    well, as long we are speculating, had their been no Joe L selected as VP–with all the profound policy implications that selection implied–there might have been no Nader running. Or, at a minimum, damn fewer Dems voting for Nader if he did run. We all have to live with our decisions.

  60. Bill Herschel says:

    Ah, exactly the point. It is way beyond weak. It’s nonsense. Utter nonsense.
    Sam Wang has pointed out that Trump had the nomination wrapped up in, probably December. It was never competitive. The question is, how did he do it?
    Well, look at what makes him stand out. It is only one thing: his opposition to foreign military adventure. The canary in the coal mine is the South Carolina primary, which just as easily been called the Qatar primary, except that the voters are Americans. South Carolina is as military a state as there is. It was supposed to worship Bush II.
    Trump trashed Bush III, saying that his mother would make a better candidate than him and trashed Bush II saying that he was one of the worst Presidents in history. And won the Primary going away.
    The Imperialists are terrified that Trump’s anti-war message will be heard. That is what makes any upcoming debates between Trump and Clinton so incredibly key. Because I assure you they will be forced to contain something about war. And Clinton has already staked out her position: all war all the time.
    If I were Trump, I would run the “We came, we saw, he died [giggle]” clip in continuous loop as my only ad in every media source in the nation from now until the election. Anyone who thinks the immature, uneducated, deluded, imperious [blank] in that clip should be President will get the President they deserve.

  61. MH says:

    One thing the MSM will not touch, because they believe to point it out makes them racist, but a lot of the groups counted on to vote for the Democrat candidate tend toward misogyny, or at viewing women as subordinate. Secondly, they tend to be materialistic and view someone as superior because of money and wealth (and ostentatiousness). This opinion is NOT one you will hear mentioned by the milquetoast political analysts so after the election you will hear contorted explanations of this phenomenon regarding the lack of support for Hillary support and/or the increased turnout for Trump.
    All that aside, this dude is 100% Teflon:
    Opinion: Big data reports Latino support for Trump on the rise at 37%
    By Lili Gil Valletta
    Published June 07, 2016
    Fox News Latino
    “But even with all this, after insulting women, attacking public figures, mistreating journalists, judging the judge and calling Mexicans criminals and rapists, his appeal is on the rise even among Hispanics.”

    Former Attorney General Gonzales says Trump has right to question judge’s objectivity

  62. LeaNder says:

    “Cultural Marxist trap”
    I may be one. Tell me, why I should be alienated by all means?
    A debate around here recently made me go back to:
    tell me what’s wrong with me. If I consider this text as one among others looking at history of its time. Not least Napoleon III and the 19th century. Actually.

  63. BrexitornottoBrexit says:

    Trump lacks the discipline to run in a general election. Its all about him – nothing else matters. For Larry Johnson to use the number of primary voters as a proxy for a general election is a sad read. He needs a lesson in basic statistics and current US demographics. I recommend checking out Sam Wang at He does a great job of running the numbers and projecting election outcomes. Most of the headlines in the daily news cycle are worthless – its all about the numbers.
    The republicans will likely lose the Senate. The current IL Senator already came out against Trump – be sure he is tracking the polls. Toomey is PA is at risk as well. Democratic voters came out enmass during the general election which tend to lift down ballot candidates.
    Trump is taking the mickey out of the republican electorate. In his last speech – someone shouted TPP. He replied PPP. No PeePee with a wink! To him its all a joke and he is probably shocked he got the nomination.
    As conservative voters it was inevitable we ended up with Trump. First it was the MBA President GW Bush, supposedly surrounded by an A list cabinet – we all know how that turned out. Then McCain thought it fit to nominate Sarah Palin as VP – an act so irresponsible its shocking. Read up on the shock McCain handlers had after interacting with Palin post nomination. Now we have Trump – hopefully its the logical conclusion and a new set leaders and approach can emerge.

  64. LeaNder says:

    The dmob is holding steady.
    and that is whom? Nana, “dmob”. DC mob?
    ideally you also tell me what made you coin this: Nehru caftan pantsuit. Politics reduced to something to something like family politics? And you choose one angle?
    Besides, will you vote in the US?

  65. NotTimothyGeithner says:

    Where would the GOP pick up seats? They blew the Democrats off the map. Nevada and Colorado are it for potential pick up opportunities, short of the Democrats completely falling apart which is a possibility.

  66. notlurking says:

    Oh yea….the Bush destruction was a sight to see…left a lot of jaws dropping….loved every minute of it….damn neo-cons.

  67. Larry Kart says:

    From the numbers-crunching site that BrexitornottoBrexit referred to above:
    “In every state in which Trump is ahead, Romney won in 2012. And in every state in which Clinton is ahead, Obama won in 2012 (except for Arizona, where the current median polling margin is quite narrow, at Clinton +1.5%). For now, the 2012 map basically applies. It is highly premature to claim that either candidate is doing differently from his/her party four years ago.”

  68. LeaNder says:

    jonst, basically, it wasn’t my intention to blame Nader voters for the aftermath. In case you thought it was. Notice I did only pay closer attention to US elections after 9/11.
    Joe Lieberman?
    notice no fan of his, no doubt based on a highly limited grasp, but what are you indicating? Voters for Nader were clairvoyants, both concerning Lieberman, and that he would have ensured the same politics as George W.? Or do I misread you?

  69. Fred says:

    “look at what makes him stand out. It is only one thing: his opposition to foreign military adventure.”
    No. Try immigration.

  70. Edward Amame says:

    Yeah, GOP turnout is up and Dem turnout is down in the 2016 primaries. I’m not sure what exactly to read into that except to note that 2008 was an outlier and obviously had to do with a historic election. Johnson makes an odd observation about the primaries numbers. The numbers are correct, but data from the last 40 years says there’s absolutely no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. The “screeching bitch” comment tells me that Larry’s got a touch of HRC Derangement Syndrome and it affected his analysis.

  71. Edward Amame says:

    Hmmm. I guess there are duelling Fox News polls. This is from May 20th.
    “Latinos overwhelmingly support Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to a Fox News Latino poll released on Friday.
    The poll found that 62 percent of registered Latino voters would head to the ballot box for Clinton in November, while only 23 percent would support Trump on Election Day – a finding that many experts say is not surprising given the two candidates’ differing stances on issues important to Latinos.”

