Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bernie: The Man We Need
Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by 13.5 percent last night. That’s just about the best thing we could have hoped for. He’s going to keep Clinton focused on him through the spring, without actually winning the nomination himself. Let me expand upon that.
A week ago at 538, Nate Silver analyzed what it would take for Sanders to get to a majority of pledged delegates. Based on demographics, previous voting patterns of those demographics, and Sanders’s current pledge deficit, here are the margins Silver predicted Sanders would need to get to a majority of pledged delegates by the end:
Over in the Wisconsin Open Thread, I stated that Sanders needed to win by more than 15 percent for anything to have shifted in that race. Upon re-reading, I got that wrong: Sanders needed to win by more than 15 percent to be on track to reach a majority of pledged delegates by the end. Sanders winning this big might signal a shift in the Democratic race, but not enough of one to get Sanders to the majority. He’s now got “momentum,” but every race where he misses the delegate targets above means he’ll have to do even better in the few remaining states to make up the gap.
These results mean that Sanders is likely to win many states through the rest of the primary cycle. Clinton’s going to be forced to do more debates, campaign in every state, and will still lose many contests. She’ll finish the primary process after several months of losing more contests than she wins, and clinging to a tiny majority of pledged delegates.
The Democrat’s best chance of winning in November is arguably by nominating Sanders, who has a much higher favorability rating than Clinton. Their next-best chance is to consolidate around Clinton and have her pivot to running against the Republicans while we’re still fighting out our primary. What they’re stuck with now is watching a tired, coughing Clinton go negative on Bernie, while Sanders’s rabid supporters continue to discover and highlight Clinton’s many glaring negatives. And there’s a small chance Bernie might actually get the majority of pledged delegates, and force Clinton’s superdelegates hand the nomination to her over “the will of the people.” My response to that?
At what point do the super-delegates start to shift?
Does it take just one or two to publicly announce their conversion from Hillary! to Bernie to start a mass shift?
All of this will be pointless if Trump wins the nomination and loses Utah to Clinton along with 48 other states.
The real question for me is if Hillary is just that off-putting and unacceptable or if the democrat party is really going the full socialist. The former speaks better of our nation than the latter, so I suspect the latter.
At least on the youth vote side, I can see a lot of it being anti-Hillary. Bear in mind, if you were born after 1983 or so, you’ve heard about Hillary Clinton for as long as you can remember. That’s every Millennial. She’s old, she’s unattractive, she cackles, and the prospect of the first female president isn’t a big deal because we’ve grown up being told a woman’s place is in the workforce.
I fear it’s less about rejecting her than it is about embracing Sanders and socialism. They have really managed to repackage the most lethal economic/governing system effectively to sell it to yet another generation.
We still don’t know how many megatons the GOP implosion will give off at the convention. We still don’t know whether the FBI has additional corruption charges pending for Cruella deBenghazi in addition to security violations. Assuming Trump, Cruz or Kasich is not the nominee, even a divided GOP could probably beat Hillary or the utterly ridiculous Vermont Sandinista. If Trump is the nominee, even Bernie could win in a landslide.
I suspect the same as you. I know you are shocked to hear that.
Hillary is only off putting to those of us who try to couch our decisions and candidate support in facts.
From a purely presentation standpoint Hillary may come off a little stiff and the fake laugh sometimes, but otherwise she is acceptable.
We’re embracing Sanders and socialism. Don’t doubt it. The mask is off, and the Dems won’t put it back on.
On the plus side, we have no memory of bread lines, gas lines, or price controls. We think socialism just means free college and healthcare. We want to be a fantasy version of Sweden/Denmark/Amsterdam, not the USSR.
This will be my third Presidential election to vote in. I have no memory of the USSR, whatsoever. Or the HW Bush administration. Or the Clinton administration, other than hearing from my mother that “the President got caught going on a date with a woman who wasn’t his wife.” I got the full story when I was older.
Putting this in a glass half full perspective let us keep in mind that the Democrats are embracing Socialism, not the nation as a whole.
Out of all possible backgrounds being a socialist is the worst for being elected into office. Even among Democrats while the number above 50% is high it is still at the bottom. So the party itself embracing Socialism is in no way an electoral advantage with the nation at large and will likely be an anchor around their neck in future contests.
Which are the two that Trump wins?
Losing Utah and 48 other states would mean that Trump wins just one.
