The spin doctors are fully employed this morning. Insofar as they’re being truthful, you can find the best lawyerly case for each candidate. I’m not interested in lawyerly cases except in the limited sense that I want to understand whose argument is coming off as the most persuasive in the Spin Wars.
What I try to figure out is what will happen and why. How the media treat the results from last night will have a big impact on the ‘why,’ so this is a factor that cannot be ignored.
First, on the merits, last night was a clear victory for Bernie Sanders, but not necessarily the victory he needed. Despite all the small donations and big rallies, yesterday was the first test of the Sanders campaign. When Sanders went the podium last night shortly before midnight eastern time, he was able to boast:
Thank you. Iowa, thank you. Nine months ago, we came to this beautiful state. We had no political organization; we had no money; no name recognition. And we were taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America.
And tonight while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie.
And while the results are still not complete, it looks like we’ll have half of the Iowa delegates.
That was a completely factual, even objective, take on the results. It was, in any fair context, a stunning achievement. And it was bolstered by the fact that he managed to exceed expectations by outperforming the polls. Hillary Clinton had spoken somewhat earlier, and while she projected confidence, her expressed sense of relief (that she had avoided outright defeat) was masking obvious disappointment.
Mathematically, Clinton will emerge with a delegate lead, but she only earned one net delegate from the actual voting. Her advantage comes from Iowa’s superdelegates. This could be the beginning of a pattern, and it’s one of her important advantages.
The spin coming out of the Clinton camp is that Sanders had an ideal situation last night. He had a nearly all-white electorate and the caucus system that plagued Clinton in her duel with Barack Obama eight years ago. And, yet, even in this environment, Sanders wasn’t able to land a clear victory. If he can’t win in Iowa, he’s not likely to win much of anywhere else, except perhaps in New England. This is also a factual argument. But the demographics revealed in Iowa aren’t necessarily so promising for Clinton.
Here is what she must now worry about:
Eighty-four percent of those under 30 supported Sanders, as did 60 percent of those between 30 and 44. And it was not just young men who turned out for Sanders. Eighty-six percent of women under 30 said they supported Sanders, and he won the support of women between the ages of 30 and 44 by 53 percent to 42 percent.
Overall, Clinton did well among women caucus attenders with an 11-point margin over Sanders, as she drew strong support among women over 45 who were a majority of the women who came out to the Democratic caucuses.
The demographic argument for Clinton is based on the support she has in the black and Latino communities, which should allow her to weather the result in Iowa and a likely defeat in New Hampshire. When the contest moves to more diverse states, like South Carolina and Nevada, she’ll be able grind Sanders down.
This is true, and if Sanders can’t make inroads with people of color, he won’t win the nomination. But…
Clinton has to be concerned about two other demographic results. Losing 84% of voters under 30 is enough of a problem that it undercuts the racial demographic argument. A slim 11-point lead with women is also worrisome, especially because she’s losing badly among women younger than forty-five. All of these numbers should improve in a more diverse electorate, but let’s be clear about how bad these numbers are for her.
Perhaps the most problematic factor in these demographics is that they bolster, strongly, Sanders’ electability argument. And it’s not just spin. My 23 year old stepson, who isn’t very political, just called to tell me, “It’s unbelievable! My friends have never talked about voting before. Never discussed it. And they’re all saying that they can’t wait to vote for Sanders. Hillary offers them nothing to get excited about and, if she’s the nominee, there’s no way they’ll turn out for her.”
I know better than to put a lot of stock in that type of anecdotal evidence, but the 84% number certainly backs it up.
Before last night, everything was hypothetical. This morning, the Sanders supporters can marshall actual numbers to show that their candidate will boost turnout with the youth vote. This is a major reason why Sanders had the better evening.
And things certainly could have gone the other way. Clinton could have delivered a heavy blow that would have taken the wind out of the Sanders’ sails the same way that Kerry delivered a near-knockout punch to Howard Dean twelve years ago. That this didn’t happen is a problem for Team Clinton. She is now looking at a long slog to the nomination. Sanders is getting very favorable media coverage and will raise millions of dollars from his donors, virtually none of whom are maxed out. He will win nearly half the delegates in any state where he can top 40% of the vote, making it impossible for her to mathematically eliminate him anytime in the next few months.
Despite all this good news for Sanders, things would have been better for him if he could have won outright. And Iowa really was tailor-made for him. He’s got to do better or he’ll never start netting delegates and eating into Clinton’s superdelegate lead. But he proved the concept last night and he’ll be very hard to knock out.
Clinton will have to earn this the hard way, and that’s not what she or the Democratic Establishment was hoping for last night.
A good inter-party (Sort of–with an independent) scrum will keep the hatchets from the GOP on the back pages of the national media they all threw at Hillary, and to a much lesser extent Bernie last night.
Hillary has much to be proud of in her life, as does Bernie. Let’s hope they can find a way to mobilize the folks that have stayed on the voting sidelines in November, not just in the Primaries and Caucuses.
The republicans are all full of crap. Ted Cruz is a Fake Born Again that I have seen over the past few decades on the telly and in my local church’s. Marco Rubio is a punk. An opportunist without morals. Trump is a comedian.
If we screw this up, Norway will be restricting American refugees next December…
Somehow Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton, whichever way we control the SCOTUS nominations..
Nothing else matters
I don’t really understand the ‘all white’ electorate comments. In what way is Clinton not a better match for an ‘all white’ electorate than Sanders? She’s all white, herself. She’s Wonder Bread, while Sanders is a slice of rye.
