Home / General / It Is Getting Hard to See Any Evitability

It Is Getting Hard to See Any Evitability

Comments
/
/
/
409 Views

151221122025-trump-shrug-super-alt-11

I have generally thought that it would be enormously difficult for Donald Trump to win on a second or later ballot in Cleveland, given his organizational weaknesses. Who knows, this might even be right! However, after tonight’s massive blowout it seems pretty clear that it’s a moot point:

Donald J. Trump is essentially two key states from the nomination.

By sweeping five states on Tuesday, he pulled only a few hundred Republican delegates short of the 1,237 he needs to win without a contested convention.

He has long been favored in the polls in two of the remaining primary states, New Jersey and West Virginia. That leaves Indiana and California as the crucial prizes that would put Mr. Trump over the top — and while he was once thought to be vulnerable in both states, polls have shown him with a modest lead.

And not only that:

One thing that has to greatly worry the anti-Trump forces is that Trump is now exceeding his poll averages. Since New York, Trump has performed at least 6.5 percentage points better in every state than the average of polls taken within 21 days of the election. Before that, Trump tended to hit his polling average and win no undecideds. Now, he’s winning his fair share of undecideds and then some. That’s very bad news for his opponents, given that Trump is already ahead in Indiana, a must-win state for Cruz.

He has a very good shot at 1,237 pledged delegates, and if not he’ll probably get close enough to lock it up on the first ballot. Living in a satirical novel is weird, but I guess eventually you get used to it.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • CD

    For better or worse, we have our nominees.

    • LosGatosCA

      For better and worst

      • Gregor Sansa

        You are objectively despicable. Clinton has higher INT, but Bernie wins on WIS.

        • Gregor Sansa

          (Obviously, I’m joking. I did support Bernie in the primary, but I do not need to read another comment-thread yellfest about it, and so do not intend to start one.)

        • Rob in CT

          What we really need is something to boost CHA.

          • JMV Pyro

            I think there’s a belt for that.

            • Philip

              Trump’s been wearing a Hairpiece of the Damned, granting +10CHA but -8WIS and INT.

  • LosGatosCA

    It’s a great year to be a conservative, Teabagger Republican.

    Tomorrow’s to do list:

    1. Write a letter of support for the Dennis Hastert, admitted payer of $M damages related to child molestation
    2. Get a Trump sign for the yard
    3. Check NRO (National RINOs Online) for Trump rehab blogging
    4. Reroute Carly Fiorina’s tax returns from Cruz to Trump
    5. Reserve all the local American Legion Halls for the Trump victory parties in November
    6. Book DC flights for January inauguration
    7. Contact the unskewer of polls to start work early this election cycle – MSM will poison the well if we don’t get cracking.

    • John F

      7. Contact the unskewer of polls to start work early this election cycle – MSM will poison the well if we don’t get cracking.

      Mr. Unskewed (the inimitable Dean Chambers) HATES Trump with considerable fervor, he;s busy writing about how the GOP doesn’t have to nominate Trump even if he has a majority of pledged delegates…

  • JG

    It’s ovah

    • wjts

      I wouldn’t count Rocky de la Fuente out just yet – he won almost 6% of the vote* in American Samoa!

      *14 votes.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Go Land Crabs!

      • Gregor Sansa

        Our neighbor in Cambridge was for Rocky all the way. She tried to get us to be poll-observers for him; we coulda had the T-shirts.

        This is not the neighbor who was the landlord for the notorious Boston criminal. For that person, I have stood in front of at least 5 cameras blocking the shot of the house (the ABC cameraman called the cops, who told him I was within my rights). Fucking paparazzi.

        • wjts

          I had completely forgotten that he was running until I saw his name on the ballot yesterday.

      • DAS

        Rocky de la Fuente wasn’t on the ballot in the NY Dem primary. I hadn’t heard of him.

        How does he feel about Israel? If he’s not so keen on Likud but otherwise 100% tows the AIPAC line, given his banking background, his “conservative Democrat” self identification, etc., I betcha he coulda gotten 18 hundred thousand votes in my neighborhood.

    • sparks

      Not bad for a vanity candidate.

  • tonycpsu

    This is a hopeful sign that maybe, just maybe, Bernie’s not going to go The Full Nader.

    Whether his supporters listen to him, however, seems like a very open question.

    • wjts

      There’s no way in hell Sanders runs as a third-party candidate. And I’ll be very surprised if a significant number of his supporters* fail to turn out for Clinton in November.

      *Young Bragman Good and their 200 or so fellow travelers in various chapters of the Spartacist Youth League notwithstanding.

      • DrDick

        And there never was any chance of that. Sanders, unlike Nader, has enough intelligence to know that third parties have no chance and running as one would guarantee a Republican president, which he knows would be a disaster.

    • wengler

      There’s a good chance that a lot of the independents supporting Bernie won’t vote for Clinton. I don’t know if many of them will go for Trump but third party or sitting home is a good chance.

