CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 21, 2016 03:24 PM UTC

Forget Moe Mentum. Ground rules decide elections.

  • 67 Comments
  • by: Voyageur

(Good analysis from a local who knows stuff – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton.

The late quarterback/broadcaster Don Meredith often mused that “Old Moe Mentum is a fickle friend.” If nothing else, the 2016 political season suggests it is time to retire the concept from the ranks of the political chattering class and banish it to the even more hackneyed vocabulary of sportscasters.

Old Moe did put in an early appearance when Bernie Sanders did his “better than expected” photo-finish second place in the Iowa caucus. That validated his campaign and he roared to a big win in New Hampshire. But while the chatterers burbled about “Moe Mentum,” every contest since – beginning with Clinton’s second, and last, caucus victory in Nevada, appears to have followed two basic sets of political predictors: demographics and ground rules.

In terms of ground rules, Hillary has fared poorly in caucuses and open contests — those that allow voters who aren’t registered as Democrats. But she does well in primaries or closed contests.

So far, the New York Times Upshot column estimates she has done about nine percentage points better in primaries than in caucuses, and three points better in closed contests than in open ones. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders, there is only one state caucus left,  a closed one, in North Dakota on June 7. And Sanders has never beaten Clinton in an closed primary.

Demographics have also been key as African-American voters favor Clinton by wide margins, as do Latinos by somewhat narrower ranges. Affluent voters also lean to Clinton. Sanders has never beaten Clinton in a primary where more than 25 percent of the voters are minorities.

All these factors came together Tuesday in New York to hand Clinton a vital 16-point victory that netted her at least 33 delegates. Some pundits had expected Sander’s “momentum” from having won eight of the last nine contests to carry over to New York. But there simply was no momentum – as becomes obvious if one states the equally valid claim that Hillary Clinton had won six of the seven previous primary elections, including every closed primary.

If the seven Sanders’ caucus wins are excluded from his streak the question becomes simply is the Wisconsin primary, a 75 percent white electorate where independent voters and Republicans can cross over, a very good predictor for New York, where some 40 percent of the vote was African American or Latino? The answer is obviously “No” — because New York is not only a closed primary, it’s the most restrictive in the nation.   Voters had to be registered as Democrats by last Oct. 9 to vote in the primary, though new voters had until March 26 to sign up.

As pitches for mutual funds like to warn, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance.” That’s true, but the demographics and ground rules still predict trouble for Bernie Sanders next Tuesday.  There are no caucuses in the so-called Acela corridor and four of the states have closed primaries: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut. Only Rhode Island allows unaffiliated voters, though not Republicans, to vote in the Democratic primary. Making things worse for Sanders, the region has a larger share of minority voters than the nation as a whole.

Here a snapshot of next week’s battlefield, including pledged delegates and recent polls.:

Pennsylvania, 189 delegates. Latest Monmouth poll shows Clinton leading by 13 points.

Maryland, 95 delegates. Public Policy Polling shows Clinton leading by 25 points, 58-33.

Connecticut, 55 delegates. Quinnipiac has Clinton up 51-42.

Delaware, 21 delegates, Gravis has Clinton up by 7.

Rhode Island, 24 delegates. No recent polls. Demographics and the region’s only open primary make Sanders a slight favorite.

Obviously, the race won’t be over after Tuesday. But if Clinton does as well as the polls suggest, she could net as many as 40 or 50 of the 384 pledged delegates to be chosen.   Coupled with the 33 she gained in New York, that would bring Clinton back to the 300-some lead she had before Sanders erupted in his caucus winning streak.

After Tuesday, are several closed contests left, including, New Mexico, New Jersey, Kentucky and Oregon. Sanders will have the benefit of open or semi-open primaries in just California, Montana, Indiana and West Virginia.

The contest isn’t over. But unless Sanders can decisively break his losing streak in closed primaries, his odds after Tuesday will be long indeed.

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

67 thoughts on “Forget Moe Mentum. Ground rules decide elections.”

