2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Phillip V]

God save the Republic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-turnout-south-carolina_us_56d2e392e4b03260bf77247f

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton had a great night on Saturday. The Democratic Party had a terrible one.

Clinton trounced Sen. Bernie Sanders by nearly 3-to-1 in the South Carolina primary, winning every single county in the state. The thumping followed a convincing Clinton victory in the Nevada caucuses less than a week earlier, and sets the stage for a strong showing for Clinton on Super Tuesday, when 11 states are in play.

For the Democratic Party establishment, these wins are being interpreted as a sign that the universe is back in order, after a 74-year-old democratic socialist from Vermont had seemingly knocked everything out of orbit. Party leaders long ago picked Clinton as their standard-bearer for 2016 and worked to clear the field of potential primary challengers. When Sanders began closing on Clinton in national polls and clobbered her in New Hampshire, the establishment bet was starting to look shaky. Had they lost touch with the core concerns of the party's base? After South Carolina, Sanders' chances to secure an upset nomination are dwindling.

Exit polling showed that Clinton won every demographic tracked except voters under 30. Even here, she was far more competitive with Sanders than in prior contests, losing just 54 percent to 46 percent. She even won a higher share of the black vote than Barack Obama did in 2008.

But Democratic Party elites shouldn't be high-fiving each other. They should be very, very worried.

In primary after primary this cycle, Democratic voters just aren't showing up. Only 367,491 people cast a ballot for either Clinton or Sanders on Saturday. That's down 16 percent from the 436,219 people who came out in 2008 for Clinton and Obama. Factor in the 93,522 people who voted for John Edwards back in the day, and you can see the scope of the problem. Democrats in 2016 are only getting about two-thirds of the primary votes that they received eight years ago.

Republican turnout in the South Carolina primary, by contrast, was up more than 70 percent from 2008.

South Carolina's turnout numbers are not an anomaly. They're consistent with other primaries to date. Republicans are psyched. Democrats are demoralized.

Presidential elections increasingly hinge on each party's ability to turn out the faithful. There simply are not many truly independent voters who cast their ballots for different parties in different cycles. A big chunk of voters who identify as independents do so not because they cherish a moderate middle ground between two parties, but because they see their own party as insufficiently committed to its ideological principles. In this era, lousy primary turnout spells big trouble for the general election.

The poor Democratic turnout figures are not an indictment of Clinton alone. Maybe the DNC's decision to bury the party's debates on weekends and holidays helped Republicans generate more early enthusiasm with primetime coverage. And part of Sanders' pitch, of course, is his insistence that progressive energy will bring out high numbers of enthusiastic voters that an old party insider just can't compete with. It's a good pitch. But so far, it isn't happening.

It's always hard to motivate voters for four more years of the same old thing after getting eight years of it -- especially when many of those years were mired in an awful recession, followed by a weak economic recovery. Opposition parties typically have a better hand after eight years. That's why 12-year runs in the presidency by a single party don't happen very often.

If Republicans nominate Donald Trump for president -- and barring a cataclysm or a coup, they will -- there will be plenty of energized Democrats who turn out in the general election for no other reason than to cast a ballot against a billionaire who has predicated his campaign on raw bigotry.

That will help even the energy some. But the flip side of the coin is that lots of angry white people will show up to vote for Trump. We know because they're already doing so in the primaries. And a lot of Republican partisans who prefer other candidates still care more about turning the page on the Obama era than they do about Trump's flirtations with fascism (and even, at times, liberal critiques of GOP orthodoxy).

Trump's overtly racist campaign makes it hard to see how he wins Western swing states like Nevada or New Mexico that have high numbers of Latino voters. But his economic pitch to the white working class holds obvious appeal in traditional Democratic strongholds in the upper Midwest -- communities that have been ravaged by the past three decades of U.S. economic policy. Even if Trump lost every other swing state in the country, turning the Rust Belt red would be enough for him to win the Electoral College.

That's a difficult maneuver. But it's time to start worrying about President Trump.

As we approach Super Tuesday:

[Barrister]

Wait-- young voters are skewing to the left? That's probably never happened before.

Stereotypes aside, the youth is not always leftist. The Gen Xers of the 80s leaned right.

[jimmy olsen]

Poor Cruz! 

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2016/02/26/Poll-38-of-Florida-voters-believe-Ted-Cruz-could-be-the-Zodiac-Killer/4771456519542/

Poll: 38% of Florida voters believe Ted Cruz could be the Zodiac Killer
By Daniel Uria   |   Feb. 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- A poll by Public Policy Polling found that a surprising number of Florida voters believe Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz could be the Zodiac Killer.

While a 62 percent majority of voters answered "No" when asked if they believed Cruz was responsible for the string of murders in the early 70s, 10 percent answered "Yes" and an additional 28 percent said they were unsure.

Several reports say the rumor stems from a speech Cruz delivered at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2013 titled "This is the Zodiac Speaking" and has become popular again since he began his presidential campaign.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm, asked the question relating to the bizarre Internet rumor after dedicating its inclusion "weird twitter", when asked if it would appear on their latest round of voter polls.

The polling company was also responsible for a December poll that found 30 percent of Republican voters would support bombing the fictional city of Agrabah from Disney's Aladdin.

[Habbaku]

[Monoriu]

I see satisfaction on Trump's face. 

[jimmy olsen]

I see satisfaction on Trump's face.

Because this is what was actually going down, and Trump knows that many in the Republican base will be turned off by them speaking in Spanish, and make them more likely to vote for him.