Is this masking an argument that a less-white electorate is less comfortable voting for a Jew,? Or is the theory just that it’s all down to loyalty to Obama? I continue to be a little surprised at how pervasive the taboo is against mentioning Sanders’ ethnicity. I suppose that’s by design on the part of Sanders campaign.
Thanks for your question. Polling nationally, and in other states, has pretty consistently shown Sec. Clinton with much stronger support than Sen. Sanders from African-American and Latino voters.
Given the current demographics of Democratic primary voters, splitting the white vote and losing (badly) among all other voters is a recipe for losing—if, in fact, that’s what happens in the next few months.
And thanks for the answer!
I know that Clinton’s polling stronger than Sanders among A-A and Latino voters. (I’m not sure how much of that is name recognition, discomfort with his ethnicity, policy differences, whatever, but I know that it’s true.)
What I don’t know is how much weaker Sanders is running among white votes than he would be if he weren’t so Jewy. I mean, how much of a ‘bonus’ is Clinton getting for being white Christian in a white Christian state? If it’s a not-insubstantial amount–that is, if Sanders was operating at a deficit in Iowa because he’s manifestly ethnic–then does it make sense to talk about a ‘nearly all-white electorate’ being ideal for him?
For the most part in the mid-west if there is an animus toward Jews and Catholics it is in the rural areas. Furthermore, it is almost exclusively among the evangelicals that the vaguely anti-Semetic and anti-Papist are found.
I would personally like to know if there is any significant anti-Jewish vote in the urban black population due to the influence of Nation of Islam. I read a lot of stuff … but its mostly written by white people and I’m not sure I trust it. This is just curiosity, btw.
Well, I’ve certainly felt, in the midwest, something less than animus but more like … I don’t know … exoticism? And from what I’ve read, antisemitic attitudes are more prevalent among African Americans and Latinos than whites. (Which makes sense, I suppose, as there are two locations of tension, both white/black (or brown) and gentile/Jew, instead of just one.)
Are you saying you believe the reason Democrats support Democrats is because they’re anti-semitic?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
You seem to be projecting your racism onto Democrats and seem surprised you’re not finding sympathy.
Don’t be, I doubt you will find much if any sympathy among Mr. Sanders supporters either.
oh come on. ask a stupid question, that’s what you get. this isn’t the orange place. you’re not going to last long here – what do you say, guys? one day, two days?
I don’t know how you would describe his point of view other than racist.
I guess if you want to be nice you could describe it as stupid…or maybe being a good liberal you could describe it as racist and stupid (leaving no base uncovered).
As he himself has said he believes Democrats support Democrats because they’re anti-semitic.
keep digging, you may find China down there. otoh everyone here is laughing at you
I would have assumed this would not have to be said but apparently it does, I take your comments (and everyone else’s) to be a reflection of what they think, I don’t project your (or anyone else’s) opinions onto anyone else.
Yeah, I’ve felt the same way. Note that in some areas I’ve visited, jew is used as a verb as wel as a noun. As in, “that bastard jewed me out of my money”. The first time I heard this I was taken aback, but the speaker didn’t even seem to be aware of the insult.
Exoticism is actually somewhat correct. There are very few Jews in the rural American mid-west, and they are seen as rare colorful birds. They go to church on Saturday, they don’t eat pork, they don’t eat shrimp (actually, most do but …). But the virulent anti-Semitism found in the ’30s just isn’t very prevalent.
I don’t know about the Latino population, but there is a very virulent strain of anti-Semitism in the Nation of Islam. I’m not sure what effect NOI has on the D vote in the primaries, however. I shouldn’t think that anti-Semitism would cause them to vote Republican, but I guess it would be possible for them to not vote for president. I don’t know
I’ve seen no particular American Latino organized anti-Semitism. I’m sure you can find individual examples of it, but those don’t really count. It is possible that identifying with Palestinians and the correlation between Jewish settlements and the Anglo takeover of the desert SoutWest would cause a reaction, but I don’t see it.
Who knows, no way to tell.
My SWAG not much of a caucus or primary problem, but significant general election problem.
People point to immigration as the explanation for Eric Cantor loss, but he was beaten by a guy with a strong evangelical Christian resume.
I agree, and that’s just one more reason why I wish we on the leftie blogs discussed Sanders’s ethnicity more. I strongly support him, but pretending that his ethnicity isn’t an issue is perhaps not the wisest course.
good point. especially since the movie Selma, for example, brought back the alliance at that time between Jews and Blacks in the Civil Rights struggle – in which Sanders participated.
One of the things which some analysts have proposed as a potential cause of Sanders’ difficulty attracting support from non-white voters is Bernie’s laser focus on economic inequality and campaign financing. I’ve seen it pointed out that when community organizations representing Hispanic-, African-, Arab- and Asian-Americans have addressed Sanders and his campaign with complaints about immigration law, justice, law enforcement and other issues, his campaign has been perceived as saying “Sure we need to do something about killings in poor neighborhoods by criminals and law enforcement officers, and this is one of the reasons we need to get Citizens United repealed” or “I agree, and that’s why we need good paying jobs.”
I’ll say that I see Bernie’s point on these issues, but I can imagine these non-white communities might believe he prioritizes their asks second. I can imagine campaign finance reform or complaints about trade deals would feel pretty abstract and borderline unresponsive to a Black Lives Matter activist or a DREAMer, for example. Maybe a willingness to sit with their issue and not pivot to the main campaign themes of the Sanders campaign would help Bernie chip away at his deficit in this area.