  1. And speaking of Moe, I'm old enough to remember 1980 when Daddy Bush was babbling about having Big Mo and then Little Mo between the time of the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary when he took on the Gipper. God, I'm old……..

    2. Fine with me if he doesn't drop out as long as he drops the nastiest of the attacks on the candidate who will be running for president for us. I felt the same way about HRC's 3 AM attack ad on Obama at a time when she already had pretty much no chance of beating him. But Obama was the exciting candidate in that race. HRC isn't in this one. Karma's a bitch and all that but I certainly do want to see her beat Trump or Cruz this time.

  3. V, don't you mean "Unfortunately for Sanders, there is only one open caucus left"?

    And why on earth would you "exclude" Sanders seven caucus wins?

    This is what drives Bernites crazy – Hillary supporters are so busy ignoring the essential messages of the Sanders campaign that they also must trivialize and ignore the gigantic crowds, the real victories that moved a 3% candidate to a 46.% position,  the energized hordes thronging into caucuses that saw 10-20X their usual crowds, the fundraising, all of the "Moe mentum" which you joke about. Just a bunch of naive kids, you say. Silly people ignorantly  looking for "free stuff", you say. Nothing to take seriously, nothing to listen to, nobody to bargain with, nothing to sway any policy ever.

    Hillarions need to lose the tired talking point about Bernie not being a "real Democrat". Here's why:  We old guard that have been around for a few elections, and do identify as Democrats,  will eventually vote for Hillary if it comes down to Clinton v. Trump; but what about my unaffiliated nephews, voting in their first Presidential election ever? What about all those who donated and worked for Bernie because he wasn't a "real Democrat", because he was an Independent, not beholden to special interests or political favors, because he has said essentially the same things for the last 30 years?

    They have no great loyalty to the Democratic party. What is Hillary doing to win them over if she continues to heap scorn on the ornery Independent who isn't  a "real Democrat?" Why would they not just say, "Okay, Hillary. If Bernie's not a "real Democrat", then I guess I'm not either. I'll kick back and let the "real Democrats and real Republicans" battle for the throne – I'll just sit this one out."

    Hillary can win the nomination without Sanders voters, but she sure as hell can't win the general election without them. On 4/21, she should put that in her pipe….and smoke it.

    2. No, MJ, the unfortunate part for Bernie is that there is only one caucus of any kind left at the states, though Puerto Rico and maybe one other overseas has yet to caucus.  I'll tinker with the language to make that clearer.

      And one excludes Bernie's seven caucus wins when trying to analyze the upcoming primaries because — duh — they were caucuses and have no predictive value for primaries.  Thus the article compares his open primary win in Wisconsin to the closed primary in New York and concludes that the reason he lost New York was precisely the fact that independents — who provided his entire margin of victory in Wisconsin and Michigan — couldn't vote for him.   And that reason is why he is the underdog in the four closed primaries Tuesday.

      The rest of your post is the usual juvenile whine about why Bernie and his supporters are perfect in every way and why those democrats who don't bow down before them are scum of the earth.   I won't comment on that other than to note that such jejune arrogance may well explain why Bernie has never won a primary limited to only Democrats.

        1. Voyageur shares with Hillary Clinton the disingenuous, patronizing condescension that could well cost the Democrats the election and a whole generation of voters.

            1. The Democrats need all the votes they can get – especially unaffiliated voters like me. Yet, Voyageur wants to the best he is able to alienate non-establishment voters. Good strategy there, V. Let's see how that works for ya.

              1. It's workin' great, your Doddiness.  You keep pretending that of course you'd vote for the Democratic nominee if only people weren't so mean to you. And if she'd sing the Communist Internationale while juggling hammers and cycles.  And maybe wear your old Mao jacket if you can find it in your closet.  And pardon Joe Hill.  And free Rosa Luxemburg.

                Did I leave anything out?   Oh, the loneliness of the long distance uberleftie.  

                  1. Ahh, Shucks, Frank, T'warn't nothin"  I admit I enjoyed making Doddsie google Rosa Luxembourg and Joe Hill.  Next time, I'll make him look up Big Bill Haywood!wink

                    1. I'm not sure why you engage in the ad hominem attacks. For your information I have a masters in labor law – from a law school – and was a union labor lawyer for the first 15 years of my private practice. 

