I know they all want to triumphantly gloat that this 2008 all over again, but Nate Silver has a different story. According to him, Hillary still has a 73 percent likelihood of winning Iowa.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
Even in NH he gives her a 53 percent chance.
If this holds true, Bernie's done. Indeed, with all the handwringing over Hillary, she can afford to lose both states-which is not to say this is what she wants to do. But it's pretty plausible that she comes back from this and runs the table in South Caroling, Nevada, etc.
The Bernie Maniacs are counting on it going exactly like 2008; once Obama won Iowa it changed the race. But this was because Blacks en masse went to Obama after this overnight. No such dynamic is likely this time.
Yes this might give the white liberals who love Bernie the sense of 2008 all over again but there aren't so many of them in the South. And remember-Hillary did much better than you would expect after losing Iowa-she came back to win NH and made this a race all the way into June.
But Bernie has to win Iowa. Does losing close now help him? I don't know as expectations are now that he can win.
The caveat is these more rosy predictions are based on Nate's Polls Plus model. If you use the Polls Only model-which of course most of us non political scientists do; I've used it in the GOP primary-then it's not so rosy for her.
"Because public opinion can shift rapidly in the primaries, our models put a lot of emphasis on the most recent polls. That’s good news for Sanders, who has been neck and neck with Clinton in Iowa polls published this month after trailing her for most of last year. In fact, the race is nearly a tossup: He now has a 45 percent chance of winning Iowa according to polls-only, although the polls-plus model, noting Clinton’s dominance in endorsements, is more skeptical of Sanders, giving him a 27 percent chance instead."
In NH:
"Here, there’s a split between the models. Sanders is a 73 percent favorite according to polls-only, while polls-plus — noting Clinton’s advantage in endorsements and that she’s favored in Iowa — gives Clinton the slightest edge, with a 53 percent chance to Sanders’s 47 percent. Essentially, she’d be following the path that Al Gore took over Bill Bradley in 2000, when an Iowa victory propelled him to a narrow victory in the Granite State. But the polls-plus model is designed to lower the effect of the endorsements variable to zero by election day in each state. So if Clinton keeps falling in New Hampshire and Iowa polls instead of rising, the establishment may not be able to bail her out, and she’ll have to contemplate the possibility of being swept in both states."
Although Nate did even in the Summer say that Bernie has a shot at winning both and HRC is still a virtual lock to win.
Of course, you might argue that Ive been mocking Nate for months in the GOP where I want to see Trump do well but now I'm embracing him in the Dem primary where I want to see Bernie do poorly.
But if you've followed my argument you'll see I'm not contradicting what I've said in the past as I've said all along that Nate is usually right: usually, the party does decide.
But that this may not be the case this time for the GOP who's party is now in total disarray. I mean even if you want to go by the endorsement game-you see that no one has come close to grabbing the level of establishment support to pick a clear choice like in the past-or like Hillary has now.
Indeed, HRC's support is unprecedented. The problem for the Establishment this time is it can't decide-it's suffering from major indecision.
But a Bernie Maniac could argue that it's not just the GOP who is anti Establishment but the Dems as well. Indeed, Bernie uses the E word as a swear word as well.
So we'll see. I still believe Hillary pulls this out fairly easily once we get to South Carolina.
But I guess Nate himself is under a lot of pressure this year-he's always been right in the past. But this year could offer him a total rebuke.
My hope is it's just a partial rebuke in the GOP race.
P.S. I did think yesterday about what if it is a Trump-Sanders race. Wouldn't that be crazy?
I have to say, I don't know that I can vote for Bernie. It was different in 2008. I had no trouble voting for Obama though I had wanted Hillary.
But Obama was clearly i my mind a suitable choice-a pragmatic, centrist Democrat. I just don't like the way Bernie talks. I don't like talk of 'revolution' or I want to know a lot more specifics than Bernie is willing to give about what this revolution is.