I wonder what advice he is getting from his campaign strategists, and what advice he is acting on.
Using someone like Cornel West as a surrogate seems pretty obtuse.
So, they prefer pretty speeches to jobs and education. Not a very flattering portrait.
No, they would prefer that their twelve year olds not be shot by the police. Good jobs might solve that problem in a generation, but they need help now.
So would we all.
But some of us ask when did the mass incarceration of minority kids and federal subsidies to militarize local police departments begin? Those two changes go together with minority kids being killed by cops because hypervigilance by those armed to the teeth leads to many tragedies. Then we also ask ourselves if electing an AA POTUS has in any way ameliorated or improved the situation? Insufficient data to answer that question, but what exists doesn’t lead one to answer yes.
Decriminalizing marijuana would go a long way to improve the situation quickly. Combined with a reduction in the seize mentality of cops and a reduction of their firepower would improve the results further.
I still feel this is primarily a problem that has to be addressed locally first. Green Lanterns don’t elect city councilmen.
Disagree; not an either other. Federal drug laws set a standard and tone. Not accidental that federal, state, and local incarceration rates, reasonably stable after decades, skyrocketed after passage of the 1994 federal crime bill. Everybody has a pet notion of why violent crime appeared to increase in the preceding few years (“Super Predators” according to Mrs. Clinton), but how good was that data? Many notions on why it dropped after that, but none that is explanatory across regions. It could have been a societal fluke. Or adjustment to a new normal of lowered financial/economic well-being for all economic classes.
Once labeled as “trash” and “trouble,” this country has a penchant for making them disappear and isn’t too bothered by that unless it touches directly on their own life. Hence, no outrage over Guantanamo.
Racism was in Missouri long before drug laws. Drug laws became handy tools, yes. But the Ferguson set up did not need drug laws to make ATMs of the black communities. To suck every cent out of their economy and send it to the white suburbs in salaries and perks. All it needed were complicit councilmen and courts and a police force that may/might as well have been trained from the Israeli/Palestinian playbook.
Call me cynical, but it is the middle/upper middle opoid epidemic that is loosening the grip of drug enforcement. Not the meth heads of the fly over parts nor medical MJ lobbying, imo.
All I’ve heard from Hillary on that is “We have to do something about that.” No specifics. What a fantastic program. And what can a President do about local police? Federalism.
If there is something a President can do, why hasn’t Obama done it?
And don’t say “congress” because Hillary will have the same Congress.
They need jobs now! Otherwise what will they do for money when Hillary ends “Welfare as we know it” again?
“They.” Hmm.
Browbeating non-white voters who support Hillary will not turn them into Sanders supporters. I’m glad Bernie’s campaign is not doing so as explicitly as this portion of the comments thread does, but Sanders is running out of time to crack this demographic nut.
“They” is the indefinite plural pronoun according to my High School English teachers. But it was a public school.
can we just be clear Hillary isn’t Bill, I haven’t heard her say anything about ending Welfare at all
No, she just calls people on welfare embarrassing deadbeats who humiliate their kids with their dependence.
She’ll be fine on welfare and resist the calls from the Very Serious People to prove her toughness and seriousness by putting the boot to SS/SSDI/welfare recipients, I’m sure.
you have a link to that statement?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/hillary-clinton-used-to-talk-about-how-the-people-on-welfa
re#.akkdmEv2B
I made a comparison of Hillary Clinton to Margaret Thatcher in another thread, saying that they’re really not all that different. Her anti-poor rhetoric is the linchpin argument in that comparison.
I mean, really, what exactly is the difference between what Hillary said and Ronald Reagan — or George Wallace for that matter — said about shiftless young bucks leeching off of the system?
It’s a fucked-up part of her record, no doubt. It’s also nearly 20 years old. Hillary had two terms in the Senate between then and now; did she campaign on or write laws or support efforts to cut welfare and other social services during those years?
Here’s her campaign platform:
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues
I see a lot of plans to grow or start a variety of social services here, and not a cut proposed. Her platform is a repudiation of Thatcherism.
she also selling her husband’s program at the time
that’s still a crappy quote but I haven’t seen anything since stopped being the 1st lady that she still supports that position
Well, she was defending welfare reform as recently as 2008, if that means anything. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/politics/11welfare.html?_r=0
As far as contemporary legislation goes, HRC supported that loathsome bankruptcy ‘reform’ bill and praised the EU’s austerity measures back in 2009. You can read more about that here which included such niceties like France raising the retiring age, Denmark raising the retirement age and cutting child care, and the countries uniformly implementing spending cuts.
Neither of those are smoking guns, but in light of her showing continued indifference to people not in the upper-middle class I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that she didn’t undergo some magic, unseen transformation away from an anti-poor bigot.
If the centrist consensus was legitimately better on issues relevant to racial minorities, you might have a point with a ‘class focus’. But… any honest analysis should show that the Clinton-Obama wing is at best no better than Sanders. And considering that this portion of the Democratic Party has their fingers directly in the pies of the War on Drugs, mass incarceration, welfare reform, and police militarization even a facile analysis would show that no matter how you slice it, Hillary Clinton is worse on racial civil rights than Sanders.
You really only have a handful of explanations for this phenomenon, none of them flattering.
A.) You’re claiming that racial minorities are so misinformed that they really don’t know the basic policy positions and achievements of the Clinton wing of the party.