  72. Will Reks says:

    Yes, I agree that Silver like most other mainstream pundits ignored what the polls were saying all along and let his personal bias against Trump convince him that he could never win.
    In any case, the article does address, at length, why there won’t necessarily be a correlation between higher turnout in the primaries and winning the Presidency.

  73. Erika says:

    It was announced a few weeks ago, that if Trump is elected, Ivanka would run the business.

  74. jld says:

    If I were Trump, …
    Didn’t need Trump to be be already done.

  75. jonst says:

    It did not take much clairvoyance to grasp what policies Lieberman would embrace. Had been advocating said same for years Neo-con (and aggressive one at that when it came to total support for Israel) foreign policy. And attacks on social security and medicare. Now, many people thought, and think now, these were wise policies. Fine. But many Dems did not. Thought them an abandonment of FDR’s prime legacy. They read Gore’s selection of him at a signal. They may have sent a signal back to Gore. Not saying it was a wise, or unwise decision but Gore has to bear some responsibility for it.

  76. turcopolier says:

    will reks et al
    Inform me as to what the basics of statistics are of which Larry Johnson is ignorant. pl

  77. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I don’t think the problem is the “statistics” per se, but the political process that generates the numbers.
    1. The seeming lack of competitiveness on the Democratic side meant that the amount of effort that went into mobilizing voters, by all sides, was limited in aggregate. Compared to more than a dozen, at least at the beginning, on the Republican side, there were realistically only two on the Democratic side and one of them, HRC, for most of the time, was deemed a foregone conclusion. Except for the period when it seemed relatively realistic that Sanders might upstage HRC, Democratic voters were motivated much less by a desire to affect the outcome but either enthusiasm for either candidate (which was sorely lacking for HRC), or a desire to raise a voice even if it had little chance at changing the outcome. This does not necessarily run counter to your interpretation, but it does suggest that mobilization effort probably was generally more limited (due to less politicians doing the mobilizing) and had less impact on the Democratic side (as voters had less motive to participate in primaries).
    2. On the Republican side, a lot of “new” voters voted against Trump–as far as I can tell, they were split more or less 50-50 between anti- and pro-Trump voters. At least as far as the primaries are concerned, Trump’s entry seems to have energized the various defenders of the GOP status quo to redouble their mobilization effort (and energize the defenders of the status quo) as much bringing out those against them. It is not obvious, especially given the mixed signals coming out of GOP leaders, that the voters that they brought out to the polls would necessarily stay around to support Trump beyond “normal,” and possibly, might even suppress the turnout if the defenders of status quo stay away from the ballot box.
    The real indicator of the anger against the status quo, I think, are the voters mobilized by Sanders. There was no business that the Democrats should have drawn as many voters as they did in the primary process was designed as a boring coronation process for HRC. While Trump did tap into some of the anger against SQ, the increase in GOP turnout reflects not only his supporters, but the defenders of the status quo, or the many different stati quo, that different regular GOP factions drew out.

  78. Will Reks says:

    Why would I do that? Larry Johnson is not wrong about the pure numbers regarding the primary turnout. I don’t know what any of it means with regards to what could happen in November.
    I provided a link simply because it was the only one I could find that explored the issue from another side.

  79. Larry Kart says:

    Colonel — It’s not a matter of “the basics of statistics” and Larry Johnson’s ignorance or knowledge of same; it’s a matter of how to interpret specific sets of U.S. electoral statistics (in this case, numbers of primary voters versus numbers of voters in a general election). The not unfamiliar site that Edward Amame refers to above:
    interprets those things differently than Johnson does and offers a fair amount of evidence to support its/their interpretation. We shall see who was better at reading electoral tea leaves.

  80. robt willmann says:

    The campaign finance picture of the candidates is very interesting. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has financial information through the end of April, and other filings currently. The website has kind of an awkward design, but on the search page, you type in the name of the candidate or principal campaign committee or other committee–
    Under the candidate’s name, you can see the financial summaries and their non-financial filings. The financial reports themselves are under the name of the principal campaign committee: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; Bernie 2016; Cruz for President; Hillary for America. Information on other authorized committees is under the name of the committee: Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary Action Fund, and Trump Victory and Trump Make American Great Again Committee. There are tabs on the web page of each person or committee for a two-year summary, report summaries, and filings.
    The two-year summaries for April 1/2 2015 through April 2016 are a good start. Some interesting numbers, without noting offsets, refunds, etc., are–
    Donald Trump
    Individual contributions: $13,961,026
    Contributions by the candidate: $350,182
    Loans: $43,454,544
    Transfers from authorized committees: $0
    Total received: $58,955,593
    Total spent: $56,546,951
    Cash on hand: $2,408,641
    Hillary Clinton
    Individual contributions: $187,975,837
    Contributions by the candidate: $796,562
    Loans: $0
    Transfers from authorized committees: $16,690,000
    Total received: $211,785,480
    Total spent: $181,628,548
    Cash on hand: $30,156,932
    Bernard Sanders
    Individual contributions: $209,066,114
    Contributions by the candidate: $0
    Loans: $0
    Transfers from authorized committees: $1,500,000
    Total received: $212,714,294
    Total spent: $206,917,100
    Cash on hand: $5,796,718
    Ted Cruz
    Individual contributions: $89,464,195
    Contributions by the candidate: $0
    Loans: $0
    Transfers from authorized committees: $250,012
    Total received: $89,959,571
    Total spent: $80,556,557
    Cash on hand: $9,403,014
    Hillary has actually done more out-of-pocket self-funding than Donald, but he has loaned his campaign $43+ million. However, we do not know if the money Trump loaned his campaign came out of his pocket, or whether it was from money he had on hand that he borrowed from somewhere at a very low interest rate and used some of it to loan to his campaign. I have not tried to look at the morass of the campaign finance laws to see what is said about loans to campaigns and any tracing; maybe he cannot used borrowed money from somewhere else to loan to his campaign.
    Neither Sanders nor Cruz filed for any “authorized committees” in addition to their principal campaign committee. Trump did not either, until the last couple of weeks. Hillary set up her additional Hillary Victory Fund in September 2015, and yesterday added the Hillary Action Fund.
    Hillary’s Victory Fund is a “joint fundraising representative” with some organizations of the Democratic Party in a lot of states. You can see that detail through the ‘filings’ tab on the page for the Hillary Victory Fund in the “statement of organization”. You can also see her “lobbyist bundling report” for the first quarter of this year. Her newly formed Hillary Action Fund is also a joint fundraising representative, with the DNC Services Corporation / Democratic National Committee.
    Trump is now doing the same thing. His newly formed Trump Victory authorized committee is a joint fundraising representative with some Republican party organizations in some states. The Trump Make American Great Again Committee is a joint fundraising representative with the Republican National Committee!
    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
    Meanwhile, earlier today, president Barack Obama endorsed Hillary for president. No surprise there. This means no criminal charges will be brought by the Justice Department against Hillary for any crimes related to classified information through her personal e-mail server and Blackberry device, nor for any crimes involving the Clinton Foundation and its related organizations.
    Thus, it is time for all “leakers” and whistleblowers in the FBI and elsewhere to dust off their old notes from counter-surveillance class, and practice with one-time pads and other techniques to avoid detection when informing the public about the many faces of Clinton misconduct.

