I'm not trying to put Bernie's support in a box. But at the same time, I'm just not following the huge logic leap it takes to claim that Hillary Clinton has an excitement problem that's exclusive to her when, right now, she's beating him soundly.
Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
I'm not trying to put Bernie's support in a box. But at the same time, I'm just not following the huge logic leap it takes to claim that Hillary Clinton has an excitement problem that's exclusive to her when, right now, she's beating him soundly.
Good Job Bob
Member
I'm not white and I fitted in pretty well at both Clinton's Miami rally a couple days back and Sanders Miami rally yesterday, I'm sure you would've as well.
Edit: I do think saying Hillary is not driving ANY excitement just conveys a limited and biased perspective.
I know we're all a bit wary of polls now (I'm sure Bernie supporters are going to outright dismiss them from now on).
Here's what Super Tuesday II looks like tho
Florida:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 9-15 points
North Carolina:
Clinton leading - 22-24 points
Trump leading - 10-20 points
Illinois:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 10-17 points
Ohio:
Clinton leading - 20-40 points
Trump leading - 3-6 points
Missouri:
No Data
Here's what Super Tuesday II looks like tho
Florida:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 9-15 points
North Carolina:
Clinton leading - 22-24 points
Trump leading - 10-20 points
Illinois:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 10-17 points
Ohio:
Clinton leading - 20-40 points
Trump leading - 3-6 points
Missouri:
No Data
I mean, can you prove that?
Dem turnout has been low in every state, including the states that Bernie has won.
Youth turnout isn't up from 2008.
The number of voters reporting anger with government isn't up from previous years.
Something like 80% of Democrats have a positive view of Hillary Clinton and about the same amount would be happy with her as the nominee.
I just don't see any evidence of this hypothetical excitement gap.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Closer than expected in nc given Virginia and sc.
I think the polls to be more skeptical of are Illinois and ohio. Especially Illinois since it's an open primary. These states are not that different from Michigan in terms of demographics and perspective.
now as to the super delegates- RIGHT NOW they are supposedly mostly for hillary, but if bernie can win several more states- and his win in MI suggests that he could do that- then said delegates can...change their vote.
pie in the sky thinking, what happens if bernie does well in the midwestern states
as we have seen in michigan, clinton had a 20% lead according to the polls
yet LOST, could bernie do as well in other states and pull upsets?
sure he could. Will he is the question.
and if he does, will the superdelegates that are voting for hillary, change their vote to bernie
then there is ~may to consider, when most likely we will find out if the JD and FBI attempt to indict hillary on "espionage" due to her having received and emailed classified documents over an unsecured system.
pie in the sky thinking, what happens if bernie does well in the midwestern states
as we have seen in michigan, clinton had a 20% lead according to the polls
yet LOST, could bernie do as well in other states and pull upsets?
sure he could. Will he is the question.
and if he does, will the superdelegates that are voting for hillary, change their vote to bernie
then there is ~may to consider, when most likely we will find out if the JD and FBI attempt to indict hillary on "espionage" due to her having received and emailed classified documents over an unsecured system.
I'm more skeptical of Ohio than Illinois. I don't think Bernie's hits on Obama are going to play well in his home state. Ohio on the other hand might be right for his messaging.
Definitely. But none suggest blowout wins for Bernie like he needs. I mean it's one thing to basically draw (Michigan, which was an oddity and not been seen before) another to go from a 30 point lead for Clinton to a 30 point win for Bernie.
Florida and NC polls are probably v accurate or underestimating her tho tbh, like most of the polls in the south have.
Ohio is probably Bernies best shot, and Missouri.
Probably not, because if Bernie wins slight upsets in a bunch of Midwestern states, he'll still be way behind in delegates.
If Bernie had a commanding lead in delegates, the superdelegates wouldn't stand in the way. But they're not about to switch if Hillary is winning the race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
Can I prove that nobody expected Sanders to put up a serious challenge to Clinton..? Just look at headlines back then. Can I prove that Clinton had a huge advantage coming in...? Use common sense. Like, how is this even an argument?
Overall turnout is a weird number to look at. Surely you'd agree that turnout would be even lower if Sanders was weaker, right?
But when you break it down, you do sometimes see it in the data.
boiled goose
good with gravy
He definitely needs big wins to catchup. Keeping it close or wins keep him fueled up though.
DragonSworne
Banned
I really wonder why the data for these polls are so off for Hillary but accurate for Trump.
Wonder what is up with the Hillary data.
It's not? Not always anyway. Look at Virginia, spot on. As are most of the southern states, and Massachusetts wasn't even that far off (few points).
It's just Michigan that has got everyone suspect of the polls for Hillary.