B.) You’re claiming that some other factor drives racial minorities into the Clinton camp that has nothing to do with policy position. If you want to be charitable, you could claim that it’s cynical game theory; HRC would respond to a racial minority betrayal if she became President with more hippie-punching and Sister Soulja moments. Sanders, if he somehow won without their support, wouldn’t retaliate. If you want to be conspirational, you could claim naked patronage by their leaders.
C.) You’re claiming that racial minorities are more offended by half-loaf measures that don’t directly address their biggest concerns that they would rather get zero-loaf measures that ignored all of their concerns. This is the one that Voice in the Wilderness says that you’re going with and honestly it’s the least offensive of all of these explanations.
If you want to have this argument, then let’s have it. But I’m warning you right now that it’s not going to go in a direction the smug-ass ‘lol we’re so much more in touch with minorities than you foolish class-only socialist strawmen’ centrist elites will like.
Bernie is pretty Johnny-one-note about money in politics and income distribution, assumes just fixing poverty takes care of any racial issues. To blacks, this is a lot like replying “All lives matter” to someone who says “black lives matter.”
Bernie has been using Cornel West as a spokesman, and says stuff that blacks regard as disrespectful of Pres. Obama. You could probably find more detailed explanation at Chauncey DeVega.
http://www.chaunceydevega.com/
Hillary’s campaign and other organizations are very diverse, lots of POC. I don’t know how Bernie is on this.
Identity politics. By that argument, I should be a big Bernie fan – similar if not same ethnicity/religion, slightly older. Clearly, I amnot.
The younger women of Iowa break for Bernie Sanders? Has that anything to do with identity politics? How are you similar to Bernie Sanders?
Charon, If you’re planning to go on for the next six months in this vein I’d very much like to know why you support Hillary Clinton. Now don’t say you don’t because I know Clintons don’t lie.
Previous comment posted at wrong level, was to your other question, I messed up.
I think HRC has better ideas, is much more capable and accomplished, is a much stronger general election candidate than Bernie.
I also think she has a better campaign organization, and I kind ofwant to win in November.
Yes. But what are her better ideas exactly? That’s what its about. About the rest you might be right or wrong. All that comes down to impressions. Despite all that, she hardly won (though she did actually win) in Iowa. According to polls I’ve read about (not explored) Sanders would achieve a better result against Trump than Clinton. She certainly has got a lot of in Arkansas, Washington and New York. How did she ever get to be senator of New York? She’d never set foot in the state until the Democratic party anointed her. Any whispering Wall Street interests (Schumer)? Being the First Lady doesn’t count because she happened to be married to the First Man. Her policy towards Libya and Syria were discussing. ‘She came, she saw, he died.’ Madame, would you please learn to conceal your glee about destroying a country. Maybe she can tell us how he died? Hee, hee, as in a Hollywood ripper. Anyway, I’m bored by all this. What policies of hers are better?
You ask, he answers, you dismiss/want more.
Pretty typical of the a tribune these days.
.
when someone’s “answer” is a vague comment about better policies, they should expect further questioning about exactly which policies.
Oh horsepucky! I am not obligated to compile a dossier of her positions, I have a life.
Read some of the debate transcripts, or visit her website, I am not your servant.
According to polls I remember, Mike Dukakis had a 17% lead over Poppy Bush in summer of 1988. How did that work out?
The GOP and Conservative Entertainment Complex are playing nice with Bernie. Do you propose to count on that continuing?
Not too well, which is why I’m wondering why Democrats of the Bill Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary Clinton mould insist on running that playbook over and over.
But then again, centrists of that tradition never blame Dukakis’s positions for that piss-poor performance even though Dukakis’s performance is, demographically speaking and in comparison to his successors, pretty unremarkable. Dukakis didn’t blow a huge lead because of demographic alignment + having unpopular positions on welfare and crime + race baiting + a couple of low-impact gaffes.
No no, according to them, Dukakis’s lead evaporated because of race baiting + super-duper gaffes. If he didn’t get in that damn tank then people would’ve been otherwise okay with his positions.
I answered that elsewhere. I occasionally got beat up as a kid (during the Truman administration) as punishment for “killing Christ.”
Ah! So, again white lives don’t matter.
An alarming trend is the lack of growth in the electorate for the Iowa caucuses. This is not 2008 redux, which is more bad than good.
The story last night – ignored in this post – is the story of turnout.
This was an engaged fight, with significant enthusiasm on one side, and another side going through the motions with a sense of entitlement.
Objectively Hillary Clinton has run the worst campaign in Iowa Caucus History. No one – NO ONE – ever has had as big a lead in Iowa and blown it.
I put Bernie’s odds of winning at about 15%. But the Clinton wing of the party is out of ideas.
The moment of these caucuses was on Saturday night when Clinton said it was too hard to fight for healthcare as a right.
She isn’t a progressive – she never was.
That is going to be increasingly clear.
Ehh … record-setting for the Republican side wit the campaign teams of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio ass-whooping Donald Trump.
○ Sanders campaign cites ‘alarming’ signs Clinton plans to pack the caucuses
Fladem’s report from Iowa Caucus
thanks! any chance the party will see the writing on the wall? superdelegates? what about the Polk County count?
The Super Delegate issue is over rated. Most Super delegates who haven’t chosen yet won’t until the victor is apparent. Also, some super delegates are chosen in party meetings between now and the convention.
On turnout – so we blew it away in West Des Moines, and it was far higher than in 2004 – which at the time was considered very high.
But we didn’t get as close to the ’08 number. Part of that was the timing – no doubt caucuses close to the New Year made it easier.
So I was wrong about that a bit.
