Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

I really think that's setting false expectations. Nevada will be a better indicator than South Carolina, in the unlikely situation that's where we end up.

Why do you keep harping on Nevada?

EDIT: it comes after NH. nvm

 

[VendettaRed07]

Watching clips from Bill's final SOTU address are hard to watch. How did we flip red after that.

Please dems don't fuck this up I'll kill myself

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why do you keep harping on Nevada?

Because of the four states prior to Super Tuesday, it is demographically the closest to the average Dem primary, although somewhat more Clinton-advantaged still. The response of the average Dem primary, and therefore how we'll be able to determine how well a post-IA/NH-win Sanders would do, will be best determined by the changes in Nevada.

 

[B-Dubs]

I really think that's setting false expectations. Nevada will be a better indicator than South Carolina, in the unlikely situation that's where we end up.

If he's going to win the whole thing he'll need the african-american vote, if he can't start chipping away after two straight wins then it isn't going to happen. As the calendar continues urban areas become much more prominent, if he can start moving the african-american vote his way it will be an indicator that he'll be able to compete in those urban areas.

 

[disastermouse]

I don't think that'll go anywhere. Iran doesn't really want to upset the US too much; Rouhani is a moderate and their economy had a pretty big uptick after the sanctions were partially listed.

Isn't the biggest threat to the Iranian regime youth unemployment?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If he's going to win the whole thing he'll need the african-american vote, if he can't start chipping away after two straight wins then it isn't going to happen. As the calendar continues urban areas become much more prominent, if he can start moving the african-american vote his way it will be an indicator that he'll be able to compete in those urban areas.

The median dem primary is Florida or Michigan, neither of which have a huge African-American population. The swing demographic in the primaries is Latino voters. You can technically do without African-Americans if you win whites and Latinos big. Not ideal, and obviously a good showing in SC would be excellent news, but Nevada really is the better metric. I mean, if he has a crushing loss in SC that probably says something, but as someone who'd quite like Sanders to win I'd be happier with a more or less expected SC result and a very tight Nevada finish.

 

[East Lake]

On a different note entirely...

http://www.theguardian.com/business...at-2016-financial-crisis-warns-city-pessimist

Thoughts?

Not that I know anything anyway but I could see anywhere that's invested heavily in oil markets or financially exposed to them get significantly worse.

 

[Cybit]

In other words, appealing to the "identity politics" of white working class people by moderating on gun laws is A-OK, but women, people of color, gay people, transgendered people, and basically, anybody else that's not a blue collar voter in a marginal Obama/Romney district should just sit down and shut up, because what you care about might offend the mythical working class voter.

I think you are reading what you want to believe I said, rather than what I said.

For the record, I disagree. You absolutely have to fight for minority issues, and you don't compromise them, ever. You just have to know your audience at the same time, and not make it the centrepoint of your campaign. That should *always* be economic stuff.

Bingo.

The GOP has spent the last, what, 40 years, building their party around identity politics and ideologues? Mind you, kicking ideological democratic asses over and over in the process? Our victories in presidential elections have been two presidents who were known for being people who fought for unity and togetherness rather than tribal identities. Mind you - they built a coalition around ideology that loosely held together while they had the presidency. Once the sweet taste of victory went away - you have the modern schism that defines the GOP.

Going after them in an area of strength (fighting with identity rather than policy & analogy) is a fucking terrible idea. The GOP has decades of using cultural identity politics to get people to vote against their own self-interest. The democrats have always been a much bigger tent for "everyone else". If you try to go down the rabbit hole of racial / gender / sexuality identity politics within the "everyone else" camp; the demographic advantage the Democrats currently have will be torn asunder, as a lot of the groups are tenuous ideological allies in many cases, and many of the groups are not natural allies when it comes to race / sexuality / gender.

As the country turns less and less white, those groups may start acting in their own self-interest rather than working together, since you would have spent years telling them to define themselves based on their sexuality / race / gender rather than their ideology. People forget that the HERO ordinance (anti-LGBT act) was passed in Houston because those supporting HERO went after black Christians who typically vote democrat in elections. Hispanics and Asians are notoriously socially conservative, but tend to vote Democrat.

Following the GOP path while we are watching the consequences in real-time of following said path seems extremely foolish.