  81. How did Trump meeting with Republican money brokers go?

  82. Bill Herschel says:

    Absolutely not. His competitors on the Republican side were driven crazy on immigration, so, on the one hand, he is a typical Republican and on the other any Republican would have opposed Clinton on immigration. Sure he said Mexicans are rapists and murderers and he wants to build a wall, but the other Republicans want the same thing, they just aren’t as demonstrative.

  83. Bill Herschel says:

    That must immediately be made into a Trump ad. Where are they? Get intelligent now!

  84. turcopolier says:

    larry kart
    So, this is a question of political clairvoyance. pl

  85. MRW says:

    A Kasich/Nikki Haley ticket would destroy Clinton in November.
    Not a chance.
    You make the same mistake politicians and journalists have made for the last eight years: ignoring the people hurt by the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008; moreover, callously dismissing what actually happened to them.
    You think this election is about politics. As if anyone gave a damn about what’s honorable or not in placing their vote. The common folk could not give a shit about political platitudes and the same policy wonk horseshit and pugilistic “fighting for you” stances of She Who Wants To Have More Balls Than You. (Hillary dances around the political canvas screaming Put Up Your Dukes. But she doesn’t have basic training. She doesn’t understand how federal monetary transactional accounting works. She wants to put her husband back in charge of the economy. He caused The Great Recession, delayed seven years by the dotcom and housing bubbles. And she doesn’t know it. Case closed for her fitness to be president.)
    The people voting for Trump want jobs. They don’t have the time, or the luxury of engaging in local political fights to correct the situation. They’re working two jobs, sometimes three. They have families. There aren’t enough hours in the day with meals and Little League and getting to work and sleeping.
    So get off your perch and recognize the reality of people who want someone who can take the fight off their backs. Who can represent them to get things back to normal.
    Kasich/Nikki Haley? in your dreams.

  86. MRW says:

    Correct, LeaNder.

  87. Walker says:

    Wasn’t the last election in Florida the one in which polling places, especially in poor neighborhoods, were overwhelmed, forcing people to stand in line for hours to vote? Wasn’t it the place where the early voting period disproportionately used by African-American voters was drastically shortened?
    I would go a little more easy there on your fellow citizens.

  88. robt willmann says:

    Well, I cannot spell correctly today. Trump’s new authorized committee is: Trump Make America Great Again Committee.

  89. MRW says:

    Thanks, robt willmann, for this.

  90. MRW says:

    Then McCain thought it fit to nominate Sarah Palin as VP – an act so irresponsible its shocking.
    Actually it was Bill Kristol, as spokesman for McCain’s donors, who picked and insisted upon Palin. Little known.

  91. MRW says:

    The Andrew Jackson election was worse than this.

  92. MRW says:

    Doesn’t matter. Adelson is waiting in the wings with $100 million.

  93. MRW says:

    On Florida: Trump’s wall, immigration policies, and rhetoric are ant-Mexican. They are NOT anti-Latino. To reason otherwise is to fall into a Cultural Marxist trap.
    I agree.
    neither Cubans nor Puerto Ricans feel much affinity with Mexicans and certainly do not like to be lumped together with them.
    Ditto Hondurans, Venezuelans, Costa Ricans, Guatemalans. Lumping Central American countries and peoples together and assuming they think unilaterally is the great American journalistic fallacy of the 20th C, obviously carried forward into this century. We are famous for ignoring cultural realities. No different than what the Colonel encountered when he explained Arabic psychology to Dennis Ross. That’s why our leaders tell themselves stories straight out of Mother Goose.

  94. MRW says:

    Yeah, especially that time when Jeb Bush pushed his mother:
    “I’m sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive in my mind,” Jeb said.
    “While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I’m proud of what he did.” … “He had the gall to go after my mother. My mother is the strongest woman I know.”
    Mr Trump responded: “She should be running.”