Al the kids who ran the Sanders Campaign – and their professionalism is really to be admired – far beyond previous campaigns – were goint to Nevada.
If Bernie wins Iowa a Nevada win can generate momentum.
Ironically, the Clinton kids my friend knows are also going to Nevada.
good news about Sanders kids going to Nevada
Your own diary shows how she won, by the party officials disenfranchising those new voters standing in line. Do they think they will stand in line for Hillary in November after she had them tuned away last night?
How did she blow it? She WON. She has the lion’s share of delegates and that’s that. She has shown that the old boys can defeat the voters.
Here’s what I’m not getting:
First hand report after report (with pics in many cases) of phenomenal turnout (never seen this many before) and then the total tally comes out and it’s down 60,000 attendees from ’08. A third more than showed up last night. Figures on first time caucus voters are sketchy but somewhere near 40%, but say it was only 35%. That would mean that 123,000 and more than half of those that showed up in ’08 weren’t there last night. The drop-out/drop-off number from 2004 to 2008 was 17%. Double the time period (’08 to ’16) and the drop-out/drop-off rate was 49%. The message in this boils down to “if one can’t build his/her very own new caucus electorate, one can’t win” unless one is the DEM establishment candidate.
Hillary is now calling herself a progressive who can get things done. I’m not sure she can sell it but for those not engaged it sounds good. So what does Bernie have that she doesn’t? I mean other than a sense of entitlement.
A virtual tie is what I was hoping for last night. A good battle puts attention onto the Democrats, for a change. We’ll get more media coverage, and it will be of candidates actually discussing ideas and promising to help people. I expect this will all be resolved by Super Tuesday, but that gives us an entire month to make our case.
Im not an yglesias fan but he has some good thoughts here.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10892724/bernie-sanders-wake-up-call
Yeah. Just like the Republican establishment was supposed to have gotten one… Neither one is taking outside calls.
Dems have no plan to take the house, iffy on senate, no scotus, and are being exterminated at the state level. Blame citizens united or not, but the GOP has a much stronger grip on power than the dems. You’d think they’d be willing to listen.
I agree. The so-called Dem “establishment” is for sh*t. They got nothing going on at almost any level other than POTUS. And their main message appears to be: vote for us because who else is there?
As others have said either on this blog or elsewhere, the POTUS race is important, but really it’s the House that should be the MAJOR focus… but sadly, it’s not.
I would say that Citizens United is part of it. The 1% loves it when things are FUBAR. Nothing ever really getting done suits the Masters of the Universe, including Wall St, the Hedgies & the MIC, down to the ground.
That’s my supposition as to why Ds continually are AWOL and incompetent. They scrapped Howard Dean’s successful strategy, too. Why? Because it worked too well at getting the rabble involved… IOW, who needs f*cking r*t*rd opinions?? We can kick and punch the DFHs till the cows come home because who else are they gonna vote for? Donald Trump??
Citizens United has done more harm to the Republican Party than to the Dems. Ironic, isn’t it? It’s divided the Republix seven ways to Sunday, and at least to some degree it’s brought Dems together.
Only at the national level.
At the state level, where ALL congressional campaigns and governor races are fought; and local levels, IE state house and county/city officers are fought:
Citizens United is having the effect the perpetrators of the lawsuit wanted,
Money buying political offices through saturation campaigning.
Most of that money supports the GOtP
The Iron Law of Institutions!! People need to remember what that means.
since we’re on the topic, he’s making Sanders into Spike Lee’s Magical Negro. good luck with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
hope Sanders campaign uses my comment to increase AA support.
Well Yglesias has always been a neolib at heart.
Ok. It’s over. For one bright shining moment, I believed in Jimmy Stewart and that Mr. Smith would go to Washington. That’s why I was so angry at you for dashing cold water on it before. Because I wanted to believe. Just a stupid old man. I’m 70 years old, 71 by election time. Old enough to know that the Daley’s, Madigan’s, Cullerton’s and Clinton’s control the elections. Democracy is a fiction. Money Talks. Louder than anything except an AK-47. And money controls those too.
Jesus! My wife should have me committed for being so irrational.
There were some candidates there last night who were rude, loud and obnoxious. Sanders was not one of them. There is that.
Voice — the glass is at least half full. This isn’t 2004. With odds far longer than what Dean confronted, Sanders has built an authentic campaign operation, tied “the man” in Iowa instead of coming in a distant third, and his fundraising prowess along with the campaign infrastructure allows him to carry the message long after the Iowa caucuses. Team Sanders in Iowa accomplished MORE than team Obama did in ’08. Obama wasn’t facing a united and practically impenetrable establishment wall. It was split 40/35 Clinton/Edwards. (My estimate 45/35 Kerry/Edwards in ’04). Obama could take that 25%, add in the Iowa liberal wing (18%), and utilize the advantage of being from a neighbor state.
This really is nothing like you and I have ever seen before. This sort of split — old with the status quo and young with “enough” — might come close to what existed in the 1930s. It’s an uphill climb because the split is more pronounced within the DEM party. It’s as if Andrew Mellon controlled the wheels of the DEM party back then.
One step at a time and keep on walking. As Bernie has said, we (finally) have the people.
Best observation / analysis about Iowa Caucus anyone has made this cycle:
No one I’ve read this season has remarked that Iowa was Obama’s 2008 next door neighbor state. What next week’s New Hampshire will be to Sanders 2016. Sure others noticed it, but I’d forgotten. And like you (and I think Martin in a post just recently) say, his sort-of win there wasn’t impressive.