The African-American vote has been coming out in record numbers this election, in the south anyway, and is why she's been over-performing. In terms of Michigan, they haven't had a competitive primary in like 30 years so all their models were rusty as fuck.
No, I'm asking you to prove your actual claim. Like it says in my post? You're saying Bernie's performance is due to the "excitement gap."
I provided a bunch of evidence that suggests there is no excitement gap.
So where's your evidence that there is one?
Yeah, I read this post. I didn't respond to it because benji's response seemed to pretty much cover why it's terrible evidence of any sort of excitement gap. Michigan in 2008 was pretty seriously anomalous.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
The big takeaway from last night was how pathetically inaccurate the polling data was in MI
Macho Madness
Member
.
Thanks, Ohio is definitely a battleground then.
It's Illinois an open primary?
Bel Marduk
Banned
gutter_trash
Banned
I strongly believe that MI's results were mainly due to government inaction from all levels concerning contaminated water pushing for the anti-establishment Candidate who declares executive order to get more support.
I personalty believe that the President should have the right to intervene in a State when the State fails
I'm one of those guys who says ''Fuck States Rights''
boiled goose
good with gravy
Illinois open for dems
How do you explain how well Bernie has done in overcoming the obvious advantages Clinton had at the start?
Before this started, people assumed Jeb would get the nom. No excitement, he gets crushed by exciting candidates. Right?
Before this started, people assumed that, for democrats, Hillary was even stronger for nom than Jeb was for GOP (Hillary basically had no real opposition). Now it's much closer than anybody expected. How do you explain that?
I feel like you're pretending Clinton and Sanders started on equal grounds. That we started with a 50/50 chance between the two and Clinton has simply been outperforming Sanders to get to 60/40. The truth is, nobody expected it to even be 60/40. Clinton came in with all the advantages and Sanders was written off, but he's beaten expectations. How do you explain where we are today, other than with an excitement gap?
Can you find a single post saying that if Hillary loses, they're gonna vote Trump here on gaf? Otherwise this comparison is dumb.
boiled goose
good with gravy
From my understanding obama could have intervened. The problem was mi governer basically gave away a ton of the budget away as tax cuts to corporations and the rich .
I dont disagree with Obama.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Depends on your perspective. I'm a Sanders fan, and I think Michigan was a huge win. Do I think it significantly increases his outlook? No. But I recognize it as a monumentous achievement. A year and a half ago, no one could imagine he could still be in the race -- on paper, he shouldn't be significant enough for Hillary to even pay attention to him. It's a huge success story for all his supporters, regardless of whether he loses the nomination or not.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
carly is supporting ted cruz now. as if i needed a new reason to hate ted cruz
Macho Madness
Member
I made a mistake. It's actually considered semi-closed, though you can vote in either party's election.
Also PoliGAF is in a constant panic on the days the votes are cast.
Bel Marduk
Banned
I've only seen one person on GAF ever say that they would vote for Trump if Bernie loses
I stopped reading /r/politics because its too much of an echo chamber but you aren't going to find any sensible people (let alone Sanders supporters) who would vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election
Missouri and Illinois are Open for Democrats. NC is semi-closed for D's. Ohio is semi-open for D's. Your mixing your self up with the R side. The only truly closed one is FL fro D's
Macho Madness
Member
Got it. Could they make it more confusing?
You're failing to take into account one important point: this isn't Hillary's first time running for office.
We've seen her be the establishment favorite and get crushed by the exciting new guy before. It's been done before.
But it's not playing out that way. Not only had Hillary kept Bernie at bay, but she's grown a gargantuan pledged delegate lead against him. A bigger lead than Obama EVER had on her in 08.
Bernie just isn't generating anywhere near the level of excitement that he needs to. It doesn't matter that he gained. He went from being a nobody to a somebody. OF COURSE he was going to gain.
gutter_trash
Banned
Obama should have intervened, taken it over, order the work done.
Then send a Big Bill for the Governor to pay up after the Federal's work was done
So 2008 was an uncontested primary where they barely had any reason to bother voting. Now in 2016, they have a real primary.. and voter turnout for people iding as Democrats (that typically voted for Hillary) is LOWER than in 2008. More people turned out to vote Hillary vs Uncontested than Hillary vs Bernie and you think that's evidence that there isn't an excitement problem for Hillary...? How is that not backwards?
So you're spinning "this isn't Hillary's first time running for [president]" as a disadvantage for Hillary?
No? This is a terrible analysis of the GOP nomination race. This year is best understood as the factional collapse of the Republican party as the Southern strategy stops being effective due to the emergence of the Obama coalition. I was predicting this collapse in 2012. Go back and check PoliGAF!
I mean, I don't, particularly. I don't feel the need to project my personal narratives onto the events that are taking place without having data to back them up! You're the one claiming that you KNOW why Bernie is doing so well, so you're the one responsible for defending your theory.