  95. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Larry Kart, et al,
    The bloom has come off of the rose for 538, as Mr. Silver was so-o-o in the tank for Hillary that he missed the breadth, depth and vehemence of the Sanders uprising. Where we Sanders voters next go will depend upon various factors, many of them yet to be revealed.
    From the evidence of Ozero’s endorsement of Hillary, and… Well, let me just drop this quote from a poster at another website with its included link:
    Jim Haygood
    June 9, 2016 at 3:54 pm
    An obvious question:
    White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that President Obama’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton will not “sway” the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton.
    The statement came after Obama released a video endorsing Clinton for president of the United States.
    Later this afternoon, according to the White House, Obama is meeting with the attorney general. The meeting is “closed press.”
    The topic of Obama’s closed door meeting with Lynch has not been made public.
    Earnest made the statement in response to questioning from Fox News’ James Rosen.
    DUH … meeting with the AG the same day he put his presidential credibility on the line for Hillary?
    You don’t need a PhD — or even a third brain cell — to figure out what’s going down here.
    Obviously, there’s a special “Justice Department Pre-Check” program for trusted transgressors. And you and I ain’t in it.
    *hurls lunch on his valuable rug*
    So, yeah, Ozero is going full cover-up here, and this is one of those developing stories that may have a lot to say about the way Sanders voters, not to mention the rest of the electorate will go. But I’ve gotta say, the stink coming off of this well-nigh simultaneous endorsement, and the unsubtle, ham-handed signing that the fix is well and truly in on the email thing will not endear him or Hillary to anyone who is watching.
    As to Hillary’s Email Hairball, Lambert Strether over at Naked Capitalism, at readers’ requests, marshaled what he thought were the best summations, timelines, and interpretations of this situation. I will copy and paste this list of links here for your exploration, should you be so inclined:
    Clinton Email Hairball
    These are the long-form sources I’ve found most useful on Clinton’s email. Since it looks like that simmering scandal is about to have the lid blown off, one way or another, readers can familiarize themselves with the issues using them:
    1. “Do I Really Need to Worry About Hillary’s Emails? Yes. She Will Be Indicted. (Full Form)” [Informed Vote][ A former policy debater takes up every possible argument from both sides with evidence. Impressive.
    2. “The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline [Thompson Timeline][ This is not simply a graphical timeline, but a ginormous aggregation of links and quotes that you can navigate chronologically.
    3. “Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down” [LawNewz][ Shorter, but from the heart of the establishment. I would bet that every worker bee in Washington that has read this agrees with it. The implication is that if Clinton is elected, she will be impeached. And rightly.
    Now, as to one of the strongest components of Mr. Trump’s electorate, the white working class, there is this perceptive post from a few months back from Ian Welsh:
    If this group’s votes, along with those of their family members can be counted upon come November, and the general revulsion against the Bi-Coastal Snots can be stoked to a fever pitch, I don’t think that Mr. Trump can be counted out. I am not sure that the country wants to perpetuate the Ozero Legacy – and likely hyper-empower its bloody-minded adherence to war-mongering – by choosing Hillary. She and Billy Bob Clinton are closely associated with the ravages of NAFTA (and clever Hillary wants to put HIM in charge of reviving the economy that he is largely responsible for destroying in the first place?), and the craven toadying to Wall Street. And dollar to a donut, once installed, Hillary would work like a little beaver for the passage of further “trade treaties”. And what’s not to like about the dilution of national sovereignty, export of still more jobs, and strengthening the grip of trans-national corporations over us all that such would entail? Now there are some strong selling points, eh?
    And this just in, further evidence that Hillary is joined at the hip to the rise and empowerment of the Security State:
    The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House
    Wow, I just can’t wait to have her follow through on her promise of “Working for You”. It’ll be just like all of that Hope and Change, no doubt. [I didn’t fall for that myself, voting neither time for Ozero.]

  96. Medicine Man says:

    It was striking how many political pundits were absolutely wedded to the Party Decides/Invisible Primary thesis when it has been becoming increasingly clear that Citizen’s United has robbed the RNC of its ability to exert discipline. I guess it still wasn’t obvious that this year was going to be the tipping point, but oh well.

  97. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Joe Lieberman was already well-known as a champion of interventionist-freetrade-probusiness policy. The choice of him as the VP nominee did not exactly inspire much trust among the left-of-center folk in terms of which direction Gore was trying to move, even without any clairvoyance. While there were a lot of talk about how things might have been different had Gore been elected in 2000, with someone like Lieberman at the heart of power, there’s no telling if Gore would have been any different from Bush in the aftermath of 9/11.

  98. Medicine Man says:

    It is hard to interpret the primary vote totals without some kind of secondary identification to work with. We don’t know, for instance, how many of the primary voters in the Republican contests were new voters verses reliable Republican (general election) voters who decided to vote in the primaries this time. Moreover, we don’t know how many of those primary voters were motivated to join in order to vote against Trump. I notice that he got 67% of the vote in California running essentially unopposed; I know Cali is a heavy mail ballot state but I still wonder.
    There are similar questions on the Dem side. Sanders’ voters are not all political virgins either. Some of them are reliable Dem voters who prefer Sanders over Clinton. Others I’m sure are new voters or perhaps former Ron Paul devotees. Not all of those numbers are going to go to Clinton (or Trump either, I imagine).
    Political Clairvoyance, as you say, at least absent some more data.

  99. kao_hsien_chih says:

    A significant vote share for a small, allegedly hopeless party can seriously affect the outcome of an election, especially in a country with a winner-take-all electoral system like the U.S. That kind of election has taken place repeatedly in Canada, most spectacularly in 1993 when the PCP went from the majority party in the Parliament to mere two seats in a single election, as consequence of losing about 15-20% of the votes: even if you get 30% of the votes, if you come in second place everywhere, you get nothing.
    There is a naive (and arrogant) belief that voters would not want to put up with 4 years (or 8 years) of whoever just to send a message. Personally, I think that’s insulting and patronizing. If American democracy is stable enough, 4 or 8 years of Trump might be worth the gamble to get the politicians to take a closer look at themselves. If it is so unstable that a Trump poses a mortal threat thereto, then I wouldn’t think someone weaselly like the Clintons can fix it anyways. I certainly don’t want to be bullied and blackmailed by a Napoleon III wannabe in pantsuit.
    Keeping democracy is worth a Trump.

  100. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I suspect that by “dmob” she(?) means the Democratic Party. As for me, I don’t think it is all that steady.

  101. Tyler says:

    No No NO.
    I can tell you that the Republicans paid lip service to “immigration restriction” but every single one of them was in the bag for more H1B visas, more Muslim immigration, and more “free trade deals” that killed American jobs. Trump kicked the Overton Window on immigration so hard and fast that it gave everyone a conniption.
    I am not being nasty here, but you are literally delusional if you think its foreign policy and not immigration that is the deciding factor for most Americans.