Sure just 'break up the big banks'-but what will that look like? Is that even good for the economy?
And his single payer scheme is basically a call to blow up our entire system overnight. For the most part change is better done on an incremental basis.
“His plan would take Medicare and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act health-care insurance and private employer health insurance and he would take that all together and send health insurance to the states, turning over your and my health insurance to governors,” Clinton said, naming the state’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad. “I don’t believe number one we should be starting over. We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t want to rip it up and start over.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/12/heres-the-real-deal-on-the-latest-big-clinton-sanders-dust-up/
As a philosophical matter, Hillary is right. It was tough enough to get Obamacare; do we really want to rip the entire thing up? This is not the way policy usually best proceeds. The Affordable Care Act can be improved on. You could for instance give it the public option.
Meanwhile maybe someone can ask Bernie why single payer failed in Vermont if it's so simple as he makes it sound?
If Bernie were to win the nomination this would mean the firebaggers had won and maybe I'd feel like this Democratic party I have loved so long isn't mine anymore-it'd be theirs.
So who would I vote for? Well I certainly wouldn't vote for actual Republicans-Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, etc.
I won't vote for any Republican who are a anti abortion zealots who want to slash taxes radically for the rich and raise them for the rest of us while block granting out Medicare and Social Security.
If it were my nightmare scenario-a Bernie-Rubio race-I'd just sit out the first election of my adult life. I'd vote straight Democrat up and down the ticket and vote for no one in Presidential; or maybe I'd even write in Hillary's name.
But a Bernie-Trump contest, I might even vote Trump just to troll Bernie. I don't know. I'm speculating here about a what if.
I might feel differently if this were the real situation. I do find Trump's immigration and anti Muslim stuff appalling but like Greg, I somewhat discount even he believes half of it.
In a general he's probably run to the Left. I think if nothing else, a President Trump would be one for the history books. It'd be interesting if nothing else. I know he's not a nut on abortion and doesn't want to end Social Security.
Indeed, he had to drop it for the GOP primary, but he has in the past advocated a steep wealth tax.
Again, formally speaking, I just hate Bernie's style-the whole Jeremiad in the wilderness inveighing against greed and the billionaire class. It's not so much that I don't agree with a good deal of it but I don't like the way he says it-he sounds like someone running for student council is how a woman on Twitter put it last night.
He always just says 'I'm going to do X, Y, and Z' but doesn't tell us how. Hillary gets into the weeds and can tell us what we'd need to get there and whether we should even want to. As she rightly says, all Bernie does is just vow to wave a wand.
On some things, ironically. Trump and Bernie sound the same message-Trump has made a point of not using a super PAC either but what he's also done is totally neutralized all the millions of Jeb, Rubio and the Koch Brothers.
Both criticize the Iraq war. But Trump is at least funny in the way he talks about it. Bernie is just so deadly serious. I can't see it. I cannot see him for four much less eight years.
I agree these are serious issues but you have to be able to have a little levity about things. With Bernie the world is always coming to an end. If you see his speeches over the years, that's always the case.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
Even in NH he gives her a 53 percent chance.
If this holds true, Bernie's done. Indeed, with all the handwringing over Hillary, she can afford to lose both states-which is not to say this is what she wants to do. But it's pretty plausible that she comes back from this and runs the table in South Caroling, Nevada, etc.
The Bernie Maniacs are counting on it going exactly like 2008; once Obama won Iowa it changed the race. But this was because Blacks en masse went to Obama after this overnight. No such dynamic is likely this time.
Yes this might give the white liberals who love Bernie the sense of 2008 all over again but there aren't so many of them in the South. And remember-Hillary did much better than you would expect after losing Iowa-she came back to win NH and made this a race all the way into June.
But Bernie has to win Iowa. Does losing close now help him? I don't know as expectations are now that he can win.
The caveat is these more rosy predictions are based on Nate's Polls Plus model. If you use the Polls Only model-which of course most of us non political scientists do; I've used it in the GOP primary-then it's not so rosy for her.