Sure. That's a morally correct position. The thing is you need to offer something in return*. And that's where the centre-left has failed the working/lower middle class white workers. They've embraced identity politics which disadvantages these people compared to their prior position and they often nothing in return. In fact the centre-left has pretty much abandoned what they previously offered (minimum wages (recently re-embraced but at far below the rate of inflation), the legitimization of unions**,etc) for a double hit.

*You can also opt to sacrifice that vote but in that case you need to accept those consequences. That's how it works. You don't get to throw people under a bus and then complain that they dislike you because you threw them under a bus for the right reasons.

Also, going to point this out.

 

[dramatis]

I'm too lazy to do it but someone just make a shared Google spreadsheet with the delegate distributions from 2008, and then we can make wild extrapolations in other columns for 2016 delegate distributions on the right or something.

If that's too much work just get it in CODE columns for easy copypasta

 

[disastermouse]

I think you are reading what you want to believe I said, rather than what I said.



Bingo.

The GOP has spent the last, what, 40 years, building their party around identity politics and ideologues? Mind you, kicking ideological democratic asses over and over in the process? Our victories in presidential elections have been two presidents who were known for being people who fought for unity and togetherness rather than tribal identities. Mind you - they built a coalition around ideology that loosely held together while they had the presidency. Once the sweet taste of victory went away - you have the modern schism that defines the GOP.

Going after them in an area of strength (fighting with identity rather than policy & analogy) is a fucking terrible idea. The GOP has decades of using cultural identity politics to get people to vote against their own self-interest. The democrats have always been a much bigger tent for "everyone else". If you try to go down the rabbit hole of racial / gender / sexuality identity politics within the "everyone else" camp; the demographic advantage the Democrats currently have will be torn asunder, as a lot of the groups are tenuous ideological allies in many cases, and many of the groups are not natural allies when it comes to race / sexuality / gender.

As the country turns less and less white, those groups may start acting in their own self-interest rather than working together, since you would have spent years telling them to define themselves based on their sexuality / race / gender rather than their ideology. People forget that the HERO ordinance (anti-LGBT act) was passed in Houston because those supporting HERO went after black Christians who typically vote democrat in elections. Hispanics and Asians are notoriously socially conservative, but tend to vote Democrat.

Following the GOP path while we are watching the consequences in real-time of following said path seems extremely foolish.



Also, going to point this out.

+1!

In my own IRL circles, when I say things like this I get shouted down.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Dems have opposed pretty much every cut to he new deal. Except welfare reform. I don't get the fact that they've not given any thing on the economic front. They also greatly expanded health care (that was undermined by the courts, help lead to lower energy prices, reduced a lot of the burden of student loans (loan forgiveness among other things).

As the country turns less and less white, those groups may start acting in their own self-interest rather than working together, since you would have spent years telling them to define themselves based on their sexuality / race / gender rather than their ideology. People forget that the HERO ordinance (anti-LGBT act) was passed in Houston because those supporting HERO went after black Christians who typically vote democrat in elections. Hispanics and Asians are notoriously socially conservative, but tend to vote Democrat.

This reads like a mix white paranoia, misunderstandings about minorities views on social issues, and general concern trolling.

Hispaniss and Asians are liberal on pretty much every social issue in this country. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare spending, racism etc.

 

[Aaron Strife]

On the other hand, I don't see what cracks are exposed by making something like gun control a priority, other than turning off white voters who are already in the other camp. For one background checks and the no-fly list ban poll very well even amongst Republicans. Obama's executive action has like 67% support per a CNN poll.

The only real problem is it works much better to energize the right than the left, but certainly doesn't matter in presidential elections and just ties into the broader issue that Dem turnout in midterms really sucks.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The unifying platforms of god, guns, gays and taxes don't seem like something I'd define as "identity politics." They unify in being anti-progress.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The unifying platforms of god, guns, gays and taxes don't seem like something I'd define as "identity politics." They unify in being anti-progress.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people on the god, guns and gays platform aren't really that enthused about the no taxes platform, though.

 

[And_Gignac]

Hypothetical situation:

Sanders pulls off shocking wins over Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens to the race?

It is a game of demographics and how much enthusiasm is there for them to go out and vote.