  102. Tyler says:

    Not sure how many of you are following social media but Trump is going ABSOLUTELY SAVAGE on Hillary between their twitter exchange and Trump posting Obama quotes on Hillary from 2008.
    Jeb! was supposed to lose gracefully to Hillary so she could lead this country into a progressive nightmare but Trump is wrecking that plan.
    I know some of you don’t like Trump being savage, but the fact is that him being strong is only helping him carry more of the lumpenproles. You can get upset at Trump on Twitter, fine. But no foreigners waving foreign flags are going to be chasing down and attacking US citizens while the police stand by giggling during a Trump Presidency.
    As the Crusader said in Indiana Jones: “Choose wisely.”

  103. kooshy says:

    I just got home and herd on TV that Bernie basically folded. Wish he would have continued. the continued attack on Trump is larger than what I expected. Borg is going all the way unfortunately I don’t see if he can survive IMO this level at this time it’s unprecedented. unfortunately and wrongly, Clinton’s have a lot of political power.

  104. Bill Herschel says:

    We shall see whether immigration is the deciding factor for most Americans. Emphasis most. But how can you say I am delusional when you yourself admit that the other Republican candidates “paid lip service” to immigration restriction? That’s what I said. Trump is a Republican candidate. He just happens to deal in hyperbole, but the policies he espouses on immigration are Republican policies.
    We shall also see, if there is a open debate, whether Trump’s ideas on foreign policy are a deciding factor for most Americans. The six degrees of separation from war are getting closer and closer for most Americans. Trump trashed McCain and won South Carolina. I daresay a lot of heads turned inside the Beltway when that happened.

  105. Castellio says:

    With respect, its not that the Clintons have a lot of power: its that they know where the power is.
    The owners of large media have enormous power, and they are integrated with the owners and beneficiaries of huge Pentagon budgets and constant foreign concerns. Who are entirely integrated with the largest banks.
    Those who have power have chosen Clinton, and Hillary, like Bill, will pretend she is other than who she is, because that is the awe-inspiring skillset the two of them have been working on their entire adult lives.

  106. Bill Herschel says:

    In general, I think the number crunchers are disregarding the campaign. The campaign is supposed to make a difference. Advertising campaigns for example make a difference.

  107. Nana2007 says:

    Right, demoblicans.
    I like a Nehru jacket.
    There are too many angles. She looked a bit like a cult leader to me. Shades of Jim Jones and the homecoming scene in Carrie.
    Also, I sense that she’s been spending a great deal of time with Deepak Chopra, along with the largest army of PR experts the world has ever seen.
    Are you German? I don’t know that I’ll be voting in November.

  108. Fred says:

    “chump change” is an American expression meaning something costs almost nothing – coins in your pocket . Trump’s a billionaire, thus Trump change is allot of money – and money, lots of it, is just what the Clinton Foundation brought in – for what, other than peddling influence.

  109. Tyler,
    I just checked out Trump’s twitter feed. I wasn’t any more impressed by his tweets than I was by the other candidates. I don’t see the savagery. He’s got to get past the generic “crooked Hillary is a poop butt” stuff and keep hitting her many specific sins. Lord knows he has plenty of ammo. I’m sure the Clinton machine is going to be pushing out countless ads detailing Trump’s many sins. The newest story about deadbeat DonaldTrump stiffing small businesses left and right gives ammo for several ads.
    “Choose wisely” indeed. I feel like one of those dung beetles I wrote about a while back. Which shit ball should I choose?

  110. Jack says:

    If anyone wants to forecast the outcome in November they need to forecast who wins in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. Add Michigan and Pennsylvania as they could be competitive too.
    As I noted earlier on this thread, whoever wins will do it with an electoral college landslide. So, the key IMO, is which way these states go as I believe either Hillary or Trump will win all these states. I don’t believe they will split the results. Since I can’t abide the Borg Queen…. My vote is inconsequential as my state currently only elects a candidate with DEM beside their name, which gives me the opportunity to vote my conscience as I have for decades. I have never voted for the candidate from the duopoly for President.

  111. NYTimes has an interesting discussion in today’s paper [June10th] on a possible Trump victory through white voters voting this year. The underlying postulate of the article is white turnout in past elections according to exit polls often inaccurate. And past efforts to analyze white voter turnout favoring DEMS was erroneous.

  112. Jack says:

    I live in a Democrat majority state, so most of my family, friends and neighbors are Democrats. I’m a registered non-partisan. In the primary this week, all my family, friends and neighbors who I know voted in the Democrat primary, colored the oval beside Bernie. The overwhelming ratio of Bernie bumper stickers and yard signs compared to Hillary was so noticeable. Yet, she won my county with a sizeable margin. No one in my circle knows anyone that voted for her. So, we are not in the mainstream of the county. I am curious who are these Hillary voters?
    My own feeling is that the majority of Bernie voters will vote for Hillary in November as they are Democrat partisans.
    As far as the law is concerned, Clapper and Alexander skated with no charge. And Petraeus got a slap on his wrist. So the probability that the Borgist DoJ will hold the Borg Queen accountable under the law is so low that it is laughable. It’s gonna come down to if Trump can persuade more people in the battleground states to come out and pull the lever for him compared to her.

  113. MRW says:

    You’re back! YAY. (Even tho’ I disagree with you on a lot of stuff, mainly economic. Glad to see you back here.)

  114. David says:

    Hillary Clinton as a Napoleon III wannabe is both
    scary and plausible. I can see her goading Putin
    the way Napoleon III goaded Bismarck with consequences even more disastrous.

  115. LondonBob says:

    Anti Trump voters would have voted for Trump’s closet rival in each state, very few did so so one can infer there are very few Republican anti-Trump voters. People voting for Kasich or Rubio clearly weren’t fussed if Trump won, common fallacy where there are multiple candidates that anyone not voting for one candidate is necessarily anti that candidate.
    However there is good evidence of Democrats voting against Trump in some of the open primaries, notably Wisconsin and Ohio.

