Okay, we have the answers to my six pre-election day questions from yesterday. Let’s take a look.
1. Who wins Nevada? Clinton
2. Does Cruz or Rubio come in second place in South Carolina? Rubio, by about a thousand votes.
3. Assuming he wins, does Trump get more than a third of the vote or more like a quarter of it? He actually got exactly a third.
4. Does Bush do better than Kasich or not, and does he exceed expectations? They both got eight percent, although Bush got a little over a thousand more votes, coming in fourth place to Kasich’s fifth. This does not exceed expectations for Bush.
5. Does Kasich knock Bush out? Yes.
6. Does Carson call it quits? No.
So, what did I say that these things would mean?
On Sanders losing Nevada:
…Sanders is the underdog and he has a huge superdelegate disadvantage. He needs to disprove the common wisdom that he can’t compete in racially diverse states. And he appears to be far behind in South Carolina, so he can’t afford to lose the momentum he gained from his blowout win in New Hampshire. A loss in Nevada, no matter how narrow, will be a potentially lethal outcome for his campaign.
On Cruz and Rubio:
I was uncertain who would finish second, but said if I had to bet money that I’d place it on Cruz. I lost that bet. Rubio had some rough moments at the end of the campaign in South Carolina, and it probably hurt him. But it didn’t hurt him enough to cost him second place, which was realistically what he was going for. This is enough for Rubio to largely recover from his robotic debate performance in New Hampshire, although few people will actually forget that fiasco and it will continue to plague him. A deep dive into the numbers in South Carolina are very worrying for Ted Cruz. He did not show the strength he needed to among evangelicals, and this calls his whole southern strategy into question.
On Trump exceeding or falling below expectations:
He basically met the regular polling expectations and exceeded the expectations set by the exit polls. Winning a third of the vote in six-way race is impressive, but will he pick up any of Bush’s eight percent as he predicted he would in his victory speech? My prediction is, no, he really won’t pick up any significant percentage of the Bush vote. The big news is that Trump won everywhere and is likely to get every single delegate out of a state that awards its delegates proportionately. This makes his 33% finish much larger than it seems, and way larger than Sanders’ blowout win in New Hampshire. It was a huge night for Trump, and the delegate haul is important. On the other hand, because he won’t be getting much of the Bush vote, his job will get a little harder going forward.
On Kasich knocking Bush out:
I wrote about this more than once. Kasich’s campaign team told anyone who would listen that they didn’t expect to do well in South Carolina and that the only reason they were spending time there was to poach enough Bush voters to cause him to finish poorly with the hope of knocking him out of the race. Here’s what I wrote on Monday:
I was watching the Halperin/Heilemann/McKinnon campaign reality show The Circus on Showtime last night. They talked to Kasich’s chief strategist John Weaver, and Weaver told them that Kasich knows that he doesn’t have a chance of winning in South Carolina or even of doing particularly well. He’s campaigning there, Weaver explained, almost entirely to poach as many votes as he can from Jeb Bush so that Bush cannot recover and get any traction. Kasich wants to contribute to delivering the knockout blow to the Bush Clan so he can have the “happy warrior” lane to himself in the Midwest. If Kasich can win his home state of Ohio, which is winner-take-all, he’ll be in business.
Despite going after Bush without mercy, Kasich is in position to sweep up Bush supporters. He will have to share them with Rubio, however, and we’re talking about a personal pizza here rather than dividing up an 18-inch pie. On Saturday, John Weaver told the Washington Post that there was another benefit to knocking Bush out.
Asked how to justify what is expected to be a fourth- or fifth-place finish in South Carolina, Weaver said, referring to Bush, “We’ve already won there, because how well we do is going to help drive somebody else out of the race.”
“Our expectation is that, come early next week, after so many governors and former governors have run, that John Kasich will be the last one standing,” he added.
Weaver was right. Kasich is the only remaining candidate with true executive experience in government. He and Rubio are the only remaining candidates from true swing states, which is something the Republican’s convention in Cleveland could conceivably highlight.