      • Nobdy

        We’ll see what happens after Bernie endorses her. She’s already tacking left to try to appeal to them, and there’s another 6 months of Trump to endure before the polls. The desire to vote against him meaningfully will be very very strong.

      • DrDick

        As has been pointed out many times on this blog, there really are not any, or at least no significant number, independents. They are are people who consistently vote for the same party when they bother to vote, but who hate labels. It is up to Clinton to motivate them to vote, as Sanders and Obama did.

    • Rob in CT

      Trump brought this up in his rambling whateverthefuck last night. It was so clearly self-serving I’d hope that it would break through a few people’s heads. Donald effing Trump thinks Bernie should run 3rd party (obviously because it would only benefit him).

  • NewishLawyer

    I find it hard to see how it is anyone but Trump and HRC right now. The big issue is whether the Bernie supporters can stop having a temper tantrum and get behind HRC. The Bernie supporters I know are not filling me with confidence on this need.

    • Relax on this. It’s a hell of a long time til the election. Avoid the noise. Let’s talk about this if it’s still an issue on Labor Day.

      • delazeur

        We all remember Clinton supporters saying they would vote McCain or stay home if Obama won the ’08 nomination…

      • NewishLawyer

        To address Loomis and everyone else, I think politics is divided between optimists and pessimists and I am a pessimist. My first Presidential election as a voting adult was Bush v. Gore.

        I know a Democratic partisan who still is skeptical about Trump being the Presidential nominee for the GOP. He simply refuses to budge on the issue beyond giving Trump a 40 percent chance. Some of his reasoning is “the Democratic Party is not that lucky.”

        Me. I am a pessimist and a cynic. I worry that there is something in the air if someone like Trump can get close to the nomination or win the nomination.

        • Karen24

          You are entirely too chipper. MY first Presidential election was Reagan v. Mondale. If the Dems can lose, for a value of “can” = “not actually prohibited by the laws of physics,” they will.

          • Rob in CT

            Hmm. My first election was 1996. I was a political moron, so I was neither pleased nor upset by the result. Similarly, 2000 (moron), but I learned quickly after that. The Bush the Lesser years were… educational. I can’t recall my thoughts in the 2002 midterms, even though I’m 99% sure I voted in them.

            Then came 2004. That hurt.
            2006 went better, but I was still pissed because Lieberman survived (not that Lamont was great or anything).

            So at that point, I felt as you do.

            But then 2008 was pretty cool.
            2010 was awful.
            2012 was good.
            2014 was bad.

            I see a pattern.

            So I am cautiously optimistic for 2016. The pattern is advantage Dem in Presidential years, and the GOP is in total disarray. They’re seriously nominating Donald Trump. The approval ratings of Dems look bad on their own, but when put up against the GOP they look good. The economic trend is positive (albeit only slightly, and there are all sorts of things that need to be addressed).

            Given the above, I have to wonder which states that went Dem in 2012 Trump could possibly flip (more likely: HRC flips a state or two).

          • DrDick

            Pikers, mine was Nixon vs. McGovern.

          • DAS

            I was too young to vote in that election, but I don’t think the Dems really had a chance in 1984 just as the cult of St. Ronnie was getting into full gear. And, to make matters worse, Mondale just didn’t look good on the TV in those debates whereas Reagan knew from how to look and act on the screen (both big and small): if you go back and watch videos of the debates, you will learn two things — (1) everything that Reagan did in his second term that his supporters use as evidence that Reagan was the best president in the world, Mondale was promising he’d do and Reagan was actually running on doing the opposite and (2) it’s obvious that someone responding to questions in the considered way Mondale was responding would never be POTUS whereas a telegenic former Hollywood actor responding to those questions in the way Reagan did has a 100% chance of winning a POTUS race.

        • Mellano

          I remember a friend wandering in around midnight from a dorm room with a TV, worried that Bush had pulled ahead.

          “No, that’s impossible! They already called Florida for Gore …”

      • Lost Left Coaster

        In a general election campaign between Clinton and Trump, anyone with the moral constitution in excess of that of a paramecium will vote for Clinton.

        • Colin Day

          But as Adlai Stevenson would say, we need a majority.

      • addicted44

        Smartest damn thing anyone has said this entire primary cycle.

        Everyone (including me) needs to print this comment out and post it on their fridge door, in their shower, and on their ceiling above their bed so they see it everyday.

        • Rob in CT

          Lots of people have said this (including me) over and over.

          But it doesn’t spur outrage (why would it?), so it’s not going to generate a 500 comment thread.

          Bernie or Busters is roughly equivalent to PUMAs. The difference is that more Bernie support comes from Indies, but those Indies most likely are the type who typically vote Green or don’t vote at all anyway, so “losing” them shouldn’t really do anything. I mean, I’d rather have them, but it’s not like we’re talking about a bunch of committed Democrats here.

          • xq

            I think those indies most likely are the type that consistently vote Democrat but don’t register as such because they have various issues with the party system. And those will vote for Clinton at high rates.