"Because public opinion can shift rapidly in the primaries, our models put a lot of emphasis on the most recent polls. That’s good news for Sanders, who has been neck and neck with Clinton in Iowa polls published this month after trailing her for most of last year. In fact, the race is nearly a tossup: He now has a 45 percent chance of winning Iowa according to polls-only, although the polls-plus model, noting Clinton’s dominance in endorsements, is more skeptical of Sanders, giving him a 27 percent chance instead."
In NH:
"Here, there’s a split between the models. Sanders is a 73 percent favorite according to polls-only, while polls-plus — noting Clinton’s advantage in endorsements and that she’s favored in Iowa — gives Clinton the slightest edge, with a 53 percent chance to Sanders’s 47 percent. Essentially, she’d be following the path that Al Gore took over Bill Bradley in 2000, when an Iowa victory propelled him to a narrow victory in the Granite State. But the polls-plus model is designed to lower the effect of the endorsements variable to zero by election day in each state. So if Clinton keeps falling in New Hampshire and Iowa polls instead of rising, the establishment may not be able to bail her out, and she’ll have to contemplate the possibility of being swept in both states."
Although Nate did even in the Summer say that Bernie has a shot at winning both and HRC is still a virtual lock to win.
Of course, you might argue that Ive been mocking Nate for months in the GOP where I want to see Trump do well but now I'm embracing him in the Dem primary where I want to see Bernie do poorly.
But if you've followed my argument you'll see I'm not contradicting what I've said in the past as I've said all along that Nate is usually right: usually, the party does decide.
But that this may not be the case this time for the GOP who's party is now in total disarray. I mean even if you want to go by the endorsement game-you see that no one has come close to grabbing the level of establishment support to pick a clear choice like in the past-or like Hillary has now.
Indeed, HRC's support is unprecedented. The problem for the Establishment this time is it can't decide-it's suffering from major indecision.
But a Bernie Maniac could argue that it's not just the GOP who is anti Establishment but the Dems as well. Indeed, Bernie uses the E word as a swear word as well.
So we'll see. I still believe Hillary pulls this out fairly easily once we get to South Carolina.
But I guess Nate himself is under a lot of pressure this year-he's always been right in the past. But this year could offer him a total rebuke.
My hope is it's just a partial rebuke in the GOP race.
P.S. I did think yesterday about what if it is a Trump-Sanders race. Wouldn't that be crazy?
I have to say, I don't know that I can vote for Bernie. It was different in 2008. I had no trouble voting for Obama though I had wanted Hillary.
But Obama was clearly i my mind a suitable choice-a pragmatic, centrist Democrat. I just don't like the way Bernie talks. I don't like talk of 'revolution' or I want to know a lot more specifics than Bernie is willing to give about what this revolution is.
Sure just 'break up the big banks'-but what will that look like? Is that even good for the economy?
And his single payer scheme is basically a call to blow up our entire system overnight. For the most part change is better done on an incremental basis.
“His plan would take Medicare and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act health-care insurance and private employer health insurance and he would take that all together and send health insurance to the states, turning over your and my health insurance to governors,” Clinton said, naming the state’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad. “I don’t believe number one we should be starting over. We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t want to rip it up and start over.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/12/heres-the-real-deal-on-the-latest-big-clinton-sanders-dust-up/
As a philosophical matter, Hillary is right. It was tough enough to get Obamacare; do we really want to rip the entire thing up? This is not the way policy usually best proceeds. The Affordable Care Act can be improved on. You could for instance give it the public option.
Meanwhile maybe someone can ask Bernie why single payer failed in Vermont if it's so simple as he makes it sound?
If Bernie were to win the nomination this would mean the firebaggers had won and maybe I'd feel like this Democratic party I have loved so long isn't mine anymore-it'd be theirs.
So who would I vote for? Well I certainly wouldn't vote for actual Republicans-Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, etc.