On Bush dropping out of the race:
watching Jeb concede was like a cup of hot cocoa on a freezing cold day. I will savor it forever.
— Martin Longman (@BooMan23) February 21, 2016
Watching Jeb concede a second time because it’s the greatest thing ever.
— Martin Longman (@BooMan23) February 21, 2016
On Carson not dropping out:
I said Carson’s only job was to avoid finishing in last place. He failed. I said that I didn’t really see how it mattered either way. I still don’t. But his refusal to drop out is the best signal yet that he’s arranged things so he can take his campaign contributions and launder them through friends and associates to whom he gives absurdly lucrative contracts. His campaign is a gravy train and he has no incentive to get off of it.
My summary:
BIG WINNERS: Trump and Clinton
MODEST WINNERS: Rubio and Kasich
LOSERS: Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders
MASSIVE LOSERS: Jeb Bush and Ben Carson
I swear to you that I thought of Willard this morning. The Bush Crime Family muscled him out of the race…so, for someone like Willard with his entitled azz to see Jeb drop out…..I bet he had a nice expensive something to celebrate last night when he heard…LOL
Igor BobicVerified account
@igorbobic
Romney “had been eager to provide his backing to Rubio for days but had hesitated, due to his respect for..Jeb Bush”
Forced rape birth is now the new normal in the Republican Establishment.
I think it was always normal for them. The difference is now they’re saying it out loud.
Trump, while the big winner, could also be the big loser. Not one of the votes gained by Rubio, Bush or Kasich will ever belong to Trump during the primary season.
Trump got a third of the votes. That’s pretty much all he’s going to get for the rest of the season.
If I’m right, you heard it here first. If I’m wrong, oh well, forget about it. 🙂
“If I’m right, you heard it here first. If I’m wrong, oh well, forget about it. :)”
I, and all others everywhere, join you in this sentiment. Thanks for the inclusive laugh.
Heh….the internet NEVER FORGETS! 😉
My sense is that when Trump’s riding high, he could draw as much as 50% of the Republican field. I think his upper limit in a national race is between 35 and 40% (unless it’s against Sanders, in which case who the hell knows).
Barring a (god forbid) moment when Clinton trips and breaks an ankle, I don’t see how Sanders wins after losing Nevada.
Which sucks, boo hoo. However, looking forward … what should Clinton do to connect with younger voters? Can she coopt much of Sanders’s message without seeming too calculating? Can she offer any sizzle, or should she remain all steak?
I’ve always supported Sanders, and I’ve always thought Clinton would win. And I always felt that electability arguments were just fluff. But now that I think Clinton pretty much has won, I suddenly find myself feeling that she’s a far weaker general election candidate than Sanders. The pragmatic, settle-for-less voters will vote D no matter who the candidate is. But how does she reach the less-likely ‘motivate us with a dream’ voters?
If those voters stay home, it won’t be much different than any other election. Older voters, baby boomers, are the difference. The question isn’t about this election, but perhaps about the future of the party. I always have to remind myself that Obama didn’t run as the DNC candidate. He ran as the OFA candidate and eschewed the DNC. We are reverting back to “the party”. We’ll have to see what that means in the longer term.
Who are the college kids going to vote for, between Hillary and Trump?
Anyone who thinks Trump gets them is out his batshit crazy mind.
So, 50% stay home? Wow, that would be a shocker. They are going to throw a temper tantrum and hold their breath till they are purple, with the craziest GOP candidate ever looming out there and Scalia’s replacement on the line? Great citizens there.
They will NEVER get their free tuition if the Dems don’t win. This election is THE turning point.
More Liberal (eventually) probably means one step at a time, Hillary now, and build a Democratic sanity back into government. The government isn’t dysfunctional BECAUSE of the Dems, but in spite of the Dems’ best efforts to STOP the idiocy and criminality and deregulation.
Eight years of Hillary will mark 24 out of the last 32 years that we had a Dem in the WH. ONLY that and the years we had Dem majorities in Congress were sane years. Not perfect, but not insane.