            It’s hard to prove this definitively, but this article (which I think you posted on an earlier thread) gets into it:
            http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

            • DrDick

              They pretty much all are and, as I said upthread, the issue is whether they vote or not. It is up to Clinton to give them a reason to do so.

              • random

                Most of his supporters are Dems first and Sandernistas second, Clinton’s already sitting pretty with them anyway. There’s just no reason for her to go too far out of her way trying to appease Susan Sarandon.

              • brewmn

                It is up to Clinton to give them a reason to do so.

                No, it’s really not. And this is the problem with the BernieBro types. They really just don’t get how politics works. and, until they can win elections for their people and not just spoil the chances of the (arguably) more mainstream candidate, they need to shut up and get in line when it comes time to vote in the general election.

                • djw

                  Right. As a matter of assessing campaigns, Dr. Dick is right–a good campaign figures out ways to motivate potential supporters to vote for them. But as a matter of basic political ethics and human decency, refusing to participate in the collective effort to defeat an openly fascist incompetent unless Hillary Clinton hits upon the messaging/outreach strategy that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about her is monstrous.

                • DrDick

                  And this is the problem with the BernieBro types.

                  All 12 of them. Again, there were far more PUMAs the last time Clinton ran than “BernieBros” today, though folks like you want to paint all of us like that, which does not help your case. You are creating more of them every time you say this shit.

            • Rob in CT

              Yeah, lemme modify what I said. What I think is this:

              Most Indies who like Bernie will probably vote D, as they probably typically do.

              The faction that won’t is most likely the group that typically doesn’t bother to vote or votes 3rd party anyway. This is, therefore, not really a loss so much as a non-gain (which you’d still rather get, no doubt), and a gain that is hard to get under any circumstances.

              I think the group who usually votes D but won’t in 2016 is very, very small.

    • wengler

      It’s not a group of voters that Hillary should take for granted. A lot of them aren’t Democrats.

      • DrDick

        Yes, they are, they just do not call themselves that. They do not swing between parties, but between voting and not voting.

    • Brett

      I don’t think that will be a problem. Regardless of what they feel about Hillary now, #StopTrump will be in full force by the time autumn rolls around.

      • Nobdy

        Yes. HRC has a wonderful get out the vote effort to be spearheaded by the Donald. Even if the Bernie Bros abstain it won’t exactly be hard for her to tap into minority communities and get them energized.

        • xq

          It’s not even about Trump. They would still vote for her against Romney 2.0–just like Clinton voters did against Romney in 2008. The people politically engaged enough to vote in primaries aren’t the ones you need to worry about.

          • xq

            Against McCain in 2008, obviously.

            • Pseudonym

              I thought you meant the famous Clinton-Romney 2008 undercard.

            • Ken

              Also against Romney in 2012. As some front-pager, either here or at Balloon Juice (my only two sources of news and analysis, now that the Colbert Report is off the air) said, can you name one state that Obama carried in 2012 that Clinton won’t carry this fall?

              • ForkyMcSpoon

                I know someone who thinks Trump is going to make big gains in the Rust Belt vs. Clinton (but they’d be totally safe with Sanders).

                I pointed out the poll showing him down by 15 pts in Pennsylvania, and his response was “Carter led Ford by 30 in the summer but only won by 3! Nobody thought Reagan would win!”

      • los

        #neverTrump has been the most resilent and popular “tripartisan” candidate for months.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks

      This is not a big issue at all. At this point in 2008, a higher percentage of Clinton supporters told pollsters they’d never vote for Obama than the percentage of Sanders supporters who say they’ll never vote for Clinton. I’m fascinated, however, by the extraordinary anxiety of Clinton supporters about Sanders supporters. Here’s hoping Sanders figures out a way to leverage this into promises from Clinton prior to his endorsing her. Might as well take advantage of this paranoia!

      • brewmn

        I’m fascinated, however, by the extraordinary anxiety of Clinton supporters about Sanders supporters.

        We’re not anxious, just consistently gobsmacked by the fact that a very vocal subset of Sanders supporters insist they are the only true progressives, yet also think that electing Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton is a viable path to a more progressive future.

        The stupid, it Berns.

        • wjts

          If history teaches us nothing else – and it doesn’t – it teaches us that Heightening the Contradictions is the most effective way to get anything done be it political reform or the pile of dirty dishes I’ve left in the sink.

          • rea

            Heightening the Contradictions is the most effective way to get anything done be it political reform or the pile of dirty dishes I’ve left in the sink.

            Oddly this is exactly the strategy my kids employ (with considerable success) with dirty dishes:

            C: It’s J’s turn!
            J: No, it’s C’s turn!
            rea: [doing dishes, because prefers to eat off clean plates]

            • wjts

              What good little Maoists you’ve got there!

