i really think that there's a substantial possibility that there could be a huge upset in new jersey tonight. as mentioned: the best predictor is rhode island, because it's the only open primary for miles around.
her initial numbers were way better than 55% in the closed primaries around jersey.
see, you have to keep in mind how this works, right.
hillary always jumps out ahead on mail-ins. strangely. then bernie catches up on day-of voting.
if she can't cross 60 in early voting, it's going to be close.
see, i think there's reason to expect they'd fuck up the demographic modelling. it's the same situation as michigan, where they're plugging closed primary data into an open primary.
i'm not saying he's going to win. i'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if it's closer than expected.
--
yeah.
jersey was an open primary in a liberal state. you can say what you want about the dynamics walking into the situation, but an inability to split in a liberal state like jersey suggests that the party has made a choice one way or the other.
again: do not expect me to post positive things about hillary clinton. i'm mostly going to be just tuning out altogether.
but, i'd advise voting for jill stein.
i don't think hillary clinton should be president. i think she should be tried at the hague for war crimes, and sentenced appropriately.
--
but, i just want to...
i'm saying the party's made a choice, right. and i'm rejecting that choice. does that make me some kind of a sore loser, or something?
no. because i was never a supporter of the party.
see, and this is going to drive a lot of democrats nuts. there's going to be a substantial number of people that aren't going to fall in line, here. and, the media will throw all kinds of accusations of treason at them and scratch their head and not understand.
but, we're not democrats. we never wanted to be democrats. we've spent our entire lives protesting against democrats - rhetorically, and in some cases more than rhetorically. in a normal year, we would have never even considered the democrats as a serious option. support for sanders was just a pragmatic decision to support a candidate that was really to the right of where we actually are, but actually had a serious chance of winning.
now that this has evaporated, we're not going to all of a sudden become democrats and support everything we've spent all of our lives fighting against.
again: the american spectrum doesn't make any sense. there's no socialist option. not even a watered down one. nobody should be surprised that there's so many disenfranchised people when you only offer two options.
bernie's legacy can't be in helping hillary win. i mean, he can't seriously turn around and endorse her. it's not like 2008 - he represents an entirely different political philosophy. sanders endorsing clinton is not like clinton endorsing obama. it's more like clinton endorsing mccain.
in fact, i desperately hope he doesn't, because he'll instantly become irrelevant if he does. this isn't 'bernie can deliver', it's only 'bernie can destroy himself'.
bernie's legacy has to be the construction of an independent socialist movement in the united states. that has to be what bernie or bust really means.
and, in the process, we'll have to see who aligns with the establishment and who doesn't.
don't be tricked. trump == clinton == obama == bush == gore.
--
regarding my error in analysis, it's hard to say much without the cancelled exit polling. i mean, the polls were fairly accurate, in the end - i just didn't trust the polling. less because i thought they were doing something wrong, and more because i thought they'd been paid off.
i don't think my logic was wrong. but, i'll point out that it looks like turnout in new jersey in 2016 is going to be less than it was in 2008. we're not going to get exit polls, but if we did have them i think we'd learn that the flux of independents that bernie needs - and was able to get in rhode island - just didn't show up at the polls. it might not be precisely due to the ap's declaration last night. but, it may be a consequence of a widespread perception that the race was over, so why bother.
you can twist the logic around either way, right. but, old people are more likely to vote than young people. young people need the movement. old people don't. further, partisans are more likely to vote than independents. to suggest otherwise is just a bad argument. so, if clinton is drawing old partisans (who would vote through a nuclear attack) and sanders is drawing young independents (who might be more interested in a tv show), it's...
i mean, this is the story of the century, right. young people don't vote.
again, without exit polling, i'm just guessing. but, the turnout numbers implicitly suggest that sanders' strength bailed on him in jersey, which would have the effect of approximating a closed primary.
so, the racist models fluke out one last time.
--
i've been over this before. and i'm a canadian, remember. but, i just want to put down an idea of the demographic that you can expect is tuning out, or voting for the greens.
1) i paid almost no attention to the 2012 election at all. i interpreted mitt romney as being everything that barack obama always wished he was. i would have voted for jill stein had i voted at all.