  116. Old Microbiologist says:

    I’m no fan of any of them but I think you have some of this correct. One problem for all is none of the candidates are representing who they say they are. Trump is not a Republican and in fact is far left of the moderate Democrats, Sanders as an Independent is not a Democrat and is also left of the neoliberal Democrats, Clinton, who claims to be a Democrat is actually a dyed-in-the-wool neocon Republican and is far Right of the moderate Republicanns. What is weird is we expect 2 members of the 0.1% club to fix our issues.
    If we examine foreign policy Trump is the best choice, assuming he applies business sense to these nutty adventures. For Domestic problems Trump again has the right ideas to limit immigration, kill the foreign trade deals and bring both the money and jobs back home. Hillary will continue to do the same and will use WWIII as the mechanism to avoid another economic catastrophe. The people are not fooled at all about unemployment or the potential for future employment. They are not fooled about zer percent inflation while seeing prices continually going up. But, these people generally don’t vote or even care. They are burnt out and it will require a major cataclysm to wake the up. In that regard Hillary will be the fastest course to a real revolution assuming the human race survives her gambits against Russia, China, Iran, EU, Pakistan, Venezuela, etc.

  117. rjj says:

    comments suggest for some the franchise is another opportunity for self-display (like vanity license plates) and this expression indulgence has priority over considerations of risk, policy, damage limitation, and survival.

  118. Fred says:

    Regarding the dung beettle election we just have to decide which ball of marde will fertilize the magic mushrooms and which the truffles.

  119. Larry Kart says:

    “So, this a question of political clairvoyance?”
    If I could modify your “clairvoyance,” with its suggestion of ectoplasm and seances, to something like “disinterested (one hopes) interpretation of electoral statistics in the light of past results,” could it be a question of anything else?
    Larry Johnson points to a set of facts and asks if they’re “meaningless,” pretty clearly implying that he thinks they’re not meaningless at all but that they instead tell us that the Democrats are in big trouble versus Trump. Others here have pointed to others out there who interpret the same set of facts differently — those “others out there” citing evidence (or what in their view is evidence) that the number of voters who participate in each party’s presidential primaries has not in the past necessarily predicted how many people will vote for each party’s candidate in the fall. Johnson might turn out to be right about what the facts he cites say about this fall’s election, or these other people might be right. Is there some conceptual or rhetorical problem at work here that I’m not aware of?

  120. Tyler says:

    I’m specifically talking about his response to her “delete your account” tweet. That and the adverts with Obama quotes from 2008 about her.
    I’m not sure how you get two balls of dung when the options are “start a hot war with Russia and import billions of violent foreigners” or “golden age of peace and prosperity” (or at least “isn’t looking to start 7 wars and import all the refugees in order to create a permanent majority for their party”) but perspective is everything.

  121. Tyler says:

    Thanks. Here’s an exclusive picture of my face upon returning:

  122. LeaNder says:

    jonst, i had second thought already yesterday, had I walked in your shoes, I obviously would have been aware much earlier. Thus yes, I easy to imagine I had been in the same fix. Lieberman has left no big traces on mind, nothing seemingly to support in him anyway.
    Apart maybe that Lieber+Mann*, and it’s respective variants always triggers a kind/dear man, since that is what it means in German. But that’s not really a solid base for political support,
    * Max Liebermann
    Love this. original in Berlin slang, I cannot render:
    „Ick kann jar nich soville fressen, wie ick kotzen möchte.“
    But here goes: I cannot eat as much, as I wanna puke.

  123. LeaNder says:

    Thanks kao, would you believe me, I immediately regretted having used the term. But as it is, it was once again, too late. Sometimes my fingers are faster then my small brain’s processing speed. Maybe I need more sports among others, give up several vices, sleep more. 😉
    Hopefully you realize that a babbler image sometimes comes in handy?
    When it was too late and after reading jonst’s response, I spent some time meditating about my reading lists of the last decade, strictly from the run up to the Iraq war. Including different angles I needed for balancing (hmm? balance …). One important mental oasis was taken over at one point in time. Someone I respected highly ‘seemed’ to be lured into a trap. That’s what it looked like. I am willing to modify this take, but not give it up completely, considering the lady involved in matters and what I realized about her after.
    Beyond that, I may have resigned quite some time ago to the vision of seeing Tyler stride the comment section of SST, head up high. Benignly allowing the ones with the lower IQ’s, like me, to applaud his victory over evil around November.
    But Bernie seems to be an obstinate bastard, well one has a bit of responsibility for ones supporter. No?

  124. LeaNder says:

    Some good, white or gray or evil black System/IT force seems/may have prevented me from responding to your comment.
    Somewhat sad, I enjoyed writing it. Which does not guarantee, I still like it once it shows up.
    In any case, I made a screenshot since I never before encountered the phenomenon, visually.

  125. Old Microbiologist says:

    For the enjoyment of those, like myself, who dislike the Clinton Dynasty Hilthis sums up my feeelings as well:

  126. LeaNder says:

    kao, I distinctively dislike the use of woman’s history to one’s own advantage. I may dislike aspects of it groupwise/collectively. Your own and/or your groups aim may blind you to that of others.
    What almost made me puke, was the idea–no matter what speech writer committed this crime–to link female suffrage to the birth of her mother and obviously that way make it personally. Linking it all to herself as the star to rise. I read some articles of female supporters and it made me equally sick.
    Did she offer any distinguishing approach, that would justify such an approach or angle beyond pure PR? If so, I cannot see it.
    I responded along the same way you did, concerning Trump, by the way, via some type of aside concerning recent ban demands. In a response to your support to jonst above. Not sure if it was sent. Visually odd result, after pushing the sent button.

  127. Edward Amame says:

    Never Hellary means absolutely Trump. That worked out really well for Never Gore-Yes Nader people, didn’t it?

  128. Edward Amame says:

    Do you really think Trump’s gonna tweet his way into the WH? Do you think outsourcing fundraising, rapid-response, and GOTV to the same GOP establishment that so dislikes him is a winning strategy?

  129. Edward Amame says:

    Sanders didn’t fold. He ran a good campaign and will continue on until after the Wash DC primary. After that it looks like he’ll stump for HRC. Meanwhile I expect that he’ll continue to build his movement and continue moving the Democrats more to the left.

  130. rjj says:

    or depending on point of view ….
    am stretching above links to fit here. it was actually evoked by a WaPo headline taunting Trump’s vanishing lead but the Google news link to story has itself disappeared.

  131. Tyler says:

    And all the Republicans but Trump were still in the bag for h1Bs, more “refugee resettlement” scams more free trade.
    Trump was to the right of them, and he got the nod on this.
    It’s immigration.