        • LFC

          I voted for Sanders in Maryland (voted early, which is possible in Md.), and I’ll vote for HRC in the general election b/c her superiority to any Repub is obvious. I’m sick of reading unfounded, insulting, baseless, foolish generalizations about all Sanders supporters or even “a very vocal subset” made to sound larger than it is, written by people whose “evidence” is drawn from the social media footprints of a small minority of Sanders supporters, plus a couple of people who apparently write for Salon (or some such).

          • brewmn

            And I’m sick of people projecting all of their disappointment with American politics on whoever the Democratic presidential nominee happens to be. They did it with Obama in 2008, and they seem to be ramping it up for Clinton in 2016. So, I guess, you and I, we’re even.

            • DrDick

              I am sick of condescending Clinton supporters projecting their insecurities onto Sanders supporters.

          • DilbertSucks

            Some of us are just paranoid that their aggressive presence on social media could have a multiplier effect over the coming months: friends telling their friends that “there’s no real difference between Hillary and Trump,” “maybe Trump will shake up the Establishment,” “President Trump will galvanize progressives in 2020,” and other muddle-headed bromides.

            I’m aware of the comparisons with 2008, but the ideological split between Obama and Hillary was not as profound as the split between Hillary and Bernie, and social media did not have the same influence on politics that it does now. I think some lingering concern is warranted.

            • Karen24

              In 2008 I was not confronted 500x a day with messages from Facebook about Obama stealing the nomination, which is a thing people accuse Clinton of doing in 2016. I blocked the Trumpenproles, but because the BernieBros are actual friends of mine who say other interesting things, I didn’t block them.

              Yet.

              • catclub

                In 2008 I was not confronted 500x a day with messages from Facebook about Obama stealing the nomination, which is a thing people accuse Clinton of doing in 2016.

                I suspect you were not on Facebook in 2008.
                Obama WAS stealing the election in 2008 by using the rules to kick out the Florida and Michigan delegations for voting too early. I think it ended up a compromise – petit larceny.

                • Hogan

                  using the rules

                  Is there no end to his perfidy?

                • djw

                  Just to be clear, you’re contention here is that Barack Obama, then an underdog challenger a solid 20 points behind Clinton, who had not yet even lost Michigan and Florida, was fiendishly “using the rules” to force/manipulate the rules and bylaws committee of the DNC to strip these states of their convention voting rights as punishment for their rules violations at various points in 2007?

            • sharonT

              So you think that you can keep people from sitting out the election or voting Green, by insulting them?

              • ChrisTS

                Did Karen insult anyone?

                • Pseudonym

                  That was a reply to DilbertSucks.

                • ChrisTS

                  @Pseudonym:
                  Ach, thanks. I often have trouble following these boxes threads.

            • DrDick

              There were a fuck ton more PUMAs than there are BernieOrBusters now, so shut the fuck up with insulting us if you want us to vote for her in Novemeber.

              • random

                You guys are way over-estimating your leverage here. Even if 100% of the Buster crowd stays home in November, she’s still going to dominate Trump by a considerable margin.

              • wjts

                You should probably follow that particular empty threat with a promise to hold your breath until you turn blue unless Clinton promises to nationalize the financial sector.

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  all I want her to do is promise to take the flag and change the stars to a hammer and sickle

                • ChrisTS

                  @jim: I rather like our flag, though I do think the Saudi flag is the prettiest.

                • wjts

                  If she doesn’t change the Lincoln Memorial to the Lenin Memorial, I’m voting for Trump.

              • Pseudonym

                “Your insinuation that there are lots of BernieOrBusters is so insulting that me and many of my fellow Bernie supporters are no longer going to vote for the Democratic nominee!”

                • ChrisTS

                  I chided Dr Dick a ways down, earlier, but I think we need to remind ourselves that Bernie’s supporters are feeling pretty down. So, I’m trying to remind myself to cut them some slack.

                • wjts

                  There are plenty of us disappointed Sanders supporters around, but very few of us are throwing a temper tantrum.

                • Pseudonym

                  It sounds like you seem pretty sure I’m not a Bernie supporter myself, which is interesting…

                • ChrisTS

                  You might or might not. I’m just suggesting going easy on the ones who are very angry as well as down.

                  ETA: I don’t mean this as a forever card; there will be a point at which I will shout at folks who continue to throw tantrums/get angry.

                • Pseudonym

                  I think it can be patronizing to assume that commenters are irrationally motivated by disappointment and don’t really mean what they say, but I don’t think that there’s much to be gained from further engaging with him on this thread in either case, and it’s not like I never get nasty myself!

              • DrDick

                And all of these responses confirm my point. I have already repeatedly said on this blog that I will vote for the Democrat in November, but you are dedicated to making me change my mind. She only leads Sanders by 5% or less right now in the polling and you may want those votes in November

          • DrDick

            Exactly. Clinton’s supporters are her greatest negative.

          • Matt McIrvin

            There’s no mystery here. If your Facebook feed has 20 Sanders supporters on it, most of them are relatively even-keeled, and one of them reposts thirty memes a day about how Hillary Clinton is an evil witch who must be destroyed, that’s the one you’ll pay attention to.

