2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Martinus]

People who think them damn Jew bankers are ruining America and my life.

Bernie is a Jew.

[Admiral Yi]

Bernie is a Jew.

When did this come out?

[Gups]

Sanders is done.  It's only a matter of time, and like OvB wrote a few pages back, Hillary will pull away from him on Super Tuesday.  Guys like Sanders never survive, and like the Post wrote today,Young voters are failing Bernie Sanders, just as they've failed so many before.  Young people are stupid people, and even stupider voters.  Didn't work for Eugene McCarthy, ain't going to work now.

Worked for George McGovern.

Up to a  point.

[CountDeMoney]

Jewish woman I work with is positively baffled as to why African-Americans are not supporting Bernie Sanders the way they're supporting Hillary Clinton.

Told her it's probably because of 1) Bill Clinton, and 2) Bernie Sanders reminds them of every landlord they ever had.

[CountDeMoney]

Worked for George McGovern.

Up to a  point.

That's like saying the Maginot Line worked up to a point.

[Legbiter]

Trump edges Kasich in Ohio poll

Donald Trump leads John Kasich by five points in the governor's home state of Ohio, according to the results of the latest Quinnipiac University poll of likely Republican primary voters released Tuesday.

With 31 percent, Trump leads the field ahead of the state's March 15 primary, while Kasich comes in a close second with 26 percent. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed with 21 percent, with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (13 percent) and Ben Carson (5 percent) rounding out the final five candidates. Just 5 percent said they are undecided about their candidate among those choices.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/trump-kasich-ohio-poll-219633

And a new poll for Massachusetts

With the GOP field narrowing after Jeb Bush's decision Saturday to drop out of the race,
Donald Trump is trouncing all his rivals in the Bay State. Trump takes 50% of the vote,
giving him a better than 3-to-1 advantage over Marco Rubio (16%); a 37-point edge over
John Kasich (13%); and a 5-to-1 margin over Texas Senator Ted Cruz (10%). Ben Carson,
who earned 23% of the vote in an October 2015 Emerson poll, has faded to 2% in this
recent survey.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_d5ea765bda3b4fa580d9d6e2908ea509.pdf

[11B4V]

Jewish woman I work with is positively baffled as to why African-Americans are not supporting Bernie Sanders the way they're supporting Hillary Clinton.

Told her it's probably because of 1) Bill Clinton, and 2) Bernie Sanders reminds them of every landlord they ever had.

Cause he's old. 

[garbon]

Here's an example from when he was at that black church on Sunday.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/11094976/bernie-sanders-south-carolina

"We have, in America today, a broken criminal justice system," Mr. Sanders said at the microphone, pausing briefly after this line from his stump speech, which is usually met with applause. Here it garnered very little, and the line for the food kept moving. Brookland Baptist Church proved a tough crowd.

Yeah, we know that already, Bernie.  I think statements like that when you are largely an unknown person in a community, aren't going to do much to garner interest and support.

[Berkut]

Yeah, at this point anyone who thinks Trump is not a viable candidate is deluding themselves IMO.

I found his numbers from South Carolina to be particularly telling: highest % of support from those with a high school education or less, and from those making less than $50,000.  The only demo he didn't win was individuals with graduate educations.
And we know which demos are larger.

Who do you think has a better chance against Trump? Clinton or Sanders? My hunch would be that Clinton would be easier for Trump to paint as an establishment candidate and get the independent anti-establishment voters to vote for him as a sort of FU to the establishment - but I am not sure how unpalatable Sanders is to independents in general.

There is no question - Clinton is slam dunk against Trump, and Trump is probably a slam dunk against Sanders.

It sucks for Sanders supporters, but there it is.

What is going to get Trump beat is his ridiculously high negatives. Basically you either love him (1/3rd) or you hate his guys (2/3rds).

Sanders is in the same boat - the negatives of being a "socialist" and an atheist mean that a Trump vs. Sanders battle comes down to who can get more people to just stay home rather than vote for either of them.

Clinton gets all the "ZOMG NOT TRUMP" votes. Sanders only gets some of them.

Trump is *drooling* at the chance to go up against Sanders. Clinton will make his crazy stand out, Sanders will make him look like one of two crazies in the room.

[DGuller]

That's probably the most likely outcome, but with crazy variance around it.  Clinton seems to be a weak campaigner, what's to stop her from continuing to under-perform in the general election?  Trump has likewise continually defied expectations and rewritten accepted wisdom too many times to count.  What's to stop him from continuing to pull rabbits of out his hat, especially when up against a rather stiff and not gifted campaigner?

