The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Gaidin]

Macomb is the one I'm watching. The two are literally neck and neck and I'm curious as to who's going to get out ahead.

[Gaidin]

Ooooo....watch Flint as well. Bernie just got ahead enough to flip it on CNN's map. That one's going back and forth.

[Omega18]

Ooooo....watch Flint as well. Bernie just got ahead enough to flip it on CNN's map. That one's going back and forth.

That's almost certainly deceptive in that the other parts of the county are way more heavily white than Flint. Given even the exit polling, I expect those results to shift once the results from Flint really come up.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders inching slowly ahead again with over 70% of the votes counted.

3.1% up last I saw, I think.

[Gaidin]

Ooooo....watch Flint as well. Bernie just got ahead enough to flip it on CNN's map. That one's going back and forth.

That's almost certainly deceptive in that the other parts of the county are way more heavily white than Flint. Given even the exit polling, I expect those results to shift once the results from Flint really come up.

That's debatable. The more urban environment is giving it a 65-30 split as opposed to the more rural 80-15 split we've been used to seeing in the South. It might not be as predictable as you think. Or if it's predictable, it might not be as helpful to Hillary.

[The Romulan Republic]

So the point being that while she's still winning the majority of the black vote, it may not be by as much as in the South?

Which raises the question of how much its a race thing and and how much its a regional thing. Elements of both, I suppose.

Edit: Still, that helps Sanders a bit, now that most of the South has already voted and we're looking at more states in other parts of the country coming up.

[The Vortex Empire]

Currently Sanders 50.9%, Clinton 47.2%, with 70% reporting. Come on, Sanders.

[Gaidin]

So the point being that while she's still winning the majority of the black vote, it may not be by as much as in the South?

Which raises the question of how much its a race thing and and how much its a regional thing. Elements of both, I suppose.

All politics are local. But at the same time I have a hard time seeing the idea that they'll drop issues common to culture. Hillary got to cut a huge swath through the South. I'd like to think Bernie could've turned those into 15 point losses if he really wanted to, but alas. But nonetheless, whatever local issues are local, I think they'll all have something in common and she'll still pull down a numbered majority even if it's not as big.

[Gaidin]

I wonder if they've gotten the votes from Detroit and are waiting for votes around in the county. Apparently all results are being sent marked as from the county so everybody's just confused and not willing to call until they know for sure what the hell is going on in Detroit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Over 90% in. Sanders still over two points ahead. Razor close, but I think he's going to win it.

Also, people on CNN have been talking about Sanders tying with Clinton in the young African American vote and cutting into her minority vote lead.

[Gaidin]

She's up by 33k in Wayne now with 75% in.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just narrowed to under 2% Sanders lead.

Did Wayne County just report some more votes?

[Gaidin]

If I'm counting right, it boosted to 44k.

[Gaidin]

Bernie Sanders finally projected to win. Gawd Michigan. Send precincts with your reports. I'm going to bed. That was crazy.

[The Romulan Republic]

CNN called it, though their numbers have seemed a bit inconsistent tonight (see notable change in the candidates' numbers with no major change in the percentage of votes counted, but maybe I'm missing something).

They had it at a two point lead with 96% counted.

[Knife]

Was not Clinton supposed to win by 20 points from the polls this last week? That is quite a goof up.

[Gaidin]

CNN called it, though their numbers have seemed a bit inconsistent tonight (see notable change in the candidates' numbers with no major change in the percentage of votes counted, but maybe I'm missing something).

They had it at a two point lead with 96% counted.

Michigan was sending vote counts with only labels of counties and no labels of precincts so no channel or campaign was able to run any real numbers. Just count. They didn't know, if say, any of Wayne County votes were inside or outside Detroit. So they didn't know or couldn't predict if anything coming in the future would literally boost Clinton by 10k. And some of them did. Same for Bernie in certain places in other counties.

Why the call at 95% reporting? Because, I'll bet, she literally ran out of votes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Was not Clinton supposed to win by 20 points from the polls this last week? That is quite a goof up.