            • Pseudonym

              This goes both ways of course.

              • DrDick

                Please read this thread and count the number of groundless attacks on Sanders supporters.

                • Pseudonym

                  …wouldn’t some fraction of Clinton supporters making groundless attacks just validate my point?

          • CP

            I’m sick of reading unfounded, insulting, baseless, foolish generalizations about all Sanders supporters or even “a very vocal subset” made to sound larger than it is, written by people whose “evidence” is drawn from the social media footprints of a small minority of Sanders supporters, plus a couple of people who apparently write for Salon (or some such).

            And I voted for Hillary in the same primary as you, but “this” to all that. And to DrDick and Marduk’s comments below.

        • DrDick

          And you keep proving it by aggressively alienating Sanders’ supporters.

          • brewmn

            If a random commenter on the internet can “alienate” you from voting for the Democratic candidate against Donald Trump, then you are a profoundly thin-skinned and stupid individual who’s vote, if that condtionally offered, isn’t worth much.

            There’s really no other way to put it; you represent an irrelevancy when it comes to voting in a nation of 350 million people; do whatever makes you feel good, if that’s why voting is important to you.

          • Pseudonym

            So writing “Clinton’s supporters are her greatest negative” isn’t alienating? Or are you too special to worry about such petty concerns as alienating potential political allies?

          • DrDick

            I have not been attacking Clinton or her supporters here, merely responding to the aggressive attacks on Sanders supporters like both of you. It is far from a single, random Clinton supporter. It is virtually every goddamned one of you here and on every other social media outlet I frequent.

        • los

          The stupid, it Berns.
          the stupid, it Hilled/’Bambed?
          ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
          sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee [2008]
          (28% hrc fans threaten vote for john mccain;19% bo fans threaten vote jm)
          brief scuffle broke out Monday after the woman on the right ripped an Obama sign from another woman’s hands at a Clinton rally in Indiana

          Angry Clinton supporters toast McCain, roast Obama
          Clinton supporters-turned-McCain converts at the event were not just angry at Obama’s campaign; they’re furious with the Democratic Party’s nomination process this year.

          “The DNC really pushed [Barack Obama] on us. Now they’ve left us with two choices: somebody who has no substance or a Republican,” said Jessi Cleaver, 35, of New York. “And these are terrible choices, and they worked hard to select this candidate. … We’re watching the DNC pick this candidate for us.”

      • The Lorax

        Well, Sanders has been selling a message whereby the entire system is entirely corrupt, including HRC.

        • MPAVictoria

          And are you saying it isn’t?

        • DrDick

          And your point is?

      • Snuff curry

        I’m fascinated, however, by the extraordinary anxiety of Clinton supporters about Sanders supporters.

        I don’t understand why this is baffling. If many of those current supporters supported her in 2008, they’re still reeling or whatever from the loss. Now that she’s got the nomination nearly locked up, they’re worried she’ll be sabotaged or undercut in the general by resentful Sanders supporters (who are equally vociferous and passionate, but who’ve never experienced him losing that kind of race) they believe would otherwise be loyal to any candidate the party offered. The concern might be grating to you, the reasoning might be tortured, but it’s not confusing or unexpected in the least, any more than Sanders folk promising to abstain, vote Trump, vote third party, or vote a write-in. That reaction emanates from a similar anxiety, laced with mostly understandable bitterness. Vanity and emotions are running high at the mo’, and people are striving to wound their enemies as a salve to their ego and then calling it a lesson. These contradictions need more headspace, I guess.

        • Matt McIrvin

          The most anxious ones I know are a little different: they supported Obama in 2008, and still think of Clinton as a worryingly weak candidate, for the same reasons they opposed her in 2008. They prefer her as a potential President to Sanders, and voted for her in the primary, but they’re not 100% true believers.

          Now, there are some Sanders supporters who are deep in the depression phase of grief and going around saying that Trump will easily crush Clinton, and when they say this, to these particular Clinton supporters it stings a little.

          • DrDick

            I voted for Obama and will vote for Sanders in the primary. I also think Clinton is a rather poor candidate, but it will not matter as the entire GOP field is a mobile disaster area.

          • random

            Hmm I was a strong O-bot (I donated money to his first Senate campaign), but have always recognized that she’s a pretty damn tough person to campaign against. I don’t really see how any number of people managed to conclude otherwise. Obama’s the only guy I know of who has ever beaten her in a race, and that was a lot closer than this is.

            I’m not at all anxious about her losing in November, I’ve spent the last few years assuming she was going to be President and am even more convinced of it now.

        • DrDick

          In other words they think we will act just like they did then. I guess projection is not just for Republicans.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            In terms of threatening not to vote for the nominee, a portion of Sanders supporters are acting like a portion of Clinton supporters (the PUMAs) did.