I think Trump would win 9 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Alaska, and Kansas. That’s 58 electoral votes (vs. 480 for Clinton).
This projection is generally based on the Cook PVI, assuming an overall loss in the 10-13% range, that Trump does a bit better in the South than PVI would suggest, and that he loses in otherwise reliably Republican Mormon Country (Utah and Idaho).
I think he’s still over Clinton by two in Mississippi.
I still think the question you want in people’s minds is “Why should Hillary Clinton be the first female president? What’s she done to deserve that honor?” I mean, we’re going to elect one sooner or later anyway. Why her?
I’m so not surprised Sanders won Wisconsin.
Gee, Lazy_M., I bet nobody ever told you about the economics of the 1970s. It might be a good idea to get your parents to tell you about “Whip Inflation Now,” price controls on gasoline, “Malaise” and other lessons.
I really wish those lessons were taught to youngsters today. (I had a great time teaching those stories to my sons, but I was a homeschool Dad and they were required to listen to me.)
In 08 they started shifting early and then by this time in the campaign it was pretty much over. They haven’t shifted in any major way from what I can tell but there are stories.
As an aside, the interesting thing is that Independents are less likely to vote for a Hispanic.
I’m aware of the broad strokes, despite the fact that the only real 70’s history taught in school was Nixon going to China, withdrawl from Vietnam, and Nixon’s impeachment. But I’m a millennial who pays a yearly fee to discuss politics & culture from a conservative perspective. Most in my generation only know Nixon as a caricature.
That’s what you’re facing with millennial voters, who are now the largest segment of the population. We’re voting for an avowed socialist, and have no idea what that actually means. And when you point to old photos of socialist regime bread lines, we reply “but Bernie’s a ‘democratic socialist, like MLK!'” We’re going to vote for all the big-government programs of Sweden and Denmark, then blame capitalism when the economy grinds to a halt.
Also of note, the “alt-right” millennials have spent most of the campaign season creating a truly disturbing amount of Trump “fan art”, which is usually indistinguishable from homoerotica. So that’s going on.
Your insights are invaluable on this website.
The New York Times ran an interesting piece about this demographic shift, which they credit to increased immigration.
I really appreciate the work you put into these posts. They are so well organized and so interesting. Thank you.
If Bernie beats Hillary in her “home” state of New York, despite the supposed firewall of minority voters, the super-delegates just might start to panic and stampede.
I should steal that picture for the PIT.
Any thoughts on why socialism is selling so well? My theory is that people pick it up like they pick up a second language: submersion. They are simply inundated with it from K-12 then get it formally beyond that in education. They are shielded from reality. They know nothing else.
It is because people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The urge to socialism is built into every human being, because it springs from the flaws inherent in every human being. Greed. Envy. Sloth. Take your pick of the deadly sins, all of them lead thoughtless and ignorant people to fall in love with the socialist chimera.
Only those who are familiar with the outcome of the socialist experiment, every single time it has been tried, ever, resist this temptation. It is so sad that the lesson of “socialism = epic fail” has to be learned anew by each generation.
Given a choice between Bernie and Hillary I’ll take Bernie any day. His socialism would be tempered by congress, even a democratic congress. Mrs. Clinton is both completely corrupt and utterly ruthless. Bernie is deluded but honest. As I said in another thread our only true hope may be a Trump-Sanders Unity Ticket. and I think they just might win. I am not convinced that Trump would lose the General if the republicans nominated him. I myself would vote for Richard Speck if that is what it took to keep Clinton out of the White House. A Clinton Presidency would push us beyond the tipping point so any new conservative party would be pointless after that. Not Pretty, but them’s the brakes!
This is certainly part of it. The great recession and slow recovery gave capitalism a bad name, especially the bailouts. “Wage stagnation since the 70’s” is also part of it, as 1945-1972ish are viewed as “the good ‘ole days” when the rich were taxed at 90% and middle-class incomes grew. Envy of European single-payer healthcare and free college are also part of it.
Kevin D. Williamson’s piece on the appeal of modern Progressivism should also be read in full. Many people are risk averse, jealous when presented with inequality, and Malthusian in outlook.
Being shielded from reality until well your mid-to-late 20s seems about as good a reason to believe that handouts will continue in perpetuity as any.
I found that chart the most depressing thing I’ve seen in ages.
All excellent points, and I think the appeal of Europe is very strong with the “better educated” (cough, cough) millennials. Also, do not discount, they are the least religious Americans…ever.