I won't vote for any Republican who are a anti abortion zealots who want to slash taxes radically for the rich and raise them for the rest of us while block granting out Medicare and Social Security.
If it were my nightmare scenario-a Bernie-Rubio race-I'd just sit out the first election of my adult life. I'd vote straight Democrat up and down the ticket and vote for no one in Presidential; or maybe I'd even write in Hillary's name.
But a Bernie-Trump contest, I might even vote Trump just to troll Bernie. I don't know. I'm speculating here about a what if.
I might feel differently if this were the real situation. I do find Trump's immigration and anti Muslim stuff appalling but like Greg, I somewhat discount even he believes half of it.
In a general he's probably run to the Left. I think if nothing else, a President Trump would be one for the history books. It'd be interesting if nothing else. I know he's not a nut on abortion and doesn't want to end Social Security.
Indeed, he had to drop it for the GOP primary, but he has in the past advocated a steep wealth tax.
Again, formally speaking, I just hate Bernie's style-the whole Jeremiad in the wilderness inveighing against greed and the billionaire class. It's not so much that I don't agree with a good deal of it but I don't like the way he says it-he sounds like someone running for student council is how a woman on Twitter put it last night.
He always just says 'I'm going to do X, Y, and Z' but doesn't tell us how. Hillary gets into the weeds and can tell us what we'd need to get there and whether we should even want to. As she rightly says, all Bernie does is just vow to wave a wand.
On some things, ironically. Trump and Bernie sound the same message-Trump has made a point of not using a super PAC either but what he's also done is totally neutralized all the millions of Jeb, Rubio and the Koch Brothers.
Both criticize the Iraq war. But Trump is at least funny in the way he talks about it. Bernie is just so deadly serious. I can't see it. I cannot see him for four much less eight years.
I agree these are serious issues but you have to be able to have a little levity about things. With Bernie the world is always coming to an end. If you see his speeches over the years, that's always the case.
My impression is a president Bernie would not get what he wants from congress, even a Democratic congress. My impression is that Bernie would do his best to work around that, but he'd stay within the law.
ReplyDeleteTrump, on the other hand, may very well get what he wants regardless of what congress or the law says or does (Democratic or Republican). That's a frightening prospect to me. Imagine the CIA coming back and telling Trump that the war he wants to start (because he's calculated that doing so will maximally boost his ego) isn't justified: do you think he'd be more responsible than Bush was? I don't. He may be smarter than Bush, but his ego gratification needs make him just as dangerous.
I'll take the predictably ineffective Bernie over an unpredictably 'effective' Trump any day. We just need somebody to put their thumb in the dike (as Obama has done these last couple of years). That's it: veto bad Republican legislation and wait until 2020 when we can hopefully undo the redistricting lock the GOP has. That's all I expect of HRC as well. Any Democrat will do for that purpose. I back HRC because she seems most likely to win the general.
In the longer game, if the GOP is prevented from forming the massive gestapo force they so desperately want, then demographics will do them in. Texas will go blue. It's that fear that's so palpable with somebody like Coulter. It really will be Adios America! for the GOP when that happens. It can't happen soon enough in my book.
And that's why the GOP nominating Trump (or Cruz) is so beautiful: they're hastening their own demographic destruction, or at least ensuring that destruction is more total.
DeleteThey literally better drop to their knees and pray to their sky fairies that they win at this gamble, because if they lose they will pay a terrible price. It's like starting a war between families in the mafia: if you start the war, you'd better hope you utterly destroy the other family or they will come back at you with everything they've got.
sky fairies = white Jesus & pals.
DeleteTom when I wrote this I had you in mind! LOL.
ReplyDeleteBernie just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth as do his supporters.
I could see myself going Trump in that case just for fun.
Trump keeps me laughing at least. Bernie just goes on and on in this pious way.
On the other hand I just spoke to my father who surprised me-he's always been anti Republican-now saying that Trump's refugee ban makes sense.