Why aren’t all the pundits pointing out this comparison? I suppose they don’t want to highlight it because it’s bad for Clinton, and by extension, bad for them as moderators of public opinion as well. Sanders knocked the wind out of the Clinton campaign yesterday in Iowa, but nobody wants to discuss it yet.
Darn, neglected to include that Obama received a lot of free media attention and DEM debates up the wazoo. A part of those two elements can be viewed as advantages for establishment candidates, but he got at least a third (probably more because Edwards seemed to get less than Obama and Clinton) of it. The ratio for Clinton over Sanders has been at least 10 to 1. The first debate wasn’t until October, there have only been four (three of them scheduled when almost nobody would be expected to watch), compared to 2008 when the first debate was held on April 26th.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen this before. Gene McCarthy, 1968.
The issues are different but no less important. The people on sides are different, but no less committed. If I remember correctly, and I’m pretty sure I do, the McCarthy supporters (Not McCarthy himself) accused the other 2 in the race (Robert Kennedy and HHH) of all kinds of chicanery, personal miscreance and corruption.
Luckily, there actual politicians on the R side are pretty well out of it. There were plenty not out of it in ’68 (Nixon, Reagan, Rhodes, Rockefeller, Volpe and some others).
I don’t see, yet, the outright hatred of one wing of the D party by the other. I hope it doesn’t come to that. ‘Cause if it does, we’ll get Trump or Cruz or Rubio or whoever.
At this point the only similarity between 1968 and 2016 is an insurgent campaign knocked some stuffing out of the presumed DEM nominee in one state. LBJ still won by 50% to 42%. We also have to factor in that the NH primary at that time was considered a joke; the media decided to change the narrative that year. Not even important/major enough for LBJ to mount a real campaign there. He still won. No comparison with the year long full campaign operation that Clinton has had in Iowa. She tied. There’s also no comparison between Sanders’ Iowa campaign and McCarthy’s NH campaign. One was real and the other was a ragtag and well meaning effort based on in-person appeals to voters from young people that didn’t want to die in Vietnam.
The Iowa caucuses have been accorded a high level of meaning for DEM contenders in the last two DEM competitive races. So, the Iowa caucus has far more standing in 2016 than the NH primary had in 1968.
HHH didn’t compete in a single primary that year — and LBJ had withdrawn after NH. The rancor during the remaining primaries was between the McCarthy and RFK campaigns and supporters. It would be as if Clinton dropped out after Sanders cleared the field and Cuomo stepped in and said thanks but I’ll take it from here now that you’ve done the heavy lifting for me.
The comparison is forced, to say the least.
Not only for the reasons Marie gives, but even more because LBJ was an incumbent president and commander-in-chief in the middle of a war, when most of America still strongly supported that war, while McCarthy’s supporters were regarded as just a bunch of DFHs.
Admittedly there is some air of “incumbency” or rather entitlement to Hillary, and some hint of DFH to her opponents. But it’s all much more imagined than real.
I’m a little tired of these cherry-picking analogies. Msy I suggest something a little more holistic?
http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/fdrs-rough-road-to-nomination/
Bear in mind this was written in 2007.
Did you mean to respond to my comment? If so, you lost me on part of it.
But the FDR nomination fight was an interesting read. Didn’t know that Smith hadn’t accepted his loss in ’28. Shudder to think how much more backward this county would be today if he’d succeeded in getting nominated again — wouldn’t have mattered who won the rematch. Or maybe it would have been worse in Smith instead of Hoover won the rematch.
Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to yours, but more to DerFarm’s, to which you were also responding.
By the way, this is slightly OT but I feel sorry for O’Malley. At the beginning I didn’t know anything about the guy at all, and he made a good impression on me. But the Clinton/Sanders battle sucked all the oxygen out of the room, and it had to be that way. Maybe he was hoping to get some positive national exposure, which I guess he did.
agree, and hope he campaigns for Sanders
Without Sanders in the race, Clinton would have sucked all the oxygen out of it on her own. O’Malley lacks substance. Nothing wrong with him but nothing right either. Absent an entering large donor or party elites base, guys like MOM don’t get much traction in presidential campaigns. No shortage of politicians that want “to be” president. The reason why Sanders has succeeded is that he’s that rare want “to do” as president candidate. “To do” coming from his entire life and political career and not some agenda put together by a policy team because it is what a well-heeled donor class wants and/or can made to sound good to win an election.
Well, well, well, well, well.
We finally have the first vote and we find that Cruz, Trump, and Rubio split the caucuses three ways for the “not significant this year” vote. The Tea Party faithful are divided about who best covers their hatred of Hispanic voters, one of two Hispanic US Senators or a Germanic business mogul (since this has become an ethnic contest for them).
New Hampshire should be another zoo, given that it is slipping into the blue-state category.
And the Democratic caucus is won with superdelegates — in other words, the establishment in a toss out the establishment year. Too bad for Sec. Clinton that superdelegates don’t have heavier votes in the general election. What they do is shut down their machine operations on candidates they don’t like for whatever reason.
I can think of no more non-progressive political process than that that allows a Scott Brown to get elected just because the state attorney general and the mayor of Boston are on the outs. Yes, cover the “poor campaigner” angle but many poor campaigners have been elected by machines. And campaign staffs can have games played with them.
The fight this year is over whether “Democratic” is just another brand like “Republican” or “Tea Party” or “Freedom Party”. Or does it have aspirations to create a national, state, and local process that is “democratic”.