 

[User 406]

Frank Thorp VVerified account
‏@frankthorpNBC
Rep Steve King (R-IA) will be leaving his guest seat for the #SOTU open "for 55 million unborn, aborted babies"

LOL.

Also, funny how we're now getting a pushback on "identity politics" when black people just happen to be getting vocal about how they're still being royally screwed.

 

[Third Strike]

Dems have opposed pretty much every cut to he new deal. Except welfare reform. I don't get the fact that they've not given any thing on the economic front. They also greatly expanded health care (that was undermined by the courts, help lead to lower energy prices, reduced a lot of the burden of student loans (loan forgiveness among other things).



This reads like a mix white paranoia, misunderstandings about minorities views on social issues, and general concern trolling.

Hispaniss and Asians are liberal on pretty much every social issue in this country. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare spending, racism etc.

I was always under the impression that Hispanics differed on the subject of abortion. I'm basing this on how restrictive abortion is in many Central and South American countries, and how most Hispanics are Catholic. But that could be something more exclusive to native Central and South Americans, and not the groups who were born in the U.S. and Canada.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Yes, I'd agree. I think a Venn diagram wouldn't necessarily show an overlap between say Kelsey Grammer and a rural farmer who think the gaystapo is going to take away his rifles. I'd probably consider the idea, not the practice because they actually suck at not spending, of smaller government to be an underlying theme that can appeal broadly.

 

[ivysaur12]

So this happened to a friend of mine:

http://www.hitfix.com/news/the-antigay-gop-used-my-jeopardy-snap-on-their-homepage-what-is-irony

Last year I was on Jeopardy! and I got a Daily Double about Arthur Miller right. Here is footage of that moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYkB5f1X-yM

I was down in the game and thrilled to rebound with a $5,000 pickup. You could say I was feeling more like myself at that moment, and here’s what that means: I felt like an ebullient, intense, trivia-obsessed gay guy. I would argue that I looked like one too. Look, I even wrote about it.

That GIF enjoyed some Reddit acclaim, so every once in awhile I still see it pop up on Tumblr. Today I saw it somewhere else: The GOP's website! They’re advertising their (I guess?) sassy Snapchat handle, and that’s where my "snap" comes into play. It's the “Snap of the Union," you see. That’s the kind of pun work you get from the GOP, which is grim enough.

But after glancing at their "humorous" posting for more than two seconds, I realized how horrified and sad I am. / Nothing about representing myself on Jeopardy! with excitement, self-possession, and pride has anything to do with the GOP’s ideals, and it is borderline traumatizing to see my image associated with their horrifying, regressive shambles of a party. Every fearful, closeted kid I knew growing up in suburban Illinois had one thing in common: ignorant, blindly adherent Republican parents. In my mind the Republican party (especially its current lineup of candidates) has done nothing to advance the cause of LGBT rights, and in fact they were dragged kicking and screaming into basic LGBT tolerance in the first place. Jeopardy! is beloved by people of many political leanings, but my GIF is a celebration of apparent, serious gayness. Newsflash: Nothing about the GOP is a celebration of gayness, and it is a sick joke that they’d feign such a stance for the sake of their social credibility.

I happen to be a standup comic, so many of my friends (including several gay standups) encouraged me to take a saucy approach here. In the past I’ve stated that every GOP candidate seems like a horrifying Wonka parent. In the past I’ve stated that every GOP candidate seems like a string of ALL-CAPS YouTube comments come to life. I like mocking their disgusting existence because something has to be said about their disgusting existence. But when it comes to addressing their pathetic use of my image (and their lack of research about the identity of the guy in the — ahem — aubergine suit), I become numb and unwilling to respond with tweet-length rage. My militant belief in the power, importance, and well-being of the LGBT community supersedes any instinct I have to respond with just a pithy retort worthy of Hollywood Squares. And I love Hollywood Squares.