I told him I don't agree with that at all.
With me in mind, eh? I think you might be trolling ME! Lol. I hope so. After Bush, I swore off voting moron. But I don't think voting clown would be an improvement. Bernie at least isn't either of those. I guess you could argue that Trump will do some surprising things for entertainments sake. I don't know: the idea of a clown with his finger on the button is troubling. I don't need that kind of entertainment. I'm happy with the dullest possible president. In fact, HRC won't provide nearly as much entertainment as Trump. Have you considered that?
DeleteRe: refugees: I heard a first hand account (on NPR) of that Syrian town where the people are starving yesterday. Super sad. I don't see how anyone could turn away those folks unconditionally... especially the kids. Empathy is perhaps not a good way to logically make decisions, but neither is fear.
Seriously though, a Trump presidency I bet would dramatically increase the chances of another BS lied-into-stupid war scenario. Not that Trump has that in mind now (I think just the opposite). But he's driven by ego, and if he senses in his gut that it could feed his ego, he wouldn't hesitate. Ignoring all the advice to the contrary would come natural for him. That's my read on the man.
DeleteBut I told you ego is not the worse thing in my view. W was a True Believer.
DeleteBernie is in his own way a True Believer. I don't think he'd get us into war-though it's tough to know what his foreign policy would look like.
But before I vote for any 'revolution' I need to know exactly what that is about. I'm a reformer not a revolutionary
I don't think W was a true believer. I think he was mentally checked out. A true believer in God maybe, but I think he put his trust in Cheney & pals because he was lazy, stupid and uncurious. It was irresponsible trust, but eventually he may have started to figure out that they were leading him down the wrong path. Certainly his dad figured that out. I don't think W was the driving force of bad policy in his administration except through criminal neglect.
DeleteThat's why I'll never vote moron again. But I'm broadening that to any grave misgivings about the character of the candidate. Sure Trump is entertaining, but that's not enough for me. You're right that ego isn't necessarily bad, but when that's all there is I think it is. I don't see any evidence of anything beyond ego gratification for Trump. As you've noted yourself, (and he would probably never admit it), he's got his finger in the air continuously to see which way the mob looks like it can be led. He'll change his position in a flash if it means he can continue to appear to be leading the mob to greater fits of rage. He doesn't care what the rage is directed against (or what good or evil it might accomplish), he just likes the thrill of leading an angry mob and driving it to even greater degrees of anger. I'd no sooner vote for him than I would for Ann Coulter. (Ann would be entertaining too!). I don't think there's any there there to Trump. I don't think he has any principles whatsoever: just a need to feed his ego. You might be hoping he'd turn out to pleasantly surprise you, and he might, but I'll bet you a president Trump will provide you with many many more unpleasant surprises than pleasant ones.
A giant ego when there's real interest and competence underlying it is another thing entirely. For example, Richard Feynman probably had a pretty big ego, but he was dedicated to some principles: he had a passion for figuring out how things work, and a tremendous amount of skill at it as well.
It's the difference between going to a ego-maniacal brain surgeon with zero bedside manner (who's nonetheless the best at what he does), and a con man who's PRETENDING to be an awesome brain surgeon with a huge ego but whom actually has no skill whatsoever (except as a con man). And he doesn't give a fuck. He'll operate on you anyway. Your health is of no concern to him. It's not about you, or the art and science of brain surgery. It's about him.
If nothing else, I think Hillary is right: Trump winning will be a big boost for ISIS and other terror groups.
What if Hillary loses and then implores her supporters to vote for Bernie? Would you listen to her?
In a year's time, I really hope this isn't a pro-Trump blog!... with your picture replaced by you in your pro-Trump paramilitary brown shirt uniform, writing off all the things you used to believe in with "Well, sacrifices have to be made." Lol.
DeleteI disagree that Jeb wasn't a TB. He and Reagan were the ultimate TB Presidents. He did believe in his ideology.