                    2. Well, I am certainly glad you never engage in ad hominem attacks, Dodd.  So here's your midterm: explain the importance of the Philadelphia Cordwainer's case in American labor law.   Hint: there is a reason you won't find it in U.S. Reports.

                    3. I'll make you a deal. You stop with the ad hominem attacks and so will I. But, I'm sure you will conclude that this is nothing more than an illegal conspiracy. BTW: The influence of this case is vastly over rated. Only neo-liberals give it much credence. Other cases were much more significant in creating the 19th century doctrine of the illegality of labor unions and their collective actions to improve the conditions for their members.

                  1. What I was looking for was the origin of the "wildcat strike" as the only tool that 19th century unions had to enforce the terms an conditions of the employment – the courts were none too friendly to unions. The correct answer would have described the evolution of the "collective bargaining agreement" from a set of standards to what by the 1930's began to look more like a commercial contract. In the case of the original "wildcat strike," the workers would declare an action by an employer a material breach of the collective bargaining agreement which allowed them to terminate the agreement and walk off the job – no contract, no work. Since, the contracts had no strike provisions, the employers would go to court seeking injunctions and damages – which anti-labor courts were happy to provide against the leaders of the union (Unions always lost on the "material breach" issue.". So, union leadership had no choice but to deny authorization of the strikes (wink, wink) to avoid jail and financial ruin.

                    The hostility of the conservative judiciary  to unions required the development of an alternative "judicial process" to adjudicate a unions allegations of violation of the collective bargaining agreements – labor arbitration.

                    Finally, a complete answer would have described how this process tended to bureaucratize unions – to the point where many are actually run by lawyers.

                    1. Interesting point, but you specifically cited the Wagner Act, which wasn't there for most of the era you descibed.  It was actually Norris LaGuardia that ended the injunction era.  The four years between Norris LaGuardia and Wagner also saw the birth off the Committee on Industrial Organization within the AFL and the famous "Sucker punch" by John L Lewis to Big Bill Hutcheson at te AFL convention.  That sucker punch is widely considered the forerunner to Donald Trump's campaigbn.  (Okay, that part is a joke..)

                      The CIO's later emergence as the rival Congress of Industrial Organizations also challenged the extreme "business unionism " of the AFL.  Lewis used numerous Communist organizers and some unions like the UE, Newspaper Guild, West Coast Longshoremen Fur and Leather workers had strong Communist influences.  General Counsel Lee Pressman was a communist.

                      Ironically, after Hitler's invasion of the. Soviet Union, the Communist element became the most conservative in the sense of fiercely opposing any work stoppages that would interfere with the war effort.

                      Taft Hartley, of course, launched a purge of Communists in the labor movement.  By that time, however, red influence, never dominant, was largely on the wane.  John L. Lewis happily used Communists for the arduous and sometimes deadly job of organialzing.  But he was ruthless and purged many of them when he began to see them as a threat to hos own power..

                      My MLR is an economics degree, not a law degree.  We were more or less trained for jobs like Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, so I appreciate your comments on arbitration.

                      We need to be careful here or we will find this common interest might make us friends.  Who will we use as rhetorical foils if that happens.  Frank Underwood is overworked already.

                3. Here's your final exam. Explain the significance of and interrelationship between "wildcat strike" and "labor arbitration." Make sure you address in impact of the Wagner Act and the NLRA in your answer. Finally, extrapolate how each of these influenced the function and development of labor unions.

                  1. Do you want the John R. Commons version or are we sticking with George Zinke?   And just the Wagner Act or are we intertwining all three of the 12 year-laws? Personally, I like to begin my lecture with Norris-LaGuardia and the yellow dog contract.   Yes, I have a Masters degree in Labor Relations from CU and the late great Zinke.  Where did you go to law school?