            If they thought that Sanders supporters would act like Clinton supporters, who went on to vote for Obama in November, they wouldn’t be worried.

            In either case, it is/was just a portion. I think a lot of it is just Facebook and Twitter amplifying the loudest people.

            I don’t think of myself in either group here, as I supported Obama in 2008. I guess I’m more worried about party unity than I was then, because it’s people from my group (younger, more liberal) who are threatening to sit it out this time.

            • ChrisTS

              I’m glad I missed this PUMA phenomenon. I suppose one could argue that McCain pre-Palin was less terrifying than Trump or Cruz, but… well, he was still John McCain.

          • Snuff curry

            Right. I’m not endorsing them (or any faction, except the will-vote-Dem-no-matter-what folk), but I find this “confusion” about what might motivate Clinton backers disingenuous. We all know the dynamic. We know what it stems from.

      • marduk

        I’m fascinated, however, by the extraordinary anxiety of Clinton supporters about Sanders supporters.

        They’re just completely high on their own supply. They’ve all been sharing stories about how evil Bernie is going to Nader the rightful ruler from the presidency and his evil supporters who just hate women and minorities and anyone who compromises their liberal purity so much they’re going to vote Trump. They’ve been to the well of kool-aid and they’ve drunk deeply and often.

        Pushing these memes was great for maintaining ingroup solidarity and the needed level of anger and anxiety to get them to vote and act as vocal supporters. Great at encouraging rage-filled social media posts about those terrible Bernie Bros. Not so great at keeping them grounded in reality.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          if there’s one thing Both Sides Do, it’s believe that not only is their person the objectively best person for the job, but that their primary opponent is objectively despicable

          • Ken

            Yeah, except this year the Republicans are right. Whether you’re for Trump or Cruz, the opponent is objectively despicable. If you’re for Kasich, you even have a choice.

        • DrDick

          This is the PUMA mentality in action when they are winning.

      • DrDick

        Exactly. They also seem to be doing their absolute best to ensure that Sanders’ supporters will not vote for Clinton.

    • sharculese

      Of the two hardcore Berners I know, one might have suggested he “might not vote for the first time in 16 years” if she’s the nominee.

      Quite frankly, I kind of think that this is largely premised on what’s between her legs. Which is not to say that I think that’s true at all of Sanders supporters in general, but I do suspect it’s true in this one guy’s case.

      • Gregor Sansa

        Part of me wishes these guys would take their wilding pack mentality and go support Trump. Just watched the #morethanmean @justnotsports video, and it really saddens me that some of those excrescences probably voted with me in the primary.

        But of course, we need every anti-Trump vote (and on down the ballot), no matter how icky the voter.

      • My impression is that this isn’t a general problem with Bernie supporters:

        Democrats, at least in these states, will not have the unity problems reflected in the Republican Party.

        About 7 in 10 Democrats in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut said the primaries had been energizing, with fewer than 3 in 10 calling them divisive, according to exit polls conducted for a consortium of media organisations.

        Likewise, fewer than 1 in 5 Democratic voters said they would reject front-runner Hillary Clinton in the general election if she became the nominee, a slightly smaller percentage than those saying they would reject Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

        Caveats etc. (this is only for these states, yadda yadda yadda). But still!

        • DrDick

          It is, however, a general problem with Clinton supporters who cannot believe that there is anyone who is not excited about the one true divinely ordained Democratic candidate for president. Obviously such people must be immature, brain dead, misogynist lunatics.

          • ChrisTS

            DrDick: I may be overreacting, but thus far on this thread you are the person who is most vocally ‘insulting’ supporters of the candidate you do not support.

            While others have been careful to indicate they are speaking only of a small number of Bernie supporters, you speak of Clinton supporters in general.

            As a Clinton supporter, I absolutely do not think she is “divinely ordained.” That is nonsense.

            • brewmn

              Thank you. DrDick is completely full of shit. Hardly unheard of, but still. He seems extra eager to goad a reaction out of “Team Clinton” on this thread.

              • ChrisTS

                Eh, I think the Dr is usually a fine person. Just upset at the moment.

            • wjts

              NO, YOU’RE PROJECTION!!!

              • ChrisTS

                heh

            • DrDick

              While others have been careful to indicate they are speaking only of a small number of Bernie supporters, you speak of Clinton supporters in general.

              As to the first point, no. Brewman in particular and several others are making broad generalizations and reject the idea that this is a small number of Sanders supporters. As to your second point, please show me the restrained comments by Clinton supporters in this thread. I can count them in the fingers of one hand. I have never said it was all Clinton supporters, but it is certainly far more than the number of BernieOrBusters on this or other blogs I frequent. For the record, I find them as annoying as you do, but that is no reason to make the kinds of blanket attacks on Sanders supporters that fill this thread.