  132. Tyler says:

    No, I think the people are going to choose being a country over a 3rd World Bazaar cum sewer.
    Do you think Hillary is going to shrew her way into the WH with the support of militant trannies and bicoastal elites? Lawl

  133. Tyler says:

    OM and the rest of you,
    When someone describes “Hispanics” as a bloc or thinks Mexicans are representative of everyone south of the border, I know they have only met professional Hispanics and have no clue what they are talking about.
    A Chilean is not a Mexican is not a Cuban is not a Honduran is not a Columbian.

  134. Tyler says:

    Claiming anyone has “derangement syndrome” while linking to Nate Silver, who raped his credibility by refusing to think Trump had a chance.
    My sides are dying.

  135. BrexitornottoBrexit says:

    But Trump is not campaigning. Sending insult tweets and calling in shows is not campaigning.
    You need a ground game and money to run and win elections and Trump has shown repeatedly he had no interest in doing both.

  136. Medicine Man says:

    And now Bill Kristol is a leading voice in the #NeverTrump wing of the GOP on the grounds that he’s unsuitable for the job. I’m sure the only way Bloody Bill can function is by having no hindsight whatsoever. He’s the perfect poster boy for lack of professional consequences for incompetence in Washington.

  137. Castellio says:

    If he stumps for Hillary, then he folded.

  138. HawkOfMay says:

    I’ve enjoyed playing with this tool from fivethirtyeight.
    There are a couple of things working against Trump. One is, as a percentage of the voting public, whites will drop from 71% to 69%. The other is the white support he is getting is not strongest where he really needs it.
    I have to agree with others in the opinion that the turn out in the Republic primaries will not have a huge effect on the general election. Competition drove the turn out for the various Republican primaries. For all the noise that Sanders made he never got past the early coronation that Hillary received. Who even remembers O’Malley? On the Republican side there were at one time 16 candidates (the number dropped to 12 before the primaries). The race remained highly competitive for a long time. To support that particular argument I will point out that Republic primary turn out dropped by 50% after Trump won the nomination.
    One of the most important indicators for a Trump supporter was asking do you agree with this statement: “People Like Me Don’t Have Any Say”. In the Democratic primaries very few folks outside the Bernie supporters felt they would have a voice in the final outcome of who the Democratic nominee would be. That is bound to suppress turnout. (The Democrats may regret that…).
    Having said all that I need to close with my own personal opinion. If you look at Trump’s history, his actions and not his words, he has never done anything that didn’t benefit Trump first. He is a master of manipulating the media. Even if he isn’t as dangerous as I think he is; he priming the public for a future demagogue.

  139. Old Microbiologist says:

    I didn’t mention Hispanics but personally, to me they are simply other language speaking Caucasians. Whether they are Mexican or not is immaterial. Being illegal is the issue and failing to obey immigration laws is the problem. I am against all illegal immigrants as we have an effective immigration policy which only good people (desirable immigrants with resources! education, and negative background checks), consider worth following. Rewarding bad behavior is not the answer.
    The flood of immigrants is just beginning and it is imperative to put controls in place now before the real deluge begins.

  140. MRW says:

    Poster boy ? Understatement, Medicine Man.

  141. MRW says:

    Don’t you find those tiger skins chafing after hours in the saddle?

  142. Nana2007 says:

    I’ve noticed the same trend in other comments sections- those of this type may be suffering from a mental disorder in which the personal notoriety of being contrarian matters more to them than any harm they might do to the safety and stability we all depend upon.

  143. Tyler says:

    I’m more mocking the tendency of the cucked GOP to imagine that you can pretend everyone in Latin America has the same desires as their Mexican gardener,

  144. Tyler says:

    The tears I collect around here soothe my inner thighs.

  145. Tyler says:


  146. different clue says:

    Bill Herschel,
    Perhaps the Republican and other voters-for-Trump hope that Trump actually means what he says about illegal immigration. These voters know that the Brand-Name Republican candidates also say something sorta similar, but they suspect the Brand-Name Republican candidates really don’t mean it and really never did.

  147. Edward Amame says:

    Silver’s not the only one who’s noticed that primary turnout probably won’t mean much for the general election:

  148. Edward Amame says:

    Last week should have been all about the IG’s report, but instead it was about a “Mexican judge” and Trump’s subsequent slide in the polls. I think it’s gonna be a tough election, but with help like that, I think HRC can pull it off.
    That’s some non-reply. You probably already know that most big GOP donors don’t intend to piss their money away on Trump and are instead concentrating on congressional and state races. That’s probably why you and Trump are chatting up the awesome power of his terrifying tweets. Trump’s post-Mexican judge polling slump also suggests that you may be be overestimating exactly how much appeal Trump’s nativism has with “the people” who aren’t die hard GOPers who supported him in the primary.

  149. Bobo says:

    What happened last night in Yuma with the CBP Officer and is it true he was alone?

  150. Tyler says:

    From the same fish wrap that told us a gorillion times how Trump isn’t going to be the nominee.
    Yes, *this* time the experts are right. My sides are still dying.

  151. Tyler says:

    You gotta be kidding me. Like the media was ever going to report anything substantive about HRC’s violation of national security beyond “uh yeah there’s some report out let’s turn to our former clinton staffer to tell us how little we should care about them”.
    Trump’s “slide” is margin of error level stuff after Hillary had the AP carry her water by harassing super delegates (bet Priebus wishes he thought of that one) to declare for her on the eve of the California electorate, consolidating her party behind her by fiat because she couldn’t put to bed a tired old socialist from Vermont 99% of America had never heard of before.
    Trump’s “Mexican judge” issue, aka the anchor baby who’s the member of the pro Hispanic legal group giving away free scholarships to illegal aliens, only exposed the hypocrisy of the judicial system. Your affirmative action judge probably screwed up the case anyway. I know you’re trembling to lick the boots of a new king to serve, but just settle down, okay?
    How many zillions did Jeb have? Cruz? Kasich? How’d that do for them? Is that why we are toasting them as our nominee? Noooooo. Sorry Ed. I get that you’re in the bag for Hillary (incontinent, likely slightly deranged from her stroke, and can’t make it through a speech without coughing), but let’s talk about twitter and her 1994 era burn that was quickly picked up by the media that is doing their best to carry her water (and the army of bots retweeting for her).
    Your “slump” is 3 points. Inside the margin of error. Three. Points. After consolidating her party behind her and the cucked GOPe rolling over like trained dogs piddling themselves over racism and demanding belly pats. This is going to be her high water mark from here on out and you’re excited about it?
    November is gonna be rough for you bro. I know as a good liberal you don’t have any guns in your house, but maybe stay away from ropes, knives, alcohol, and pain pills.