                    2. Norris-LaGuardia was so quickly supplanted by the Wagner Act that it is barely worth mentioning particularly when addressing the issues raised in the question. Now, quit stalling and get to work. wink

                    3. The actual answer, as I am sure you know is that a " wildcat" strike is not authorized by the union, which is the exclusive bargaining agent .  It is thus largely beyond the protection of the NLRA.  If, however, the workers decertify the union, they might fall under NRLA protection in organizing a new one.

                  2. What I was looking for was the origin of the "wildcat strike" as the only tool that 19th century unions had to enforce the terms an conditions of the employment – the courts were none too friendly to unions. The correct answer would have described the evolution of the"collective bargaining agreement" from a set of labor standards to what by the 1930's began to look more like a commercial contract. In the case of the original "wildcat strike," the workers would declare an action by an employer a material breach of the collective bargaining agreement which allowed them to terminate the agreement and walk off the job – no contract, no work. Since, the contracts had no strike provisions, the employers would go to court seeking injunctions and damages – which anti-labor courts were happy to provide against the leaders of the union (Unions always lost on the "material breach" issue).)So, union leadership had no choice but to deny authorization of the strikes (wink, wink) to avoid jail and financial ruin.

                    The hostility of the conservative judiciary to unions required the development of an alternative "judicial process" to adjudicate a union's allegations of violation of the collective bargaining agreements – labor arbitration. Discuss Wagner and NLRA.

                    Finally, a complete answer would have described how this process tended to bureaucratize unions – to the point where many are actually run by lawyers.

      2. independents — who provided his entire margin of victory in Wisconsin and Michigan 

        For whom will all those independents vote in the general, V? Hillary? To quote my ol' pal Snagglepuss, "It is to laugh."

        BTW… never heard anyone but you say this…”Bernie supporters are perfect in every way and why those democrats who don’t bow down before them are scum of the earth.”

      3. Primary Season 101: the moment you truly believe your candidate is going to prevail is the precise moment you should stop being a jerk to the other candidate's supporters. 

        You're worried about something you're not giving voice to, and I'll be darned if I can figure out what it is.

        1. You mean this isn't a really great time to rip open those remaining scars from the Romanoff-sucks-Bennet-blows debates ???

          Primary season, ugh — August can't roll around too soon for me …

          1. The Romanoff sucks, Bennet blows debate!  LOL

            I actually wasted a postage stamp on my mail ballot that year voting for Andrew (there, Zap…. I haven't always supported Thurston) because I thought there was a difference between the two.

            WTF, it turns out it was DLC, and DLC'er.

            1. Romanoff the progressive champion was always a ridiculous fiction. He  was furious that he hadn’t been the one appointed. Heck, I thought he should have been appointed myself. I liked him. I was ticked.But by Bennet’s first election it was water under the bridge.

              The party supports its incumbents for very sensible reasons. They like to keep seats and build majorities on what they've already got. Kind of Romanoff’s specialty as State House Speaker. They don’t like to subtract incumbents whose very incumbency gives them an advantage. So Romanoff was a centrist challenger running against a centrist incumbent basically out of spite. You can't very well have spite be your platform so he had to come up with something else.

              Voila. Romanoff the PAC slaying (but previously just fine getting elected and helping others get elected with huge PAC money) progressive knight. Really? All you had to do was look at his legislative record and his being co-Chair of the Colorado DLC was no secret. It was a completely unnecessary pea versus pea in a pod primary. 

              And BTW, despite the fury of the Romanoff supporters, Bennet did win his general election so a bunch of them must have relented and voted for Bennet after all.

              1. yes

                I started out favoring Romanoff but his pledge of unilateral financial disarmament was so certain to give the seat to a Republican that I switched to Bennet.  One key test is that the purists won't even take money from unions.  When Democrats start calling unions the bad guys, it's time to call bullshit.

                1. Absolutely. Not all PACS are equal. There are PACs composed of good people supporting good candidates for good reasons and it makes no sense to bring a butter knife to a gun fight. 

                  Interesting that Romanoff won elections for himself and others when he was into the whole PAC money thing in a big way while batting zero since he decided his gimmick was going to be self righteous high horse purity. 