If you put a gun to my head and asked me to explain it, I'd probably go to what Jamelle Bouie said -- Bernie is running as an ideological candidate, and the primary consists of more invested voters, who are probably more amenable to an ideological approach. But his ideology is not sufficiently representative of the Democratic Party for him to actually win, because of the ongoing perception that he doesn't understand systemic racism.
Now that you mention that....
Also as for the ongoing discussion, Hillary doesn't really have an excitement problem (because her base is excited even if that base is old), she has an age group problem and a trustworthiness problem.
What she needs is a VP that can deal with her weak points. And for her sake I hope that the dem establishment doesn't think that her weakness is appealing to the latino vote...
Ummm, you think Trump and Cruz are leading because racism doesn't grab GOP voters any more...?
Yes, this is part of what people generally refer to as "excitement." It's the "finally, someone saying what I want a candidate to say" excitement. Why do you think Sanders draws bigger crowds and raises more money from small donors? Excitement!
eBay Huckster
Member
now that i've had a night to sleep on it, i've realized clinton's campaign only needs to take one step to prevent this from happening in any future primary:
repeal the 26th amendment
repeal the 26th amendment
No, I think they're leading because the establishment realizes that racism isn't sufficient to win elections for the GOP any more and they spent the last four years trying to figure out how to tack away from that.
Unfortunately Eric Cantor getting immolated in 2014 showed that the base wasn't going to sit still for that.
Now the GOP is splintered into a bunch of factional parties that used to be the GOP coalition, each trying to push its candidate as the "right way" for the GOP to go. Trump, being the candidate of total racism, is actually winning, because that's what the GOP is actually about. But a Trump Party is totally unelectable in the general election. Even a party that gives this much consideration to Donald Trump is probably screwed. He's the new Goldwater or McGovern.
Well, I guess when people say "excitement" I assume they mean stuff like "enthusiasm." Which isn't higher for Sanders. Or "ability to turn out new voters," which, again, Sanders hasn't demonstrated.
If by "excitement" you mean "ideological purity" then sure, Sanders has a gap there. That's the whole reason he's a bad candidate!
I agree with all that, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the GOP primary where GOP voters are excited with Trump precisely because he's an unfiltered bigot. Jeb is the other end of the spectrum -- one of the most politically correct candidates in their field, generating the least excitement.
"ability to turn out new voters," is different, yes, but excitement and enthusiasm are what I'm talking about.
No, "ideological purity" alone doesn't get big crowds and massive amounts of small donations -- excitement/enthusiasm does, though.
You seem to have this weird disconnect. Excitement and racism aren't mutually exclusive.
All I said was Jeb lacked excitement. You then go on to describe what that excitement was about, specifically, as if it somehow contradicted me (it didn't). I would have said the same thing if you'd asked me what was driving the excitement.
If people weren't excited about Sanders why does he get bigger crowds than Clinton and get more individual donations than Clinton? How is that not evidence? I don't see how I'm making wild assertions. People that are excited take time to go see someone they're excited about and donate money. How is this even an argument?
edit: also this:
boiled goose
good with gravy
You guys are arguing past each other.
Pigeon is saying excitement compared to 08 or to Clinton now in terms of actual voting.
While you are arguing that individual Bernie supporters seem to be more excited than individual Hillary supoorters.
Both are fair imo. A lot of people are very excited about Bernie,however they haven't translated into more votes than clinton in 2016 or more votes than obama in 08.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Thank.
You.
This idea that Bernie is generating some unprecedented level of excitement among the future of the party that's being stunted by stalwart establishment fogies is hilariously misguided. It's so weird to see Hillary portrayed as this inevitable, regressive figure standing in the way of what the Democratic Party really wants when she's been handily defeated before by Bernie-like "visionary" figures (i.e. Obama).
Even if you remove delegates from the equation, Hillary is comfortably ahead in popular vote totals. I guess between Hillary and Bernie, Hillary really is what the Democratic Party wants.
When I mention excitement, why do you assume I'm talking about votes? You guys are conflating two different things. Related, yes, but not the same thing or even a 1:1 correlation.
Delegates? The superdelegates advantage is given to establishment candidates by their very nature. That's unrelated to excitement.
Votes? More closely related to excitement, but still influenced by other things. Clinton has a much bigger and experienced political machine that helps her get votes. She has more name recognition and that helps her get votes. It's things like that that Sanders is having to overcome. That's what makes him an underdog. That's why his small victories are a bigger deal. That's why there can be an excitement gap without him necessarily winning.
This is what people mean by excitement in the context of political campaigns. I thought that was common knowledge.
To be clear, I never suggested Sanders is generating unprecedented levels of excitement. I was speaking purely in relative terms to Clinton.
- Status