The Repugs are self-immolating before our eyes. This is a GREAT opportunity to make BIG inroads into the majorities in Congress. The Senate is more or less a lock for 51 or better. The House – in the House we need 30 wins. That’s tough.
Which is why we need COATTAILS.
It might be worth noting that in 2006, Bush’s last off-year election, when the GOP brand lost credibility, the Dems won 32 and took over. The GOoPer brand isn’t any more popular today than then. And if Trump really DOES have a ceiling of 35-40%, and if the establishment Repugs are talking LOUD about bailing on this election (if not the party), this is a royal opportunity.
That Nevada group reeeealy skewed older: 37/63. And low turnout.
Exit polls: http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/nevada/exit/
Interesting crosstabs:
Postgraduate education skewed heavily Clinton.
College graduates were Sanders’ best group.
The 81% of self-identified Democrats went for Clinton by 18%
The 18% of self-identified Independents went for Sanders by 48%
So in 13 states with closed primary, advantage Clinton.
The bigger advantage may be the caucus system. In 2008 Obama won all of the caucuses. Part of that was Mark Penn – grifter extraordinaire – didn’t understand caucuses. But part of that was the Obama first-black-President excitement.
In 2016 caucuses appear to be benefiting Clinton. Give her credit – she learned and her team is utterly prepared for the special event that is a caucus. But on top of that Sanders – while dominating the younger person vote even better than Obama did – doesn’t seem to be getting anything like the participation rate at caucuses from his supporters that Obama achieved.
It makes some sense if you think about it. You’re a college student, perhaps grad level, perhaps not. Here’s the deal: arrange transportation to a caucus site, tell them to drop you off about 7, and you don’t know when you’re going to be picked up. Early test tomorrow? Deal with it. Prefer a different time? Nope, not an option. Mail-in ballot? What, you think this is a Democracy or something.
When the Colorado caucus shows up I’m not participating. I have a preference for Sanders but I also know reality, and I’m not going to invest several hours for it. A lot more people were willing to spend the extra time to be part of the first-ever-black-president history, but not for Sanders.
Thinking about it – sad that Clinton isn’t generating the same excitement as the likely first-woman-president. I have to think that someone like Warren would do it. It’s almost as though by making it seem inevitable – and heavily endorsed by her BIG DONORS – she took the fun out of it.
If YOU aren’t willing to go to the caucus as a Bernie supporter, where will the “revolution” be if he’s elected. All along I’ve been saying that Obama made a whole new system (OFA), not part of the existing Dem establishment, and tried to turn that into a revolution as Organizing for America (also OFA). Clever, right? But no matter how many petitions we all sign — for sensible gun legislation, for overturning Citizen United, etc. — or how many emails we get and delete, people still cast their vote and expect the elected officials to do the work. Further, as Obama always said: “If there is something you want, make me do it.” So gay rights/marriage, Keystone pipeline, clean energy, steps on immigration (by executive order, getting the middle man out of college loans, etc. How much more of a revolution does anyone expect? It still is about special interests weighing in. If people want lower interest rates on college loans, demand it. If people want more healthcare coverage for more people, then throw those Republican governors out. We missed a chance to go to Kentucky to get out 400,000 votes of Medicaid recipients. Really, I don’t know. I think people feel the injustices that Bernie is pointing out, but I doubt they are willing to personally sacrifice much (if anything) to right the wrongs.
Where did I say “Bernie supporter”? I said I have a preference for him. Or the next commenter who called said I’m not supporting “my guy”. What makes him “my guy”?
Most of you are relative newcomers so don’t know my history of posts – or how I canvassed for Obama in 2008 and other volunteer activities. I’ll almost certainly be there again in the general election. But this is the primary. I’m fine with either candidate. Both are far from perfect. As I said, I have a preference for Sanders, but he’s not the messiah, he’s got some blind spots, and I’m not going to war for him against Clinton. Against Trump, yes, but not Clinton.