  152. Tyler says:

    It was a border patrol agent (Not CBPO, there is a difference), and yeah he was alone when he was attacked. Shot his attacker after being hit in the head and body with his baton and radio. Killed the alien.

  153. Tyler says:

    Whew son. One group of Americans do NOT like seeing their gimmedats taken away and given to other brown people.
    Trump driving a wedge between blacks and Hillary and it ain’t even October. Lordy.

  154. Tyler says:

    As fun as you are to milk for laughs, here’s a pretty definitive article that shows why 12% of Hispanics in America doesn’t mean all 12% of them are going to vote.
    I think there’s going to be a lot more white people voting than before. I know “more badwhites” gives you the vapors, but just don’t do anything silly come November. I want you around when Trump makes America Great Again.

  155. MRW says:

    For now, the 2012 map basically applies.
    How so? We weren’t forced to elect a new president in 2012.

  156. MRW says:

    and clever Hillary wants to put HIM in charge of reviving the economy that he is largely responsible for destroying in the first place?
    No shit, sherlock. Incredibly worrisome.

  157. MRW says:

    Jack. Agree.

  158. LondonBob says:

    Trump still generated more votes and higher turnout after the other two candidates dropped out, in comparison to Romney in 2012. See NJ, OR, WV, NM, MT, SD etc. Elections are all about getting your voters to turnout, Trump has demonstrated he is a very strong candidate, which is always highly relevant and is pointer to the general. Arguments otherwise seem to stem from preset position than any rational analysis.

  159. rjj says:

    it is possible to agree but be saying entirely different things.
    I don’t mean unruly, youthfully exuberant, show-off-y contrarians – I mean high-minded, tumescent-with-gravitas types with head raised gazing loftily into the distance.

  160. Edward Amame says:

    Baloney. Please cite where Barry C. Burden, professor of political science and director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said anything about Donald Trump’s not having a chance in the primaries.

  161. Edward Amame says:

    I saw the same study. Go ahead, think what you think, but Obama didn’t do so well on a national level among whites because of his crappy showing with southern whites. So it wasn’t necessarily the Hispanic vote that put him in office, though they certainly helped, it means Obama did better with northern whites than the overall numbers suggested at the time.

  162. Edward Amame says:

    Maybe you missed the 35 different FOIA requests for Hillary info from the press. And Clinton had the highest percentage of negative stories of all candidates of both parties during the primaries.
    I’m in the bag for Hillary like you’re in the bag for Trump so give that a rest. But best of luck to you and your candidate and the bigotry and tweets.

  163. Edward Amame says:

    Spoken for a guy who voted for Nader in 2000. How’d the rest work out for you?

  164. Castellio says:

    I congratulate you for voting for Nader in 2000. I wish more had.

  165. MRW says:

    @Old Microbiologist,
    The flood of immigrants is just beginning and it is imperative to put controls in place now before the real deluge begins.
    It has actually reversed in the last few years, and is the lowest since 2000.
    Immigration in reverse

  166. MRW says:

    Another one:
    Mexican immigration in reverse
    November 20, 2015
    The immigration of Mexicans to the United States has fallen to a net negative for the first time in over 40 years, ending the biggest wave of immigration America has witnessed in the modern age, according to a new study by Pew Research Center.
    Pew claims more Mexicans are now leaving the United States and returning to their home country than are arriving in the country, basing its claim on an analysis of government data from both Mexico and the US.

  167. Tyler says:

    Yes I missed them because NO ONE REPORTS ON THEM. When the email stuff can’t be ignored its mentioned in the driest, most mealymouthed way possible, and followed up by what Bruce Jenner is wearing or how someone says Trump called them a mean name back in 1991.
    You have to be literally high to assume the media is anything but in the bag for Hillary and trying to stuff Clinton down our throats.

  168. kao_hsien_chih says:

    There are all sorts of complexities buried in the re-crunching of the numbers by NYT (and there are all sorts of technical caveats one should take into consideration with it–nb: this is what I do for living.) Some highlights to be pondered are:
    1. While the number of white voters in the electorate are larger, it is not clear that they are necessarily “obvious” Trump voters. The numbers indicate that many more voted for Obama than has been extrapolated from the exit polls, after all.
    2. The number of “missing” white voters that Trump may well be able to draw seem much larger among potential “Democratic” voters than “Republican” ones, which could complicate Trump’s calculations. The article speculates that many of them probably turned out for Sanders, rather than Trump. Certainly, this fits with my takeaway from the exit polls that Sanders probably did more to energize the electorate than Trump did (although lack of access to the raw data limits how much I could get from these.)
    For the general election purposes, the matchup between Clinton and Trump makes for interesting play for these Democratic leaning formerly missing voters (who may return to being missing in November). Polls like the recent PPP poll in PA (link: suggest some interesting patterns. What grabbed my attention was how different subsets of Sanders voters broke between HRC and Trump. Essentially, Sanders does better than Clinton against Trump because he does better among 18-30 and 30-45 demographics, but these differ sharply in their choice when deprived of Sanders: for the younger demographic, those who refuse Clinton choose the Green Jill Stein, while for the older (30-45 subset) about half break for Trump and the remainder are undecided. There is very little chance that the very young and the very liberal, the stereotypical Sanders voter, will turn Trump over Clinton, but the youngish (but not very young) working class whites were an important but overlooked component of the Sanders coalition and, unlike the former, they can very easily swing to Trump. There are just enough of them to swing the election in favor of Trump, if most of the regular Republicans line up behind him. Democrats should be weary of this, but the kind of campaign HRC seems to be oblivious of this demographic.

Comments are closed.