So instead of "dragging" the GOP for being a gross, harmful creepshow that continues to endanger the lives of LGBT Americans, I will solemnly say this: The fact that the GOP can’t detect gay pride in arguably the gayest "Jeopardy!" moment of all time is proof of their brutal ignorance. There is nothing sassy or cute about the GOP invoking my image to prove they're hip with the kids, who almost unanimously think they're a joke anyway. The GOP’s aggressive, antigay hysteria fills me with contempt, and this is just another laughably moronic mistake to consider alongside their regressive legacy. I will save my harmless ribbing for loving allies like Taylor Swift, who is what happens when you water a Livejournal, and Tilda Swinton, who is italicized Cate Blanchett. The GOP, meanwhile, deserves straightforward, unyielding derision. Though I’m still thunderstruck and depressed by the GOP’s error, I’ll phrase my final remark on their snafu in the form of a question: Who’s snapping now?

 

[disastermouse]

Dems have opposed pretty much every cut to he new deal. Except welfare reform. I don't get the fact that they've not given any thing on the economic front. They also greatly expanded health care (that was undermined by the courts, help lead to lower energy prices, reduced a lot of the burden of student loans (loan forgiveness among other things).



This reads like a mix white paranoia, misunderstandings about minorities views on social issues, and general concern trolling.

Hispaniss and Asians are liberal on pretty much every social issue in this country. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare spending, racism etc.

Minimum wage has stagnated, health care should be single payer, public university should be vastly cheaper. Not moving forward is the same as cutting given the, oh, forty fucking years that all left economic progress has stopped.

Regarding identity politics, it's just killing unity and organization on the left. In light of the left's total failure to enact economic policy in the last forty years, I can see why they're focusing on it, but it's a poor substitute that destroys the working class unity that was the juice behind the economic progress pre-Reagan. Republican identity politics plays on racism and xenophobia already there and amps it up. Identity politics on the left would have to be much, much more fine-tuned because it's not playing on the easy patterns and ruts of the past. None of the roads forward have been built and you can't get the middle class to build those roads if they think their economic future is in jeopardy. They're grudgingly willing to lift the underclass up to where they are, but they won't trade places with them.

 

[Poodlestrike]

LOL.

I know fetuses are pretty small but I don't think they're all going to fit on that chair.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

The Dem campaign has been so civil so far, and we've seen Bernie already crack when speaking off the cuff. I do also worry about him vs. Trump or whoever on the other side. 6 months of Socialism = Communism = Bad will probably scare enough people to vote against Sanders to give the GOP the win.

 

[Dominican Power]

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/687044428511494145

wtf

 

[campfireweekend]

As the country turns less and less white, those groups may start acting in their own self-interest rather than working together, since you would have spent years telling them to define themselves based on their sexuality / race / gender rather than their ideology. People forget that the HERO ordinance (anti-LGBT act) was passed in Houston because those supporting HERO went after black Christians who typically vote democrat in elections. Hispanics and Asians are notoriously socially conservative, but tend to vote democrat.

Gonna need a citation on Asians and Hispanics being notoriously socially conservative, as most polls and a recent editorial in the NYT paint the opposite story.

In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the only minority groups which still steadfastly holds socially conservative views while reliably voting democratic are muslims.

 

[disastermouse]

The unifying platforms of god, guns, gays and taxes don't seem like something I'd define as "identity politics." They unify in being anti-progress.

Why do you think that those issues appeal mostly to the white working class that used to vote Democrat? 'Christian' has become an identity, 'straight' has become an identity, gun-owner has become a partisan identity. It's all code for white rural working class.

That's not the point though. The white working class would be a lot less touchy about all of that if they didn't perceive their economic lot in life dropping like a rock.

 

[B-Dubs]

Gonna need a citation on Asians and Hispanics being notoriously socially conservative, as most polls and a recent editorial in the NYT paint the opposite story.

In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the only minority groups which still steadfastly holds socially conservative views while reliably voting democratic are muslims.

It's one of those things that people say, like that the media is liberal, that has no real basis.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

New Reuters data out.

Trump still killing it. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20151204-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

Clinton up 55-36. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20150901-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

 

[JesseEwiak]

Dems have opposed pretty much every cut to he new deal. Except welfare reform. I don't get the fact that they've not given any thing on the economic front. They also greatly expanded health care (that was undermined by the courts, help lead to lower energy prices, reduced a lot of the burden of student loans (loan forgiveness among other things).

Yup. I don't get this idea. Obama passed the biggest expansion to the social safety net in decades and how did those white working class voters reward Obama? Not that great.