But also, if the response to people saying “I don’t have the time to make a big commitment to this progressive’s campaign” is to rail against them and tell them that they are the problem – well, that’s not going to be your most effective recruiting tactic. The left is at a huge funding disadvantage to the right. The reason the left suffers isn’t that people don’t volunteer to the same degree the right does – they do, and usually more so, when you consider demographics. The reason is that the right has many more paid people as well.
My bad. I interpreted “preference” as “support.”
Sorry, I mistook you for someone else.
“people still cast their vote and expect the elected officials to do the work. “
It’s their job! That’s what they are hired for. Don’t know about you, but my employers all expected me to work hard. And to put the Company before self and family too.
“We missed a chance to go to Kentucky to get out 400,000 votes of Medicaid recipients.”
Not sure what that meant, but this SHOULD be the gerneal election where the Dems should begin hammering on the issue of THIS:
“THE REPUBLICANS WANNA TAKE YOUR HEALTH CARE AWAY. ARE YOU GONNA LET ‘EM?”
Your unwillingness to turn out for your guy speaks volumes. Not about you; I appreciate your honesty. Rather, it speaks to the state of our politics and our society. It says that even in a caucus state, which is way more participatory than a primary, and even for someone who is politically interested and pays attention, it still feels like “my vote doesn’t really matter.”
It’s true, as individuals our votes don’t matter. But if everyone thinks that, it matters a great deal. Democracy runs on a sense of the collective, the notion that I have to vote because if I don’t many others just like me will feel and behave the same way.
I think it has more to do with the time commitment than the vote mattering but I don’t want to speak for this person just based on what was written
“…It says that even in a caucus state, which is way more participatory than a primary”
I have to take BIG exception to that, bases on the NV caucus vs the GOP SC primary.
Why?
Less than 12,000 voted in the NV caucuses (out of at least 1.7 million eligible voters. SC had over 400,000 votes in its primary.
No matter HOW much talking they did among themselves in those caucuses, 12,000 can’t be made to equate to more participation than SC folks picking “SUBMIT” or “CAST YOUR VOTES” on a screen.
Perhaps the mess we’re in and have been in is that too many people are like you. Why bother?
Who wants to squander all that time to attend a caucus? One payoff is that a caucus vote is worth at least four times what a vote in a primary is worth.
Sorry, but this reminds me of right wingers blaming the voters in minority districts for their votes not counting in Florida in 2000. “Hey, if you can’t figure out how to fill out a ballot it’s not my problem.”
Rationally, mine is one freaking vote. The odds of that deciding the nomination are nano-infinitesmal. As I’ve posted here before, I have volunteered, such as a vote watcher at a low income precinct on election day 2012. So it’s not like I’m not willing to set aside time for things that matter.
But the broader point is that the system as designed creates barriers for voting. Forget about my one little vote, but look at that example of someone who is reasonably politically involved and yet won’t bother with a caucus evening. Yes, this does explain why caucus numbers are so low. And yes, certain demographics do better when the barriers to voting are high. Older people vote in much higher numbers than younger people if vote barriers are high, for example, as do richer versus poorer.
That’s really the only point here.
Did you notice the number of ties in Iowa and NV caucuses? Decided by coin flip in the former and drawing from a deck of cards in the latter. So, one measly voter in caucuses do make a difference.
My point, which in my haste I didn’t articulate that well, was if politically engaged people can’t be bothered to show up when a real choice (or even the appearance of a real choice) is on offer, it’s a hopeless situation to expect those that aren’t engaged but have an opinion to even consider showing up.
I actually have nothing against those that are informed and indifferent to the choices and choose to pass on voting. Had I been better informed in ’92 and a bit less partisan, that’s what I would have done. (Why would wingers “blame” minority voters for not getting their votes counted in FL 2000? I recall them crowing about West Palm Beach voters that couldn’t manage to handle the butterfly ballot and in other districts spoiling their ballots, but didn’t they think that was cool?)