          • Heh. I’m sure there are lunatics on both sides, though probably you would agree, as a simple matter of statistics, that there are likely more misogynists in Bernie’s camp than Clinton’s (unless you think misogyny is a myth). Along the same lines, nobody is saying Sanders is the ONE divinely ordained candidate, just the only divinely ordained candidate that’s running in the race at the moment. :)

            edit: Heh again. You were saying Clinton supporters think SHE is ordained. Clearly ridiculous. No one born between 1945 and 1990 could be divinely ordained, obviously!

          • Pseudonym

            Posted 11 minutes after agreeing that you were “sick of reading unfounded, insulting, baseless, foolish generalizations”.

            • DrDick

              Yet you, brewmn, and wjts, among others all seem to confirm my statement.

    • MyNameIsZweig

      “The Bernie supporters I know are not filling me with confidence on this need.”

      Christ, this shit again.

      Luckily, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

      • MyNameIsZweig

        “At this point in 2008, a higher percentage of Clinton supporters told pollsters they’d never vote for Obama than the percentage of Sanders supporters who say they’ll never vote for Clinton.”

        And thanks, IB, for bringing this up.

      • StinkinBadger

        This was, in fact, something I noted to friends earlier this election season multiple times.

        I’m sad that people will never learn.

    • Alex.S

      Hillary is a coalition politician — she wants the Sanders coalition to vote for her and will get a list of asks from Sanders and add them to her agenda. I suspect it will be heavy on trade and protectionism issues, since that seems to be Trump’s only centrist argument. It’s also an easy get since trade bills are super dead in Congress and it’s a way to have a jobs program targeting middle-class voters.

      Sanders will campaign for the Democratic party. He built a big platform and he likes big rallies. And he should have the skills to go on lengthy tirades against Trump while tiring him to the Republican party.

      • Steve LaBonne

        Even if Bernie didn’t exist she would be wise to stress going slow on trade agreements. Trade / jobs is the one and only appeal Trump has to more or less rational people. Blunt that issue even partially and he could lose by Goldwater proportions.

    • DrDick

      Maybe if all the obnoxious Clinton supporters stopped insulting and belittling them it would be easier and more likely. You (and your condescending and arrogant candidate) are your own worst enemies.

      • kped

        You’re really desperate for that fight, aren’t you? I don’t think you’ll find any takers, but keep it up!

        • DrDick

          You and others here are the ones pushing that fight. I am not like the PUMAs and will vote for the Dem in November, just as I always do (something I have said on this blog repeatedly). However, all the baseless attacks on me and other Sanders supporters makes that harder and harder to do. Y’all need to lighten up or you will alienate s significant number of voters.

  • brewmn

    I don’t know if Trump was smart, lucky, or both, but with Walker, Jeb!, and every other candidate with potentially broad appeal getting out early, Trump’s path to 1,237 was almost assured. Rather than coalesce the anti-Trump factions, it became “I’m actually expected to vote for Ted Fucking Cruz or The Guy With Like Ten Delegates To His Name instead?”

    • brad

      I don’t think it can be said that Jeb! got out early, and the problem with Walker is that he was entirely a paper candidate. I fell for it myself, pre-Trump I thought it would come down to Walker vs Cruz. But Walker on camera is an animated Don Martin drawing, and he just won’t ever be a national player.

  • wengler

    I eagerly await the group that lined up against Trump to crack apart with the more Gromyko elements magnetically attracted to possible money and power.

  • AMK

    Cruz has plenty of fight in him left, and he’s still got the actual support of most of the the actual delegates….and the whispers of the insiders who want the GOP to just change the convention rules to spare the downballot-ers will be audible on Mars. Way too soon to say it’s over.

    • Nobdy

      How sweet that would be. If Teddy Cruz steals the nomination like that the Republican party WILL fracture. The Loathsome one proved this week that when the chips are down he can’t appeal to voters, who hate him more the better they get to know him, and you can’t play delegate dirty tricks against Hillary.

      • LFC

        Contested conventions can sow the seeds of long bitterness and divisions (notably, e.g., the Taft-Eisenhower one in ’52). But I’m not a Repub, so I suppose I shdn’t be giving them advice…

        • Steve LaBonne

          No, no, you’re doing it wrong. We’re terrified, TERRIFIED I tell you, that Cruz will steal the nomination and turn the Republican Party into an electoral juggernaut.

          • Ken

            Especially with Fiorina as running mate! They’ll win 80% or 90% of the women’s vote and the Democrat party will cease to exist.

            (Which will save Cruz time since he won’t have to ban it, and can move straight to doing away with the women’s vote and bombing Medina and Tel Aviv to start Armageddon like Jesus wants him to.)

        • rea

          shortly before the convention, Cruz will release the video proving conclusively that the lamestream media has been airbrushing the 666 tattoo off Trump’s forehead. The delegates will bolt for Cruz, and he’ll be triumphantly elevated to the throne White House.

    • ChrisTS

      I heard the R operative at our poll in PA yesterday assuring R voters that their delegates will absolutely go for the person who gets the most R votes in our district.

      I cannot believe people are that naive, especially as some of these ‘open’ delegates have been in the news saying who they support.