    3. "I'll kick back and let the "real Democrats and real Republicans" battle for the throne – I'll just sit this one out." 

      They're welcome to do that, but if they actually care about the progressive values they say they do, they'll work down the ticket from there to elect like-minded progressives. You don't move forward by lurching backwards for 4 years. 

      1. Of course there are "real" Democrats and "real" Republicans. It's not a matter of ideology. You can call people RINOs or DINOs but that's just a matter of opinion. What's not a matter of opinion is whether the person in question is an actual member of the party.  For instance, when someone says that Bernie isn't really a Democrat it's not because he's too far left, too socialist or not "establishment" enough. It's because of the simple objective fact that he's never been a member of the Democratic party. That's all the "real" means. It isn't an insult or a judgement. 

  4. Get real, Duke.  Hillary tells Bernistas "The things that unite us far outweigh our differences."  Paul Song shrieks that Hillary and her supporters are "whores."  Jeff Weaver shrieks we have made a "Pact with the devil."  For the umtieth time, you and MJ say you will personally vote for the Democratic nominee but that most Bernistas will only vote for Bernie and therefore he should somehow be the nominee even though the majority of Democrats reject him.  

    Then you say we're the ones promoting disunity?

    1. I am real, V. Ask Jason Salzman..or Michael…or skinny..

      Hey, Alva…can you do a reader pol on this question of whether Bernie supporters prefer Trump to Hillary?..pretty please.  I would love to be proven wrong on this calculation..

      1. Actually, exit polls in New York showed only 14 percent of Bernie voters said they would refuse to vote for Hillary.  A somewhat higher number of Hillary voters, 18 percent, said they would refuse to vote for Bernie.  Hillary tried hard to reach out to Bernistas while Bernistas caled us "whores" and said we made a deal with the devil, which may account for the fact unwillingness to back bernie was actually higher than diehard hillary haters.  I am always intrigued that Bernistas never seemed to realize that if they had won, they would need the support of we whores and satanists.

        Still, the whole PUMA thing may be overrated.  A poll before the election showed 30 percent of bernistas swearing they would never vote for Hillary while 25 percent of hillary voters similarly dissed bernie. No poll is perfect but "your candidate stinks" sentiment sems to be dropping in both camps.  

        So , Duke, your prayer that Trump won't claim the hearts of Bernistasseems to have been answered.   On Hillary's side, I can't see anyone who wants to elect a woman president supporting a sexist swine like Trump.

        1. The whole PUMA thing obviously was over-rated back in 2008. McCain didn’t win. Didn’t even come close. Not even with his female running mate who I guess they thought women who supported HRC would vote for even though she stood against everything that HRC stood for because she was the right gender. HRC supporters weren’t that incredibly silly then. When push comes to shove I’m pretty confident the vast majority of Bernie’s supporters won’t be that silly now. 

  5. I tend to see myself as a pragmatic Democrat, and this year that means personal support for Sec. Clinton.

    i don't want Bernie to go away. I am not even certain that his attack lines are all that big of an issue, since the attacks on Clinton are going to come no matter what. [The nasty and heat of those comments will season his “eat his words” meal when it comes time to endorse and join to ensure that the Republican candidate for President gets a proper electoral burial.]

    I would like him to begin using his influence and list of givers to support Democrats running for the Senate and House. Even if he picks among them to find only the "true" Democrats, the added support would help Democrats be elected and thus enhance the chances of progressive change. After November, that influence and funding should be turned to recruiting and supporting candidates in EVERY race for 2018.

    1. Well, let it play itself out, Craig.  If Hillary rocks again Tuesday, I think Bernie will at least try to throttle back the haters, the Paul Songs and Jeff Weavers in his entourage.  Already Devine and Jane Sanders are starting to sound realistic.  Plus, as I noted above, the exit polls indicated this PUMA crap is highly overrated.  If Bernie does beat the odds and wins, no matter how narrowly, Pennsylvania, he will at least save some face.   The chattering classes are already playing the "Bernie, when ya gonna drop out?" theme at every opportunity.  Of course, after Wisconsin, the same fools kept yelling that Hillary was in deep, deep, trouble.

