2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Barrister]

I mean - a lot of conservatives could make the same argument - and probably more persuasively because Kasich (and Rubio before him) are the GOP candidates who polls show would beat Clinton.  But they're not, because it's a dumb argument.

[Berkut]

Clinton should offer Sanders the VP spot.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Sanders GOTV efforts are nuts. I got about a dozen facebook messages from Berniebots in the days before the primary. (I politely informed each of them that I would be voting for him and thanked them for their efforts.)

[Barrister]

Clinton should offer Sanders the VP spot.

Would he want it?  That means he'd have to be actively campaigning for her.

Also they're both pretty old, and both from the northeast.  I would think Clinton would want a younger face on the ticket from a different part of the country.

[Admiral Yi]

Max's argument is not totally without merit.  If you're trying to minimize your chances of catastrophe, and Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump, then Bernie would be the better choice.

No idea what the Teddy/Ike comment meant though, unless he equates trust busting and food inspections with chasing finance to Singapore.

[Valmy]

Clinton should offer Sanders the VP spot.

I am certain that has crossed some people's minds. Who knows if he would take it.

[Eddie Teach]

You're forgetting the third member of the ticket is quite Southern. @bb. Thread how growing fast.

[Valmy]

Let's not pretend there's anything democratic about the parties getting to decide who the voters get to vote for.

So therefore vote totals shouldn't matter at all? I mean I am aware some states are pretty messed up in how they do this but come on.

[Valmy]

No idea what the Teddy/Ike comment meant though, unless he equates trust busting and food inspections with chasing finance to Singapore.

Yeah I do not get that one either. I can only make decisions based on what he has said he wants to do, and what he says he wants to do seems completely insane and detached from reality. But I guess plenty of people were scared of Teddy as well

Eisenhower never gave off that vibe though

[Maximus]

I dunno, having millions of people go out to vote for which candidates they want to represent each party sounds pretty democratic to me...

There is no assurance that democratic principles are being upheld in primary elections as we are roundly assured every time someone complains about shenanigans. The parties are free associations of private individuals who can hold votes how they want, unless we need to protect them from unfair competition.

[Jacob]

You know another thing that matters? Get out the vote organization, where Clinton beats Sanders hands down.

link?

Clinton's gotten millions more actual votes than Sanders (according to RealClear politics, she's at +3M). Her victories have tended to be in  (where getting out the vote matters more), while Sanders has primarily excelled primarily in caucuses (where it matters less). Clinton has most of Obama's excellent GOTV staff working for her.

The Sanders machine outperforms on Twitter and in the generation of memes, but more voters have actually shown up for Clinton. Come the general election, that matters more.

[Jacob]

Max's argument is not totally without merit.  If you're trying to minimize your chances of catastrophe, and Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump, then Bernie would be the better choice.

The operative statement being *IF*.

That case has not been made convincingly.

[Valmy]

There is no assurance that democratic principles are being upheld in primary elections as we are roundly assured every time someone complains about shenanigans.

Well it depends on the state and how it runs things. However the rules are clear and the "shenanigans" were all things decided upon years ago I presume.

[Barrister]

Clinton's gotten millions more actual votes than Sanders (according to RealClear politics, she's at +3M). Her victories have tended to be in  (where getting out the vote matters more), while Sanders has primarily excelled primarily in caucuses (where it matters less). Clinton has most of Obama's excellent GOTV staff working for her.

The Sanders machine outperforms on Twitter and in the generation of memes, but more voters have actually shown up for Clinton. Come the general election, that matters more.

More voters does not mean "better GOTV" - it probably means she just has more people who support her than Bernie does.

GOTV is about identifying who your voters are, and making sure they get out to vote.  You call them, remind them, offer them rides, whatever it takes to get them to the polling booth.  In a tight election it can make the difference between defeat and victory.  But if it's not a tight election, then the best GOTV machinery in the world won't help you.

As I understand it, GOTV is much more important in caucuses than primaries.  Because caucusing is much more involved far fewer people participate.  So convincing your supporters to go out and caucus becomes essential.

I should know - I've been a campaign manager twice.  We had a nice little campaign effort both times, including GOTV.  But it hardly matters when you were running against Lloyd Axworthy and he beat us by 50 points! 

[Maximus]

Clinton's gotten millions more actual votes than Sanders (according to RealClear politics, she's at +3M). Her victories have tended to be in  (where getting out the vote matters more), while Sanders has primarily excelled primarily in caucuses (where it matters less). Clinton has most of Obama's excellent GOTV staff working for her.

Leaving aside the issue of voting shenanigans, much of Clinton's lead is from early voters, indicating that her support has been dropping, while Sanders' has been climbing.

This part is just anecdotal, but the Sanders GOTV efforts hit the point of being annoying, while I have yet to hear a peep from the Clinton side.

Finally, I believe there has been a positive correlation between high turnout and Sanders victories. Clinton has done better in states where the Democratic vote was actively suppressed.