Here's the harsh truth, and I've said it before - those Trump supporters. They're never going to vote for any Democrat whose not willing to throw minorities and young women who have sex under the bus. They want theirs, as long as nobody else gets any.

Bernie Sanders can support single payer health care all he wants, but all Trump has to say to keep them in his camp is, "Sanders wants to give 25 million invaders legal status."

Because, regardless of what people have said above, there was never any glorious period of working class unity. You know what was happening in the 60's and 70's? White male unionized construction trades doing their damnedest to block African-Americans and women from being able to join the union.

 

[campfireweekend]

It's one of those things that people say, like that the media is liberal, that has no real basis.

Yeah, I remember around the 2012 election cycle, some poligaf poster stated that no democratic candidate would receive as large a share of the Asian vote as Obama in 2008, which I don't believe is founded in any kind of reality, as the Asian vote is only trending more and more democratic.

 

[Aaron Strife]

New Reuters data out.

Trump still killing it. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20151204-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

Clinton up 55-36. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20150901-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

Rubio is in 4th.

Amazing.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Wanting to own guns isn't part of one's "identity" in the sense I'm referring, it's a hobby (at best.) Being straight is, but being a bigot isn't. Being white is, but again, being a bigot isn't. Although, I imagine this is now just semantically talking past each other.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Also, funny how we're now getting a pushback on "identity politics" when black people just happen to be getting vocal about how they're still being royally screwed.

Shouldn't need to be said but given your insinuation: Still 100% against unjustified shootings of black people and them getting institutionally screwed.

 

[NeoXChaos]

New Reuters data out.

Trump still killing it. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20151204-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

Clinton up 55-36. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20150901-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

quick Bams. Lets make a thread on this..........

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wanting to own guns isn't part of one's "identity" in the sense I'm referring, it's a hobby (at best.) Being straight is, but being a bigot isn't. Being white is, but again, being a bigot isn't. Although, I imagine this is now just semantically talking past each other.

It kind of is, though? It's not a born identity, it's a given identity, but it's an identity given by communities with powerful social ties and communal messaging. I think if you asked a lot of Republicans, they would classify gun-owning as important to them on a personal level and important in allowing them to be the people they wanted to be.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Wanting to own guns isn't part of one's "identity" in the sense I'm referring, it's a hobby (at best.) Being straight is, but being a bigot isn't. Although, I imagine this is now just semantically talking past each other.

Owning guns isn't necessarily part of your "identity", but someone who talks a lot about gun politics, posts pro-gun memes, argues with people on Facebook about gun control, and is a member of the NRA or other gun rights is a part of the white conservative "Real American" identity politics just like say, posting anti-police excess memes on Facebook, arguing with people on Facebook about Tamir Rice, or marching in a BLM protest is a part of the "identity politics" that people think are going to destroy the liberal agenda.

Still 100% against unjustified shootings of black people and them getting institutionally screwed.

But only complain about this much, not too much. Or you'll scare people. *Insert MLK's white moderate speech here*

 

[Makai]

Wanting to own guns isn't part of one's "identity" in the sense I'm referring, it's a hobby (at best.) Being straight is, but being a bigot isn't. Being white is, but again, being a bigot isn't. Although, I imagine this is now just semantically talking past each other.

You mean static traits are identity?

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's not something I ever particularly associated with the term "identity politics." And it basically broadens the term to the point where anything and everything could be considered as such. Being a farmer is identity politics. Being a stoner is identity politics. Being a vegan is identity politics.

 

[ivysaur12]

New Reuters data out.

Trump still killing it. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20151204-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

Clinton up 55-36. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T...20150901-20160112/collapsed/false/spotlight/1

And now, CBS:

@stevenportnoy
CBS NEWS/NYT NATIONAL POLL:
Clinton 48
Sanders 41
O'Malley 2
(Clinton had a 20 pt lead in this poll last month. Now down to 7.)

 

[disastermouse]

Wanting to own guns isn't part of one's "identity" in the sense I'm referring, it's a hobby (at best.) Being straight is, but being a bigot isn't. Although, I imagine this is now just semantically talking past each other.