Yeah, I totally get having too much to do and needing to choose. Just a suggestion – you could probably set this up to multitask it if you want. Let your precinct captain know you’re super busy, need a ride, and need to bring your study materials. Show up with headphones so you can focus on your work. Ask someone on your team to nudge you when you need to raise your hand. If the Bernie folks are organized they’ll get you taken care of. 🙂
I’m savoring Kevin Williamson’s butthurt this morning:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431657/donald-trump-game-show-host
“One lesson, already discussed in these pages, is that the broad Republican electorate is not actually very conservative. For all of the pleasure that these so-called conservatives derive from denouncing socialism on the Euro-weenie model, they turn out to have much more in common with Marine Le Pen than they do with Ronald Reagan, of free-enterprise and amnesty infamy: They like their welfare state just fine, thank you, but they’ll wet themselves in terror if they see a Marlboro billboard in Spanish.
What’s more illuminating, though, is how many of the so-called conservatives in the entertainment wing of the movement — the contrepreneurs — turned out to be mob-rule enthusiasts simply looking for a sufficiently large and stupid mob. Donald Trump is Bill Clinton without the experience in office, and indeed is a considerable financial patron of the Clinton enterprise. He has been on the wrong side of practically every important issue — life, the Second Amendment, national security — and managed to go nearly 70 years, most of which was spent in public life, without uttering a notable sentence about what has become his signature issue: immigration, about which his policies range from the nonsensical to the never-gonna-happen.
For the contrepreneurs and their followers, it’s an exercise in wishful thinking: If not for the illegals, employment and wages would go up, taxes would go down, spending would go down, budgets would be balanced, schools wouldn’t be terrible, etc. Chickens not laying? Cow gone dry? Somewhere, somehow, somebody called Perez is to blame. How do you know? Because some third-rate doggie-vitamin salesman on the radio says so.”
National Review and the right-wing Mighty Wurlitzer enables the contrepreneurs for decades and then bitches when their Frankenstein monster reveals the long con they’ve been running. Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
Just how easy IS it to launder campaign contributions through juicy contracts with associates?
Not sure, but probably pretty easy.
Consider the signs that the sheeple carry at polls, caucuses and conventions. Printing those signs (much like doing hospital laundry in NYC) is pretty big $$$. We’re not talking Koch brothers, but it’ll put a profitable ending to a standard year for most printers. And if that printer happens to be your bother in law? Well, so what … as long as the signs appear it is (and probably should be) legal.
Consulting. The great boondoggle of the 20th century. You can justify almost ANY price to pay for consulting. The results don’t matter either (just ask Karl Rove).
All of this is legal, some of it might even be moral. And of course, if someone sends you free $$$, it is not your responsiblility to send it back. And you have to pay SOMEONE to count it, don’t you? Ask Ben Carson how expensive that can be.
When is the last time a republican won New Hampshire and South Carolina and didn’t win the nomination?
And the thing is, while Trump would never get my vote his talk about protectionism and his less than neocon desire to launch wars are attractive ideas. And the man himself has a personal charm or appeal. He is entertaining to watch when not being mini hitler.
How many will that attract?
if I’m right, almost exactly as many as he already has.
I dont think you are but I hope you are. So.. how much would that be in a national election?
I assume Trump’s minimum base in November would be around 150 – 160 electoral votes (40-44 million votes in deep south states & the west), same as any Republican. Seems reasonable to assume he’ll get a lot more Republican votes in the general than he is in the primary just by default.
Never to my knowledge.
In 1964 Goldwater didn’t win either of them and went on to the nomination but that was in a different era, when the state and national party organizations controlled the nominating process.
I caught a bit of Kasich’s speech last night, wherein he praised Jeb:( and his mother and father and brother and all the Bush clan for their long and fine service to this country and let’s give them a hand, folks!
Definitely going after the Bush votes, however pathetic the total.
Nate at 538 says Sanders needs to close the gap in South Carolina to 11 points or less. Given that and the Clinton’s huge advantage there polling around 30 points most recently, I’ll consider anything in the range of a 10-20 point loss a “win” for Sanders.