  • Nobdy

    This election is going to be fascinating for historians to dissect.

    35 years from now teachers are going to be teaching about the Donald Trump candidacy and students are going to be absolutely perplexed about what the hell America was thinking.

    Hey future kid using CyberGoogle 19.0…this is a voice from the past saying we didn’t know what the hell was going on while it was happening either!

    • AMK

      Or they won’t, because in 35 years criticizing the founder of the regime will be grounds for immediate imprisonment in the classiest prison camps ever.

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      Then again, who knows anything about Wendell Willkie?

      The only reason I know anything about him is that he’s the last time a businessman with no electoral experience was the nominee and the last time someone was nominated on a late ballot. Which is only a thing that I read about because of Donald Trump this year.

      I guess there are some reasons why it’ll make a larger impression though, of course.

      • Manny Kant

        Adlai Stevenson (in 1952) was the last presidential candidate nominated after the first ballot. Thomas Dewey (in 1948) was the last Republican. I believe the last person to *win* the presidency after being nominated on a later ballot was FDR (in 1932).

      • Nobdy

        Trump isn’t going to be interesting because he was a businessman. He’s going to be interesting because he ran as an open racist in 2016, was a complete and utter outsider who managed to capture the Republican nomination, and because he’s flamboyant and entertaining.

      • EliHawk

        I dunno, I suspect it will probably be like McGovern, a brief “What the HELL were they thinking?” and moving on to discussing the winner’s administration.

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          That’s what I was getting at.

          Of course, people who like to study presidential campaigns and politics in more depth will talk about Trump for a loooong time. So yeah, historians will get a kick out of it.

          But high school history books? They’ll list the ways Trump was a horrible candidate and how that’s why Hillary thrashed him, and then move right along to the second Clinton administration.

          Like, I literally don’t remember hearing anything about any of FDR’s loser opponents except Hoover.

          • Colin Day

            I remember Landon because of Literary Digest’s prediction that he would win the 1936 election.

            Come on, Roosevelt only won 46 states.

            • EliHawk

              Some good little bits from ’36:

              “As goes Maine, so goes Vermont!”

              The story that Landon originally wanted Styles Bridges as a running mate, but was dissuaded by prospect of the Democratic jeer “Landon-Bridges Falling Down!”

          • EliHawk

            Yeah, though there’s also a difference between “FDR/Harding/Reagan is so popular no one could beat him!” and the times parties nominate someone who makes it super easy for them to lose (Goldwater/McGovern). Probably a little more likely for the high school history books to mention the latter than the former.

      • Murc

        The only reason I know anything about him is that he’s the last time a businessman with no electoral experience was the nominee

        This is somewhat inaccurate. Wilkie had been deeply involved in politics his entire adult life. He never held office, that’s true, but he wasn’t just some rando; he had a lot of experience with the machinery of both parties.

    • yet_another_lawyer

      Grad student, if you’re reading about the 2016 election in 2046 to complete your thesis, it is still most likely the case that grad school is a terrible life choice. Get out now! No, it doesn’t matter that you’ve already spent four years of your life chasing a doctorate.

      • Ken

        Unless it’s a law doctorate because those are like printing money, with a nearly-guaranteed [*] lifetime income in the millions [**]!

        [*] “Guaranteed” not used in any legal sense.

        [**] 2016 millions of dollars. If Trump did get elected, think hundreds of trillions of New Dollars.

    • DrDick

      students are going to be absolutely perplexed about what the hell America was thinking.

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

  • Man, that guy has some ugly faces….

    • They tend not to last long after removal from the previous owners.

    • Pseudonym

      You may not have Boehner to kick around any more, but the orange will have their revenge.

  • John F

    Went to have a look at RedState and nothing… 1st page no mention of Trump or the GOP primaries… guys there must be seriously pouting

    • Joe_JP

      I see mentions.

  • Murc

    I have generally thought that it would be enormously difficult for Donald Trump to win on a second or later ballot in Cleveland, given his organizational weaknesses.

    It seems worth noting that so far in this cycle you have been the Bill Kristol of accuracy when it comes to Trump and his likelihood of doing X, Scott.

    (I kid because I love.)

  • Joe_JP

    Delegate wise he has now around 950. NJ will give him 50 unless something strange happens. That leaves about 240 among 400+ This doesn’t count unbound delegates (like about 50 out of PA, many who promised to vote for the winner of the state before the primary).

    Anyway, Cruz with a special announcement at 4 today. How exciting!

  • thispaceforsale

    He may be overperforming his poll numbers, but voter turnout has also fallen off a cliff. So it’s hard to know for sure if he is winning more voters in a smaller pool, or his support is flat, but voters don’t think it is worth the time/energy to register a dissenting vote.
    California is going to be huge. And as it will be obvious that the outcome will finally, be the state that truly matters, voter turnout may be high. Whatever convention fight anti-trump is hoping for, california will first need to be the hill to die on.

It is main inner container footer text