No, it's that these things have become emblematic of an identity over time. If the economic security of the white middle class wasn't being eroded, you would see many of these behaviors decrease dramatically. Tokenism and what is seen as special rights (not saying it's true, saying it's seen that way) for minorities exacerbates the problem. None of this would be seen as a problem if the economic conditions of the white working class were improving or even keeping up with where they were pre-Neoliberal-economics. Democrats supporting NAFTA, TPP, and presiding over much of the era of outsourcing didn't help.

So much of this could be combatted with worker ownership and the forging of a worker-owner identity that transcended race, sexuality, country of origin, etc.

Identity requires an out-group and the white middle class has several pre-formed for them and exploited by a cynical Republican Party/capitalist class. They don't get mad at the boss because they can't do so and remain employed and self-respecting, so the tension is off-loaded to historical scapegoats, and that's used to further the economic policies that have placed the white working class in such a precarious place to begin with.

 

[Poodlestrike]

You mean static traits are identity?

This is an interesting question. Where do we draw the line between identity, lifestyle, attitudes... Is it really ONLY immutable traits? Is being religious a part of someone's identity? Gun culture? How about ethnicity, since that's not really changeable but is externally imposed?

 

[ivysaur12]

@Taniel
And Trump has a big lead on the GOP side:

Trump: 36% (highest yet in a NYT/CBS poll)
Cruz: 19%
Rubio: 12%
Bush & Carson: 6%

Republican side.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And now, CBS:

Man, the national picture is unclear as fuck. I thought NH had some extreme opposite polling, but how can you have Clinton +4 and Clinton +19 in the same week!?

 

[shinra-bansho]

These polls are all over the place.

Also, I'd say it's idealistic at best to think that being economically secure would prevent these people from having a problem with where I put my penis or whether a women should always need to carry a baby to term.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

These polls are so conflicted.

 

[ivysaur12]

Man, the national picture is unclear as fuck. I thought NH had some extreme opposite polling, but how can you have Clinton +4 and Clinton +19 in the same week!?

It's very odd. We'll have to see what happens when the voting actually happens, which is a dumb sentence I just typed.

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/elizabeth-warren-2016-endorsement/index.html

Washington (CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren is facing growing pressure from Senate Democrats to get behind Hillary Clinton as the former secretary of state suddenly finds herself struggling to keep pace with Bernie Sanders in early primary states.

In interviews with CNN, Democratic senators are grumbling over Warren's refusal to pick a side, arguing that the populist liberal firebrand could help unite the party behind Clinton, whom they believe represents their only chance of winning the White House.

"I think it would be important," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, said of Warren backing Clinton. "I think it would be helpful."

At least one senator, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, has asked Warren to endorse Clinton, according to other Democrats. Stabenow's office declined to comment.

Warren, whose influence with core Democratic voters is rivaled only by Sanders himself, could provide the Clinton campaign the boost it needs after two polls suddenly showed her trailing to Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"She's waiting way too long," said one Democratic senator who asked not to be named.

The potential endorsement also puts Warren in a bind. If she jumps behind Clinton, she will undoubtedly anger the legions of like-minded progressives who are powering Sanders' insurgent campaign. But a Sanders endorsement will turn off not only women's groups that back Clinton but also many of her fellow senators.

McCaskill noted not a single Democratic senator has backed Sanders, the Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats.

"Probably all of us respect and love him, but we have a lot people here who have worked with him for many years -- and he has yet to have one endorsement from people who know him well and who have worked with him," McCaskill said. "There is a collective judgment there that one candidate is going to be better president, and I think that counts for something since we work with him every day."

Warren has said previously she expects to give an endorsement, but it's unclear when it will come. A Warren spokeswoman declined to comment.

Indeed, Democratic senators have lined up behind Warren (IVY'S NOTE: TYPO LOLOLOL) - including the 13 other women in the Senate Democratic Caucus. In late November, Warren was the only Democratic female senator who skipped a fundraiser held at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill in honor of Clinton. While she signed a letter in 2013 with fellow women Democratic senators urging Clinton to run, she has since said that did not constitute an endorsement.

"Of course she would love to have Elizabeth's support," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said of Clinton. "It's hard for me to get in anybody else's mind as to why they would not."