      God how I miss reporters like David Broder who occasionally reported.  We do have some fine women, like Joy Reid and Katie Tur (sp?)  But these buffoons like Mathews aren't worth the powder to blow them to Fox.

      Let the people vote, then we can start worrying about rebuilding our party.  Losing a cause that you're passionate about hurts, and requires a little grief work.   But I think after Philadelphia, the Democrats will go after Trump like Grant took Richmond,  And we'll have fun doing it!

  7. The people I know who are ardent Bernie supporters are almost all going to support Hillary if she's the nominee.  The people I know who are Hillary supporters would all support Bernie if he were the nominee.  The person I know who's an ardent Bernie supporter who won't vote for Hillary is pretty disengaged from politics because he's too pure to put his hands in mud.  The Bernie supporters I know who are engaged in politics may not phone bank or walk precincts for Hillary, but they will vote for her and some of them just might phone bank and walk precincts for Democratic Senate and Congressional candidates.  I almost never support the candidate that wins the nomination, but always look at the Republican nominee and that's all it takes to get me out there working for the Dem.

    1. Well said, PERA:  I had my baptism of fire in 1968.  I watched the "police riot" in Chicago from the depths of Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo. That fall, spared from my assigned artillery position in Vietnam by one of those sheer dumb luck things many veterans recount, I landed at West Point on the Public Information Office staff.  I was convinced LBJ was personally trying to make cannon fodder of me and I would never, ever, vote for his lickspittle stand-In, Hubert Humphrey.  Time passed and with about a week to go it was time to mail my ballot.  Humphrey was starting to close the gap.   I recalled a couple of times I'd talked to him and knew the man who led the 1948 civil rights fight was still inside him even after 20 years in Washington.  And I knew the only alternative was Richard Nixon.   I voted for Hubert.  If a few thousand more Americans had swallowed their pride and done likewise, there would have been a lot fewer names on that damned wall in Washington and "watergate" would only mean something to the ditch irrigation systems draining our rivers,

      1. My first instance of recollected political awaking as a youngster, maybe 11 or so, was watching a news report covering a George Meany speech to the AFLCIO (circa 1969 or 70) criticizing the Nixon Administration, where he said, to effect, that if organized labor had done it's job in 1968, Hubert Humphrey would be sitting in the White House …

        … don't know why that struck me, but I still remember it, and certainly I can't argue with it. 

        1. But didn't a lot of "Clean with Gene" McCarthy people brag about preserving their virtue by not climbing into bed with that LBJ sock puppet and warmonger, Hubert Humphrey? Much like the Ralph Nader folk in 2000 who saw no difference between Al Gore and the Shrub.

          1. Some of them did, Frank.  I was a Kennedy man myself.   Oddly, I was head to Vietnam a second time (meaning about to  be shipped, not a second tour) when Nixon began "Vietnamization" and sharply cut force levels, meaning I never went.  As a result , I never quite generated the hate for him that I needed for my liberal credentials.   As Yossarian said, the enemy is whoever is trying to kill you.Nixon didn't try to kill me and I actually thought he did a half way decent job of trying to untangle the mess LBJ left him.   Nixon also let Moynihan hornswoggle him into that Tory reform stuff.  Today's Republicans would call him a commie.

        2. the left hated meaney for his hawkish position on the war but in many ways he was a very good man.  Screw the "labor statesman" crap, Meaney fought for the little guy.

    2. I find that too. Just had a lovely weekend visit with Bernie supporting friends. They don't think we're horrible sell outs and we don't think they're idiots. We'll all be voting for the Dem nominee in November. I find that more typical in my experience than otherwise.

  8. I am probably in the minority but fully support Hillary.  It is not that I don't like Bernie's ideas but with the current Congress they most likely will not happen.  Bernie should continue to go as long as he wants to run in the primary but I fear that some (not all) of his supporters will hurt Hillary in the general election.