The figure of Hillary Clinton is the poster child for that debate. That’s why there is so much commentary about Clinton’s character and personality. She is the personification (along with Deborah Wasserman-Schultz) of the Democratic establishment that has lost Democrats power in Congress and legislatures. A near miss on the equivalent of a no-confidence vote (Sanders is as they say not a life-long Democratic Party member, that is a part of the establishment, but an insurgent). And the demographics show that the younger set, which now reaches up to age 44, are over being dismissed by their wiser-and-elder establishment pols who, in their view, turned the major effort of 2008 into quite a bit less.
Bernie Sanders must bring black and Latinos into his campaign in order to compete with Clinton outside the liberal states. (Interestingly, the very states in which the establishment Democrats have proven failures.) The knocks on Sanders are: (1) He can’t win. (2) He doesn’t understand minority issues and tries to wrap identity politics in a class politics frame. The “virtual tie” in Iowa goes a ways to dealing with the first issue. New Hampshire for Sanders will be written off as a friends-and-neighbors victory. Substantial progress in Nevada and South Carolina are what are required to shake up that second knock on Sanders. Articulating the narrative as to how class politics got embedded in identity politics in the US is going to be the most politically challenging task Sanders has to accomplish. That is so difficult that it has disadvantaged Democrats among white working class voters for over 50 years.
I think the uniting theme will be something along the lines of ‘we’re all uppity in this together’ or something like that.
That’s the interesting thing about it. It’s not just that Bernie Sanders marched with MLK in 1963. It’s that he’s still marching with him. Because economic justice for all was exactly what MLK was preaching — NOT identity politics.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/martin-luther-kings-economic-dream-a-guaranteed-
income-for-all-americans/279147/
Not good. Obama lost 6% of under 35 turn out in 2012 from 2008. If we drop back to ’04 numbers the election becomes a toss-up.
Right. So the conclusion is . . . ?
Sometimes I do wonder what it will take to gain your recognition that Bernie could be on a trajectory to win the nomination then become President even as the Democratic Establishment hates that idea.
Please, tell me it’s not so! “…last night was a clear victory for Bernie Sanders, but not necessarily the victory he needed. …Sanders had an ideal situation last night (because they’re all white) …even if in this environment, Sanders wasn’t able to land a clear victory. If he can’t win in Iowa, he’s not likely to win much of anywhere else, except perhaps in New England.”
You do admit that Hillary’s advantage comes from Iowa’s super delegates (and maybe a lucky coin toss or two). You then continue to say “…and it’s (the Super Delegate pledges) one of her important advantages” as if none of those Super Delegates will never change their votes and to go with the people. If a majority of the people vote for Bernie and the establishment Super Delegates override that vote, do you think that might hurt general election turnout? Will Super Delegates be aware of the danger of this possibility?
While we’re on the subject of general election turnout, your own millennial stepson tells you “…they’re all saying that they can’t wait to vote for Sanders. Hillary offers them nothing to get excited about and, if she’s the nominee, there’s no way they’ll turn out for her.” Believe me; I hear this all the time, it’s everywhere. You dismiss that but then you admit that the 84% Iowa youth vote backs it up.
Now we come to the standard bucket of cold water, “…if Sanders can’t make inroads with people of color, he won’t win the nomination.” People of color didn’t support Obama until he proved he could win. Bernie just proved he could win by overcoming a 41% Hillary lead to win an Iowa tie in a few short months. The DNC has been forced to open up the number debates (including dates and times) plus the media finally has their horse race. The establishment media Bernie freeze out has now come to an end. Let’s see what happens as the people of color realize they have a choice, a real choice that could improve their lives.
It’s good to know you’re not in the bag for Hillary.
“People of color didn’t support Obama until he proved he could win. Bernie just proved he could win by overcoming a 41% Hillary lead to win an Iowa tie in a few short months. . . . Let’s see what happens as the people of color realize they have a choice, a real choice that could improve their lives.”
Yes — and here’s an excellent piece on just that topic. I hope a lot of people will read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-bernie-sanders_us_56aa3483e4b0d82286d51290
Thank you. That is a great article.
Worth reading. Although there was another factor that is often overlooked, not so many people tune into a presidential primary before the Iowa caucuses. And for many it’s much later than that. So, their early responses and opinions have more to do with name recognition than what they actually think. And yes, winning attracts people that prefer winners.
I wish it were different and people evaluated the candidates more thoroughly and carefully in light of the nation’s, their community’s, and their personal needs and hopes, but that requires a commitment of time and energy that many people view as a waste when they can simply defer to someone they trust.
(Bill Clinton’s comments in the article were bs. And to omit the racist dog whistles in NH and SC by Clinton surrogates puts a bit too much emphasis on Obama winning in Iowa and that led to SC AAs willing to back an AA that could win white votes.)
I’m looking to see what media outlets are doing the most cheering for Clinton. The media will continue to support Hillary as long as the emails don’t reveal love letters to al Qaeda and ISIS.
As a Sanders supporter I’m not disappointed by the voting. A virtual tie against the Clinton Machine is pretty impressive. Sanders will need to do well in New Hampshire and Nevada, which is very possible. I’d expect Clinton to win South Carolina, but I’m more interested in seeing the extent of any inroads into the African American community. If people actually listen to the candidate’s platforms Sanders should pick up a lot of votes.
Interesting article in the times yesterday on the caucuses. A woman there could not be convinced to vote for Clinton because she was “concerned about those emails”, and also because of “that movie about Benghazi”. Sanders has yet to be deluged by the republican/media sewage machine; they are holding back and concentrating fire on the front runner. If Sanders does well in the next few primaries we’ll start to see the dirt flying in his direction too. It won’t pretty, he has not been attacked that way yet.