Privately, Warren met with Clinton at her Washington home in December 2014, and has since chatted with Sanders. Tad Devine, the senior Sanders strategist, said that Warren's support would be "more than welcome" but he didn't know what she would do.

"There's no secret Elizabeth Warren plan," Devine said. "She's going to do what she wants to do when she wants to do it. That's the way it goes."

The chatter comes at an urgent time for the Clinton campaign. A Monmouth poll Tuesday found Clinton losing to Sanders by 14 points in New Hampshire -- while a new Quinnipiac poll reported that Clinton was trailing by five points in Iowa.

Some Democrats are nervous about the prospect that Sanders could win the nomination.

"If Bernie was the nominee, I think creates a challenge," said Sen. Joe Manchin, the moderate West Virginia Democrat. "But of course, Republicans have tremendous challenges, too."

McCaskill said it's time for Clinton to more sharply show the contrast between the two of them.

"That's what happens when someone remains undefined, and the other is so familiar to voters," McCaskill said. 'You've got a shiny new object, and you've got Hillary Clinton. That is a contrast in terms of familiarity. It's not unusual for someone to go with the new and unfamiliar over something that is very familiar."

McCaskill added: "I think the contrast is going to have to be drawn so people understand that Hillary Clinton is the only person running for president that is really qualified to lead in a stable and pragmatic fashion on the issues facing our country."

Sanders repeatedly discounts the lack of support from his colleagues -- even like-minded colleagues like Sen. Sherrod Brown, whom he referred to as "the establishment" after the Ohio Democrat endorsed Clinton.

"Bernie says, the next day, 'I didn't expect any help from the establishment," Brown said. "I said to him, 'Even though that kind of pissed me off, that was actually pretty good line.' He smiled."

 

[Yellowtail]

Clinton is doing better in Internet polls than live phone polls now? Lol what.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's not something I ever particularly associated with the term "identity politics." And it basically broadens the term to the point where anything and everything could be considered as such. Being a farmer is identity politics. Being a stoner is identity politics. Being a vegan is identity politics.

It's almost like identity politics is a bullshit term pushed by largely status quo friendly writers and politicians to undermine the problems of non-white males into the realm of "complaining about things that don't really matter."

But yup, people who think America should be a white nation or think abortion is murder aren't suddenly going to vote for the party friendly to women who want to get abortions or Americans shouldn't be just white because you pass single payer healthcare. It didn't stop the backlash during the 70s when college was fairly cheap or access to health insurance was a far lesser problem.

 

[disastermouse]

This is an interesting question. Where do we draw the line between identity, lifestyle, attitudes... Is it really ONLY immutable traits? Is being religious a part of someone's identity? Gun culture? How about ethnicity, since that's not really changeable but is externally imposed?

Identity is created by the presence and awareness of out-groups. That's all it really is and it's simply exacerbated by the relative perceived health and resource availability of the group identifying itself. The false scarcity caused by the resource distribution that capitalism creates engenders greater in-group/out-group awareness. The identity doesn't have to be a minority identity, it simply has to feel threatened in order for it to solidify against the perceived threats of out-groups.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I would lose literally all respect for Warren if she endorsed Clinton after pressure like that. I'm fine with no endorsement, but stepping back from a base that is essentially yours and only embraced Sanders because you wouldn't run would be a kick in the teeth to many, many Democrats. It would absolutely tank enthusiasm for Clinton *and* Warren. If she favours Clinton, she should stay quiet, wait for Clinton to win, then endorse her - that way Clinton gets some meaningful enthusiasm and Warren doesn't jeopardize her hard earnt following.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's not something I ever particularly associated with the term "identity politics." And it basically broadens the term to the point where anything and everything could be considered as such. Being a farmer is identity politics. Being a stoner is identity politics. Being a vegan is identity politics.

Well, yes, they could be, if people cared enough about those bits of their identity to be political about them, and if there was a reasonable divide on both sides that parties could latch onto. As it is, the vast majority of people are not vegan, so it doesn't get expressed. Ditto with farmer, although to an extent I do think you get appeals to farming and rural life in contrast to the cities and urban life in American politics. Stoner politics is sort of taking off as we speak, although I think more people want marijuana legalized to stop the drug war than because they value it as part of their identity, so maybe not.