And I’ll say it again, Clinton’s near loss in the caucus state of Nevada where less than 15% of voters caucused and she won by two or three thousand votes overall, is a terrible outcome for her, in fact. Spinning it as a big victory for Clinton is ridiculous.
The delegate count is about even; Sanders has won far more actual votes so far. The race is just beginning.
Actually, Nevada is relatively favorable state for Bernie, (better than national average demographically), but instead of Bernie winning, HRC got at least 19, perhaps 20 of 35 pledged delegates.
Down here on planet reality, Bernie is a very long shot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb
.html?_r=0
Also this scorecard (scroll down to see it.) So far, Bernie is behind the pace in Iowa and Nevada, only just even with the pace in NH:
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179
In that CookPolitic article, this:
“Moreover, just 13 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will be awarded in caucus states like Iowa, which as 2008 proved, tend to bring out more liberal participants than primaries.”
This does beg the question – Why are vote totals so SMALL at caucuses; i.e., why don’t more people attend?
I would never go to one myself.
11,985 votes cast (so far) out of 1.176 MILLION eligible voters in eligible voters in NV. Compare that to 400,000+ in SC for the Repugs. Watch what the vote totals are in SC this Saturday.
WHO ever thought up caucuses?
What is this 15%????
The entire state had 12,300 votes cast. That is ONE PERCENT of their eligible voters. I triple checked this when Electoral-vote.com stated an 80% turnout.
QUESTION: How do you lose to someone who got 1/2 percent of the eligible votes?
ANSWER: YOUR people only get out 0.45%. Sanders’ “surge” never happened. Literally, how do you get 4700 votes and almost win a state?
12,002 total votes cast is closer to 2% of eligible Democratic voters in Nevada.
Sanders won 5,678 of those. 47.3% of the total (to Clinton’s 52.6%).
Clinton won almost 1% of total Democratic voters.
So did Sanders.
Doubtless there were a few “non-Democratic” interlopers in the Democratic caucuses.
Still, the numbers (yours, mine) re-emphasize my point that Hillary’s “victory” in Nevada was minuscule, likely Pyrrhic as well.
“Sanders is the underdog and he has a huge superdelegate disadvantage. He needs to disprove the common wisdom that he can’t compete in racially diverse states. . . A loss in Nevada, no matter how narrow, will be a potentially lethal outcome for his campaign.”
This observation is quite accurate.
The good thing about Proportional primaries is that a candidate will win delegates and not lose much ground in one primary or caucus.
The bad thing about Proportional primaries is that if a candidate falls behind, it’s hard as hell to make up ground, except in dribs and drabs, because the leader is also winning some of the delegates.
It is quite probable that SC and Super Tuesday (especially Texas) is going to be Sanders’ Waterloo. Once he gets behind by 175 or 200 more delegates, there won’t be any coming back from that.
At-large, statewide, used to mean everything. Now it’s so democratic with each CD getting its own delegate count, so big pluralities in parts of states is also less important. “Overvotes” in a district may help win the At-Large, but At-large in most states is more or less the equivalent of just another CD. So, big overvote totals in, say, 2 or 3 CDs are even what we might call “overovervotes.” As was noted going into Iowa, Sanders had huge support in college towns, but overvotes there didn’t help him much delegate-wise. A 48.9-48.6 loss should have gotten him an even split of delegates, but it didn’t. The overvotes made him LOOK good, but, a.) he still lost the At-large, and b.) those votes didn’t help him in other CDs It’s a LITTLE like the Electoral COllege, perhaps, in that overvotes in CA or NY or IL don’t contribute anything tangible to a Dem, and overvotes in TX or GA don’t tangibly help a GOoPer.
These points to some are arcane, but like keeping score of runs in baseball tells us who won the game, delegate counts are how we keep score. It’s not about which player looks hottest in his uniform or how many double plays there were.xas and California a win is
Something weird on the tail end of that comment….