There were other nasty exchanges in abundance, but the most interesting was the latest immigration flare-up between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The contours of that fight are very well-worn at this point – Cruz attacks Rubio for passing the Gang of Eight immigration bill, Rubio attacks Cruz for flip-flopping on "amnesty" – but this latest exchange got personal. Cruz attacked Rubio for going on Univision and saying in Spanish that he wouldn't immediately rescind Obama's executive orders on immigration. Rubio replied: "I don't know how he [Cruz] knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish." Cruz, who, like Rubio, is of Cuban descent, shot back: "Si quieres – ahora mismo, dice lo ahora, en español, si quieres." (It's a bit rough, but it translates to: "If you want – right now, say it now, in Spanish, if you like.")

That was an amazing moment. The two Latino candidates in the Republican field get into an argument over Spanish fluency in the context of proving which one of them is more anti-immigrant. That Republican reboot is really coming along swimmingly.

[celedhring]

I went to AC back in 2009 and it looked like the gambling version of a rust belt town.

Where else did you travel?

Not that much... Bloomington, Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Philly, Washington... I spent 3 years and a half living in the US. Wish I could have traveled more, but student budget is always tight.

[Admiral Yi]

Not that much... Bloomington, Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Philly, Washington... I spent 3 years and a half living in the US. Wish I could have traveled more, but student budget is always tight.

3 and a half?  That's a lot of time for a masters' program.

[celedhring]

Not that much... Bloomington, Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Philly, Washington... I spent 3 years and a half living in the US. Wish I could have traveled more, but student budget is always tight.

3 and a half?  That's a lot of time for a masters' program.

Columbia's film MFA is a 3 year program. I liked it, it was far more comprehensive than your usual master's. My scholarship only covered a two year program though, so I had to pay the third year out of my pocket. That ate into my savings considerably. 

The remaining half a year I spent it doing odd jobs in the industry (all legal, I had a work experience extension to my visa) waiting on a Hollywood gig that didn't come off. Then I returned.

[Martinus]

The recent "controversy" about Trump tweeting a "fascist quote" that Mussolini once used (but seems older) is the "gotcha journalism" at its worst. Fortunately, their jedi mind tricks don't work on Trump or his supporters.

[Martinus]

Also this:

Trump, Clinton dominant as Super Tuesday looms
Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
Updated 1143 GMT (1943 HKT) February 29, 2016

(CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are poised to lead the nation's two major parties in this fall's presidential election, with a new nationwide CNN/ORC poll finding each well ahead of their closest competitors just as the race expands to a national stage.

Trump has expanded his lead over the diminished field to capture the support of nearly half of Republican voters, while Clinton tops Sanders by nearly 20 points.

On the Republican side, the new survey finds Trump's lead is dominant, and his support tops that of his four remaining opponents combined. The businessman tops his nearest competitor by more than 30 points: 49% back Trump, 16% Marco Rubio, 15% Ted Cruz, 10% Ben Carson and 6% John Kasich.

Trump's supporters are incredibly enthusiastic about the coming election, and largely committed in their support for him. Nearly 8 in 10 say that they are more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous elections, among Republicans who are not supporting Trump, just 39% say they are more enthusiastic than in years past. Likewise, 78% of Trump's backers say they will definitely support him vs. 22% who say they could still change their minds. Among those backing other candidates, 57% say they are committed to their chosen candidate.

The survey asked those Republicans not currently backing Trump whether they would support him if he became the party's nominee, and just a quarter of Republicans overall say they probably or definitely wouldn't support him in November. That's about the same as the share saying they wouldn't back Rubio or Cruz.

Trump is widely viewed as the candidate in the field who would be most effective at solving the country's problems, 51% vs. 17% for Cruz, 13% for Rubio and 10% for Carson, and as being best able to handle the responsibilities of being commander-in-chief, 48% say so, compared with 17% for Cruz and 15% for Rubio. The billionaire is also seen as the one who best understands the problems facing people like you, 46% Trump vs. 18% Cruz and 15% Rubio.

As accusations of dishonesty have flown between Trump, Cruz and Rubio, voters say they are more apt to see Trump as honest and trustworthy. Asked who of the five candidates is most honest and trustworthy, 35% name Trump, 22% Carson -- who has largely stayed out of the mudslinging - 14% Cruz and 13% Rubio.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton tops Bernie Sanders 55% to 38% in the new poll, a slightly wider margin than she held in late January before any primaries or caucuses were held.

There are sharper demographic splits among the Democratic electorate than on the Republican side. Men, younger voters, independents and liberals are all about evenly split between Clinton and Sanders, while Clinton's lead rests on large advantages among women, older voters, Democrats and moderates.

Democrats are more apt than Republicans to say they would support either of the remaining top candidates should they become the nominee. Just 15% each say they wouldn't back Clinton or Sanders.

Clinton tops Sanders handily as the candidate who would be more effective at solving the country's problems and can better handle the responsibilities of being commander-in-chief, but Sanders fares better than Clinton on honesty, 59% say he is more honest and trustworthy vs. 36% who say Clinton is. Overall, voters are split on whether Clinton or Sanders better understands the problems facing people like you, 49% say Clinton, 48% Sanders.

The CNN/ORC Poll was conducted by telephone February 24-27 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. Results for the 418 registered voters who are Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. It is the same for results among the 427 Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

[jimmy olsen]

Silver suggests were in the midst of a major realignment and all bets are off.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-assume-conservatives-will-rally-behind-trump/

[HisMajestyBOB]

Poor Nate Silver. This whole primary season has been a disaster for him.

[jimmy olsen]

Poor Nate Silver. This whole primary season has been a disaster for him.

He was skeptical for a long time,  but once he set up his algorithms in the lead up to Iowa he became a believer.

[DGuller]

Poor Nate Silver. This whole primary season has been a disaster for him.

He got really lucky with 2008 and 2012, and really unlucky in 2016.