Their was at least one poll, referenced in this thread, which gave her a 25% lead as I recall.

I've seen some people online calling it the biggest upset in American history or somesuch, which personally I think is a tad excessive, but damn, the pollsters really fucked up on this one.

[Gaidin]

Their was at least one poll, referenced in this thread, which gave her a 25% lead as I recall.

I've seen some people online calling it the biggest upset in American history or somesuch, which personally I think is a tad excessive, but damn, the pollsters really fucked up on this one.

The reporting I was hearing was that Michigan has been so chaotic, much less had a real primary since 1992, they were surprised polling was done(some states have been outright ignored, mind you, Mississippi had all of two polls since 2016). I think even one year they changed themselves around and did caucuses. Forget the idea of 2008 where they broke the rules and Clinton was the only one on the ballot. Nobody knows how to deal with them. But...when you're worth 150ish delegates or so. And grain of salt where you will.

The poll trend, for what that was obviously worth, had Clinton fairing at about 60-40, though I don't remember the exact numbers.

I hesitate to guess at whether it's how pollable Michigan is, or whether Bernie can change a state THAT DRASTICALLY in a week(others he couln't), or a combination of the two.

[Raw Shark]

Proposition: Maybe Sanders supporters are sick of business as usual enough to be more likely to hang up on pollsters. I certainly am.

[FaxModem1]

CNN calls it for Sanders in Michigan:

I guess that means he's still in the race.

[The Romulan Republic]

Colbert on Carson's departure (might be paraphrasing here):

"Sadly, voters just don't trust someone who was bad at murder."

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie's campaign is suing the Secretary of State of Ohio for allegedly unconstitutionally changing the law to suppress the youth vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/ ... ge/voters/

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders' campaign on Tuesday sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, accusing the Republican of quietly changing a law in an effort to block 17-year-olds from voting in the state's presidential primary next week.

Husted, however, insisted that there had been no change in the law.

"The secretary of state has decided to disenfranchise people who are 17 but will be 18 by the day of the general election," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told reporters in Detroit Tuesday afternoon. "Those people have been allowed to vote under the law of Ohio, but the secretary of state of the state of Ohio has decided to disenfranchise those people to forbid them from voting in the primary that is coming up on March 15."

In a statement, Sanders said minorities would be most affected by what he said was Husted's "unconstitutional attempt to block young voters from casting ballots."

"It is an outrage that the secretary of state in Ohio is going out of his way to keep young people -- significantly African-American young people, Latino young people -- from participating," Sanders said.

The lawsuit claims Husted changed the rules in an election manual published in December and says the Sanders campaign is seeking an injunction that would allow 17-year-olds to cast ballots next week. The Columbus Dispatch reported Saturday that a state Democratic lawmaker raised the issue last week.

The suit cites a 2009 pamphlet that the Sanders campaign says was put out by then-Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat. The pamphlet says 17-year-olds were barred from voting on referendums and elections of state party members but makes no mention of them being barred from voting in the presidential primaries.

Weaver told reporters that the campaign expects the matter to be resolved before Ohio holds its primary next Tuesday.

But Husted said Tuesday that there has been no change -- 17-year-olds who turn 18 by Election Day in November have always been allowed to vote in direct nominations (such as Ohio's Senate primary) but barred from voting for delegates in the presidential primary.

"I welcome this lawsuit and I am very happy to be sued on this issue because the law is crystal clear," Husted said in a statement. "We are following the same rules Ohio has operated under in past primaries, under both Democrat and Republican administrations. There is nothing new here. If you are going to be 18 by the November election, you can vote, just not on every issue."

"That means 17-year-olds can vote in the primary, but only on the nomination of candidates to the general election ballot," Husted added. "They are not permitted to elect candidates, which is what voters are doing in a primary when they elect delegates to represent them at their political party's national convention, or vote on issues like school, police and fire levies."

However, the Sanders lawsuit contests that interpretation of the primary process, stating that votes are cast directly for presidential candidates and not the delegates -- meaning 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote under the law.

A follow up message left with Husted's office about the 2009 pamphlet was not immediately returned Tuesday evening.