2) i initially supported clinton in 2008, based largely on the strength of her more progressive health care plan and memories of her role in the good friday agreement [that is something she should actually be proud of]. but, it was always fairly tepid. i was never fooled by obama - i saw him as a front for the banks from the absolute very start. by november, i would have voted for ralph nader, if i bothered voting at all.
3) i actively supported john kerry in 2004, based largely on his less aggressive foreign policy.
4) my first choice for the leader of the greens was jello biafra, but i would have enthusiastically voted for ralph nader in 2000.
5) i was only 15 in 1996. i would trace my political awakening to propaganda surrounding the bombing of serbia. i would have probably voted for clinton.
--
so, i'm hardly a defining demographic. but, i do exist.
--
if you're curious about my actual voting record in canada..
1) i voted for the liberals under jean chretien in 2000.
2) i voted for jack layton's ndp in 2004. this was a vote against paul martin. in hindsight, i somewhat regret this.
3) i voted for jack layton again in 2006.
4) i voted for the liberals in 2008, which was the year that stephane dion was running for prime minister.
5) i voted for jack layton again in 2011. this was a vote against michael ignatieff. in hindisght, i do _not_ regret this.
6) i voted for the liberals again in 2015. this was a vote for justin trudeau.
i have voted exclusively for the liberals at the provincial level, which would be votes for either dalton mcguinty or kathleen wynne.
--
so, i'm a useful-to-study swing voter in canada.
but i'm off the spectrum in the united states.
--
nonono, listen - i didn't expect sanders to follow the expected path. i do not expect sanders to concede until the last superdelegate votes at the convention. it's over. but, that doesn't matter. and, i know this is strange for americans, but it's not so strange from the perspective of somebody raised with a three party spectrum.
the question is not whether he'll concede before the convention. he won't. he won't. the question is whether he'll concede after the convention. that is, whether or not he will run as independent.
so, let's be clear. you want to ask when he'll give up and support clinton. the question is if he'll give up and support cllinton.
this goes back to what i've been saying about how sanders is representative of a different tradition than hillary clinton. people raised around the american political spectrum are going to be confused about this. there's two parties, right. he can't win. why fight?
because he's not a democrat. that's the actual truth of it.
i still think that the answer is that he will eventually support clinton. but, i don't think he's completely decided that he will, yet. the entire set up is to facilitate a third-party run. i mean, listen to what he says.
"i'll support clinton if she supports single payer."
she's never going to support single-payer. so, he'll never support her.
like, that's not random rhetoric. it's calculated. he might not follow through with it in the end, but he's talking like that to keep the option open.
so, let's get the question right. it's reasonable to conclude that his apprehension about trump is too great - that's what he's broadcasting. but, don't take it for granted, because that's also what he's broadcasting.
fdr wouldn't have moved an inch without the threat of a popular movement. that's his mindset. he's not thinking about sucking up to clinton. he's thinking about scaring the hell out of her.
-
it's not like the coverage is naive either, right. if you read the headlines from the perspective of a third party on the left, rather than the perspective of a democrat or republican, what they actually state is something like this:
"sanders should drop out because he has leverage over clinton and may succeed in extracting concessions from her."
--
i'm kind of glad you posted this the way you did, so i can respond contextually in an appropriate way. you need to think of hillary like the liberals and sanders like the ndp, and then place them in a minority government - as we saw in the 60s, 70s and 00s. it worked out well in the 60s and 70s. especially the 60s. lots of people think it was our greatest parliament.....
the ndp would never just let the liberals pass whatever they want. they always demanded some influence, and when they didn't get it? they'd vote down the budget.
it's a hard game of difficult negotiations. but, it's how the parliament works.
the american punditry is going to have a hard time with this because the three-party system is foreign to most living americans. it shouldn't be, though. it happened in the 30s, when the socialist parties forced a set of concessions from fdr that is now called the new deal.
they could call a history prof and get them to explain it. or they could call a canadian. but, what we're seeing unfold in the united states right now has not happened for a century. this isn't politics as usual. this is very different. our media is uniquely positioned to understand and explain it and should take the opportunity to.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-california-primary-1.3621301