[Berkut]

That's probably the most likely outcome, but with crazy variance around it.  Clinton seems to be a weak campaigner, what's to stop her from continuing to under-perform in the general election?  Trump has likewise continually defied expectations and rewritten accepted wisdom too many times to count.  What's to stop him from continuing to pull rabbits of out his hat, especially when up against a rather stiff and not gifted campaigner?

Yeah, but if you look at Trump, he isn't pulling any new rabbits out of his hat. Just the same rabbit over and over again. And it is kind of a fucked up, ugly ass rabbit. CW says that at some point the audience won't be tricked anymore, and what is surprising is that the same 35% keep finding the same trick amazing, and don't find the rabbit to terrible.

The other 65% finds the trick stupid, the rabbit grotesque, and could not care less how many times he does the same trick.

CW says that the people who find is bit interesting should fade away, but they haven't. However, he isn't actually finding new people who like his trick.

[alfred russel]

Trump edges Kasich in Ohio poll

Donald Trump leads John Kasich by five points in the governor's home state of Ohio, according to the results of the latest Quinnipiac University poll of likely Republican primary voters released Tuesday.

With 31 percent, Trump leads the field ahead of the state's March 15 primary, while Kasich comes in a close second with 26 percent. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed with 21 percent, with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (13 percent) and Ben Carson (5 percent) rounding out the final five candidates. Just 5 percent said they are undecided about their candidate among those choices.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/trump-kasich-ohio-poll-219633

And this is why a few weeks ago I was saying that I don't think 2 of the 3 of Rubio Bush and Kasich will stick around for the March 15 vote. The races in the states aren't immune to the national trends, and a guy falling way back nationally isn't going to win even his home state. No one wants that embarrassment.

I won't be surprised if Kasich drops out before Super Tuesday if he does poorly in Nevada.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Super Tuesday is only a week away--and Kasich to my knowledge has publicly said he's skipping Nevada. Don't forget candidates sometimes do weird/stupid things. Remember when Giuliani was riding high (for reasons still unknown to me) because he happened to be mayor of NYC on 9/11/2001? Then he skipped all the primaries until Florida because it had a lot of delegates and he thought a win there would instantly make him the front runner.

Other weird things have happened too, remember when Sheldon Adelson personally bankrolled Gingrich? Allowing him to stay in a lot longer than his campaign organization/personal fundraising/election performance would have? FWIW Kasich just yesterday got a public endorsement from hedge fund billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, a guy who has given six figure and higher sums to Super PACs supporting candidates in the past, and appears to be willing to bankroll Kasich to a degree.

And not everyone in the establishment agrees with you about the need to clear it out so it's just Trump/Rubio/Cruz. I heard some talking head on the radio yesterday who said some donors are giving money to guys like Kasich because they believe from a game theory perspective it's actually better to keep the field at 4-5, as that makes a brokered convention more likely, they feel in a brokered convention Trump can just be straight up refused the nomination, whereas if he wins it outright there is no mechanism to stop him.

[alfred russel]

I heard some talking head on the radio yesterday who said some donors are giving money to guys like Kasich because they believe from a game theory perspective it's actually better to keep the field at 4-5, as that makes a brokered convention more likely, they feel in a brokered convention Trump can just be straight up refused the nomination, whereas if he wins it outright there is no mechanism to stop him.

That is stupid. That isn't how delegates get awarded. Trump is more likely to win outright in a field of 4-5 than in a field of 2-3. In fact, it should be quite obvious that unless something major changes (ie, he says something stupid that people care about), if the field stays as it is he is going to win the nomination outright without much trouble.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I heard some talking head on the radio yesterday who said some donors are giving money to guys like Kasich because they believe from a game theory perspective it's actually better to keep the field at 4-5, as that makes a brokered convention more likely, they feel in a brokered convention Trump can just be straight up refused the nomination, whereas if he wins it outright there is no mechanism to stop him.

That is stupid. That isn't how delegates get awarded. Trump is more likely to win outright in a field of 4-5 than in a field of 2-3. In fact, it should be quite obvious that unless something major changes (ie, he says something stupid that people care about), if the field stays as it is he is going to win the nomination outright without much trouble.

I agree--but there is precedent for people not understanding delegate rules. Clinton clearly didn't in 2008.