    1. HRC has 2 and a half million more votes than Bernie Sanders so far and the majority of pledged delegates so you are actually in the majority. It’s because HRC has majority support that she’s so well on her way to winning the nomination. HRC’s attacks on Obama didn’t stop him from winning in 2008. Primaries can get pretty heated without doing doing irreparable damage. 

  9. You're certainly not in the minority of the party, debbie,  And Nobody will give you crap on this board. The most ardent Bernistas, like Duke Cox and Mamajama, are pretty gentle souls unless you set them off with a reference to "free stuff,"  which Frank does now and then to yank their chain.   Welcome to the dialogue.

    1.  And Nobody will give you crap on this board.

      unless you are unwilling to show sufficient fealty to her imperial majesty. Then, of course, you are merely an addle-pated adolescent who just wants "free stuff"and won't help with the coronation.

      Or to quote another poster here…”Voyageur shares with Hillary Clinton the disingenuous, patronizing condescension that could well cost the Democrats the election and a whole generation of voters ”

      And, unlike my increasingly cranky friend, I know you have been posting here for a while. Are we keeping it interesting?…laugh

  10. Yes, the board is interesting.  I do understand the frustrations of Bernie's voters.  I remember in 2008 I kept saying, that old bag is not going to win the primary so why doesn't she just bow out?  I felt the same way about President Obama then that I suspect Bernie voters are feeling now.  However, I do believe men like Jeff Weaver are not helping Bernie's case with Hillary supporters.  I am excited about the possibility of a woman president and not just because of her gender.  I wouldn't support just any woman, some of them give women a bad name in general (i.e. Carly Fiorina).  I am terrified of the prospect of a Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and even John Kasich as President.  Kasich is the most reasonable but even he would set the women's movement back to the 50's.

    1. debbie, I'm also a feminist with grassroots movement origins. I like the symbolic value of a female President, as I liked the racial symbolism of Obama's Presidency. But my analysis of "What's wrong with the country / world and how the heck did we get here?" encompasses much more than pure feminism now. 

      It might be fun/enlightening sometime to put up a pure political theory thread on this board, asking: What labels do you put on your politics? What economic / political theories do you subscribe to? I think the closest we came to that was the "political compass" thread, in which polsters aligned themselves in an authoritrian /liberal left vs right quadrant.

      Right now, we can't have a good political theory dicussion, because it would quickly degenerate into name calling and posturing, as you see here. Perhaps after the primary.

  11. @debbielynnpaint

    Any one of the Republican candidates is scary, as you say. What our dear corporatists here don't seem to believe is that the impetus of populism will drive supporters of Bernie Sanders into the voting booth of Donald Trump…but it will. You heard it here.

    If Hillary and Bill don't throw away that old dog-eared copy of "Reinventing Government" and understand her path to victory goes through the Sanders camp, Donald Trump will reconfigure his message to appeal to that army of young people, and they will turn out to vote for him. They will take their chances with a force they don't know rather than to coronate a queen they intensely dislike. Is it just because I dislike her that I see it this way? Maybe..

    Unlike some of my friends here on Pols, I can be wrong. But I have also been right once or twice. As an old timer here, I obviously enjoy the repartee. I like to rattle the chain of the complacent and the presumptive.  Voyageur is …well…Voyageur. I love him, even though I have never met him. He is a champion for his ideas and beliefs and presents them with humor, literary aplomb… and a real effort at veracity ( winkfor you V.). While the intensity of the discussion can sometimes bubble over, it is almost always an uncommonly intelligent discussion…well, til' Modster shows up.

    This is the only place I post and I am usually here daily…kind of an addiction, I guess. The commitment to honesty and integrity and good writing is hard to find elsewhere. There are lots of good writers out there in the blogosphere, but very few communities like this one.

    Thanks for being a part of it. smiley

    1. For every Bernista who defects to Trump, we'll get three Republican soccer moms voting for hillary rather than "getting down on their knees" to Trump.  Woman power is driving this election.  That copy of Re-inventing govern is a decoy, Duke.  Look behind the jacket and you will find "The feminine mystique."

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

240 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!