Ohio's primary next week is considered to be one of the most crucial contests for both the Democratic and Republican candidates. And young voters have been a critical voting bloc for Sanders throughout the Democratic contest. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday found Hillary Clinton besting Sanders among those aged 50 and older, 65% to 32%, while Sanders leads 60% to 38% among those younger than 50.

[The Romulan Republic]

Looks like at least one minority demographic has no problem with voting for Bernie Sanders:

http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-w ... it-2333030

Political commentators and media outlets were quick to pounce on a “fascinating” statistic from Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Michigan primary on Tuesday night: Democrats in Dearborn, a city whose population is 40 percent Arab, voted overwhelmingly for Sanders over rival Hillary Clinton (59 percent to 39 percent). The subtext of pointing out this particular statistic is clear. How, the media wondered, could a predominantly Muslim group support a Jewish candidate?

As the results rolled in, television pundits like Lawrence O’Donnell and Chuck Todd marveled on MSNBC that Sanders was doing so well in Dearborn “despite” the large Arab-American population there. WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer tweeted that Sanders’ dominance in Dearborn was “the stat of the night,” later adding “It’s official: Arab city feels the Jewish Bern.” Meanwhile, The Week dubbed it “just one more strange data point in an election overflowing with them.”


The assumption implicit in such commentary, of course, is that Muslims are biased against Jews — and that when they do cast a vote for Jewish candidates, it’s because they’ve somehow managed to overcome their own inherent anti-Semitism. But this fascination with Dearborn’s support of Sanders actually demonstrates the media industry’s own all-too-prevalent prejudice — and reveals how much reporting on American Muslims is still rooted in an unsophisticated naiveté about what motivates them.

“It’s no surprise that the mainstream media ... is guilty of promoting two-dimensional caricatures of Muslims and Arabs,” said Hend Amry, a Libyan-American writer who frequently comments on social issues related to Muslims. “I tweeted that the media is shocked that Dearborn residents didn't announce an ‘intifada’ against Jewish Bernie Sanders to point out this very stereotype.”

Khaled Beydoun, a law professor who specializes in Arab populations, wrote that “the ‘Muslims voting for a Jew’ tagline is trite,” adding that Muslims in Michigan were supporting Sanders because of his progressive politics and outreach.


Indeed, the Sanders campaign has focused on courting the Arab population in Dearborn, especially in the last week. He met with Arab-American leaders in the city, released an Arab-language radio ad in the Dearborn market, and reiterated at a Dearborn campaign rally that “we’re going to end bigotry in this country once and for all.” It’s hardly a new theme in Sanders’ campaign — he has spoken out against anti-Muslim rhetoric for months, likening such prejudice to the conditions his Jewish parents faced preceding the Holocaust.

“Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, have long been targets of discriminatory anti-terrorism policies, and Sanders’ campaign has responded to these concerns better than anyone else. He even promoted his campaign platform of equality and dignity in Arabic,” said Amry. “We are also seeing, perhaps, a response to the Sanders’ campaign’s attack of corporate America. Michigan’s blue-collar Arab Americans are suffering economic challenges too, not just white blue-collar Americans.”

Those economic challenges were some of the reasons Muslim voters in Michigan said they were pulling the lever for Sanders. Shiab Mussad, a 22-year-old recent college graduate from Dearborn, told the Detroit Free Press that he was impressed with Sanders’ passion about making college more affordable. He added that Sanders’ faith was not under consideration when he was deciding his vote.

“He has a good foreign policy record,” said Mussad. “I support him because of his policies, not because of ... his personal religion.”

So there we have it- A Jewish candidate often smeared for his supposed lack of non-white male support won the Muslim vote by a landslide. That's simply beautiful.

This election has been consistent in its complete unpredictability. A needed reminder that politics is not as simple as people often make it out to be.

[Soontir C'boath]

I wonder if part of it may be that as former Secretary of State under Obama, they may think she will continue the status quo of drone strikes. Not to say Sanders won't either, but my impression has been he would be more restrained on that regard.