DeleteWe'll see about one year from now. The best way to ensure it isn't' a Trump blog is for Bernie not to be the Dem nominee. Then I'll feel like I got nothing else to lose. LOL
I mean W not that it makes any difference! LOL
DeleteBut here's the thing about W: you may not recall this, but during the 2000 election he promised to NOT get us involved in so many foreign adventures. That sounded good to me. Not that I had a huge problem with Clinton's foreign adventures, but I was happy to hear the GOP candidate move in that direction.
DeleteI think Cheney & pals already had Iraq on their mind going in, but I doubt W did. So when the saw the opportunity to turn 9/11 into an invasion of Iraq, they practically already had the whole game plan worked out. Bush41 and pals were skeptical from the get go. Bush43 probably was a bit torn, but decided to go where his gut told him, and his "trusted advisors" were all PNAC cool-aide guzzlers... but I'm not convinced he was until they started shoving it in his face. But who really knows except them? I'm clearly just giving you my impressions.
Yes he said that. Turns out campaign rhetoric is often just that. Being a TB doesn't mean you can't lie-often it's the opposite.
DeleteOverall for me W was the ultimate TB. It's about seeing things in black and white. For W everything was pure good and pure evil there was no middle ground
DeleteNo I want Hillary. But if she is screwed again I don't know how I'll feel.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can pull the lever for Bernie. Maybe not vote at all or just write in HRC.
But if it were Bernie vs. Trump then just for fun I might troll Bernie.
Again, I want Hillary. But if I lose her. fun might be my consolation prize.
I may be in the mood to actually act out of spite and anger rather than the long view for once, LOL
My Dad surprised me by actually seeming to think that Trump is right on Syrian refugees. I totally disagree about that.
I don't agree with what he says on immigrants or Muslims or anything like that.
But I like his style. I hate Bernie's style. He sounds like a student body President just promising A, B, and C without telling us how we get there.
I never wanted Trump to be actually President-Greg seemed a little closer than me before.
ReplyDeleteBut for me I don't want Bernie. If there is a choice between him and Bernie I'd be tempted. Who knows maybe I'd feel different down the line.
Guess we'll just have to see. LOL.
Best way is to keep the nomination away from Bernie. I am so sick of seeing his annoying, sanctimonious face at Real Clear Politics which literally force feed his face to you everytime you get on the page.
Remember when I had those hyper aggressive ads? Now RCP has them but they're Bernie ads.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
I would still vote Democrat down the ticket as usual but not for President. If it was Rubio vs. Bernie I'd vote neither. Trump v. Bernie? That's an interesting one.
ReplyDeleteBut Mike, I thought it was about the policy for you. You always say Rubio would have terrible policies. With a GOP congress, he'd get to see those terrible policies turn into reality. Bernie would at least likely veto terrible policies.
DeletePlus, who would you rather have picking the next few Supreme Court justices? Rubio or Bernie? If it's Rubio, then Roe vs Wade is going down. Don't you think you should put your entertainment concerns down a notch or two. What if you vote for Bernie, and then (because you find him so annoying) work on him losing the Democratic primary after his 1st term? Or maybe going back to focusing more on economics, football and Kardashians?
Plus you never answered my question about Clinton: what if she begs you to vote for Bernie (should she lose). Would that influence you at all?
It's about policies but if Bernie wins I'll be so angry and disgusted I might lose sight of the bigger picture!
DeleteI had some real fights on Tiwtter with some nutty Bernie fans.
I got into it with Elizaeth Bruening from the New Republic She was crazy screaming 'Kill, kill, kill the poor...' over and over again.
If these are the Bernie Maniacs, I want know part of it.
Plus I would never vote for Rubio. I just said possibly Trump.
ReplyDeleteI wrote about that earlier and this got Ms. Bruening and the rest of the Berne Maniacs crazy.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/thinking-unthinkable-what-if-it-is.html