No reason for them to hold back now. But what can they fling at Sanders that Sanders isn’t already discussing loudly and openly in his stump speech everywhere he goes? We’re all trying to figure out what that might be. Everyone says it’s sure to come. They’ll make shit up if they can’t find anything that’s true. But ask for an example of what those attacks will be and no one can say.
So, it’s an interesting theory, but not much more.
Read Sanders’ bio and it’s kind of boring. Born 1941, raised in Brooklyn. School and community service in Chicago. First marriage didn’t last. Radical thinker / free love proponent drops out to Vermont in the 60s. Girlfriend, only child born in 1969, odd jobs to make a living. Political (radical) writings published in early 70s. Early runs at state office in Vermont, never won. Finally elected Burlington mayor in March 1981. Met and later married his wife Jane. Elected Congress 1990; Senate 2006. But his life is a kind of gestalt. A whole thing more than a time line and it’s almost banal.
This banality of Sanders’ life is the problem everyone has when it’s time to think up the story that will take him down and then out. It’s as much the reason the media has a hard time writing about him as anything else: there’s not much there that’s very interesting to an information saturated public. The story of the 60s radical has been told, and so much more colorfully, a thousand times over the past 50 years. Bernie’s life is sort of gray by comparison. Martin here himself has lamented the fact (‘who are his friends, allies, power brokers…where’s the beef?’).
So, question stands. What have they got that’s going to destroy Bernie Sanders? And the answer so far is: not much.
OK, just for starters: (the rethug pros will be able to do so much more). Note that there doesn’t have to be any truth to these for them to work.
a) He’s going to raise your taxes.
b) That money is going to be wasted on the undeserving poors, not for anything you need
c) He’s not just a “socialist”, he’s a communist!
d) He hates the united states!
e)he stood on stage with Daniel Ortega while Ortega denounced the US (I really hope there’s no footage of that speech)
f) he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union!What’s wrong with Niagra Falls?
I need a shower now. It’s ugly stuff, but time-tested. Will this kind of crap work against Sanders? He’d better be prepared to fight it.
Not to mention g): Jeebus, he’s old! Do you really want Grandpa Munster for your president?
or
h) Jeebus, he’s Jewish! And Communist! Does he really share your values?
i). Did I mention he’s going to raise your taxes?
j) Does he really support black people? (With video of his first encounter with Black Lives Matter)
k) Does he really support women? (With video of him insulting Planned Parenthood)
Of course these are ridiculous things to say. But the GOP will say them, and he made it easy for them.
He’s going to raise your taxes.
iirc — Bill Clinton won in ’92 with a “raise taxes” promise. The difference was that he promised a more broad based income tax hike and Sanders is promising to target those that haven’t and aren’t paying their fair share.
Anyone swayed by any of those kinds of generic attacks won’t be voting for any Democrat, independent, corporate, socialist, or otherwise. (And “Daniel Ortega?” Really? Isn’t that the guy that makes the Mexican Taco kits at the grocery store?)
The technical term for this is ” whistling past the graveyard”.
You really think ” he’s going to raise your taxes” is a generic attack. Sanders is on record to do just that., and not just to the rich. Well, maybe nothing will stick, maybe you’re right. Sanders is a fighter, we’ll have to see how it plays out when he’s attacked full force.
Okay, so is any of that worse than ‘cling to guns and religion’ plus Rev. Wright?
All of these are just generic attacks that don’t really expose any hypocrisy. The Republican Party can’t run the PP or BLM attacks, because they’d just be concern trolling and everyone would know it — it’s why the GOP doesn’t run that many attacks against the Clinton Foundation.
The only thing that has any meat in it is ‘he’s going to raise your taxes’. Of course, the last time someone got hit hard on taxes was, what, 28 years ago? You’re kind of, uhm, ignoring a lot of changes that went on with the electorate between then and now. Like a much more liberal voting base and class war becoming a thing.
I mean, HRC tried to use the whole ‘Sanders will raise taxes on the middle class!’ canard a couple months ago. Hell, she’s still doing it. What has been the effect of that? Or are we just going to ignore that almost 30 years of change happened?
If Rev. Wright and ‘cling to guns and religion’ didn’t bring Obama down, I frankly think that unless you have something that shows Sanders recently violating a cultural more, something that affixes a really unpopular political event or position to his platform, or a megaton gaffe even bigger than that then you don’t have anything. You had Obama dead-to-rights with his own version of 47% that all-but-confirmed the worst stereotypes of the Democratic Party: that it was being run by anti-white elites who sneered down their nose at the culturally inferior Traditional America. And his pastor was a Malcolm X clone made it all the worse. Obama had all of the elements for a political reckoning and… nothing.
One (positive) side effect of polarization is that cultural flotsam like gaffes and tank photo ops mean much less than they used to unless they tie directly into a policy position or at least a political memeplex.
another side of it is that Sanders offers reality based analysis and concrete steps to address the issues – not simply “shared prosperity” and “there are problems”; ppl know there are problems, with Sanders in the race it’s not simply and exchange of insults and platitudes. he even addresses questions posed to him, doesn’t just veer off on talking points
What surprised me the most after the results were announced were how quickly smart Democrats fall into conspiracy theories, it was pretty embarrassing.
Whatever. Tie goes to the underdog.
WTH are you talking about? How is that a response to what I said?
It’s not responsive. I just stuck it in there. So sue me.
it’s getting weird around here