Surprises and non-surprises from the weekend voting

[drwex]

Not surprising - Jeb Bush is gone, after another dismal performance. Lackluster, desperate, and flailing are not attractive qualities in a date nor in a presidential candidate. Buh-bye, you won't be missed and please stop dragging your mom around.

Surprising - the scale of Trump's win. This should have been natural territory for Cruz and yet Trump appears to have won among self-identified evangelicals. Apparently being three times divorced and flip-flopping on abortion doesn't matter to them so much as having a racist, Pope-baiting bigot representing them. For giggles, here's the Washington Post guide to who Trump has most insulted.

Cruz tried playing up all of Trump's negatives and still came third, another surprise. Rubio came second and again I say that if Cruz had an ounce of sense or dedication to his party he'd drop out and throw his support to Rubio. But this is the guy who'd shut down the country if it gave him a bigger stage to stand on, so no that's not happening. Cruz - our 21st-century Nero - will be in this fight until the convention, which means at this point I don't see anything that can stop Trump, other than Trump himself. Since I've been waiting for essentially his entire campaign for that to happen I give it low odds right now. Trump's a loose cannon but he has a very good team around him that may be able to contain damage.

If there's a glimmer of light for Rubio in this voting it's that polls show him winning pretty strongly in late deciders. That is, Trump has his core of support and so does Cruz, but among those who are not in the core it seems Rubio is able to influence them and bring them in. I don't know what the polls look like for upcoming Super Tuesday states but if there is a large undecided block out there and Rubio can repeat this performance he may yet make headway against Trump. I think he wins that fight by being positive, continuing to tell his story and promote his message rather than going the Cruz route and attacking Trump directly.

Trump underperformed his polls in South Carolina by a few points, but probably close to margin of error. That's good for Rubio in that there might be some way to erode the edges of Trump's support but mostly it's bad news for Trump in that he doesn't seem able to build on his current leads. If he polls in the 35-40% area consistently nationwide, Hilary is going hand him his shiny ass in the general election. He has to show he can not just beat his rivals, but build a winning voting coalition. If Rubio has an upside then he's got to make it visible soon or Trump is going to have too big a lead in delegates.

Not surprising - over on the Democratic side, I think Sanders is in big trouble. He hasn't significantly pulled up his numbers among older voters and voters of color, both of which are going to be important factors in Super Tuesday contests. He's chipping away at Hilary's lead in broad polls but like Rubio he's facing a ticking delegate clock. Also like Rubio, he's making some inroads on core Clinton's support- particularly Latinos, it seems - but that isn't going to be enough to overcome her delegate advantage. Bernie math does not look good now and I predict it's going to look terrible after Super Tuesday.

Comments

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

The main thing that worries me in a Trump/Clinton contest -- besides how ridiculous it will make America look to have the likes of TRUMP as a serious candidate -- is sexism. Sexism is still alive and well, and there's an awful lot of symbolic importance attached to the presidency. Anybody with any sense will vote for Hilary ... but if my fellow Americans had much sense, big swaths of them wouldn't be voting for Trump.

Is there any reassurance you can give me about this? Do you think semi-conservative men -- men who would have voted for a respectable conservative candidate if there was one, but who justly fear Trump -- will be able to vote for a woman? And swing voters, the ones who liked W better than Gore, do you think they can or will vote for a woman?

[drwex]

I do not think Hilary's big negatives stem from being a woman. If you just do the math, a majority of voters in this country are women. If it was simply a matter of voting along gender lines then Hilary would have no problem. So you begin with "some women will not vote for Hilary" and "some men will."

(Aside, it pains me to use binary gender distinctions for this discussion but I take your point that we are likely looking at two cis-gendered candidates, identifying as male/female for this election and will proceed accordingly.)

I agree that sexism is definitely still a thing, and that some women hold sexist attitudes as well as some men. I further agree that some percentage of sexist-attitude people extend that sexism to the belief that a woman is not qualified for the job of president (I'm assuming you're familiar with Laurie Anderson's Beautiful Red Dress, which is very on-point here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4d1GccRMCk just in case you're not. It's in my top-five favorite L.A. songs.)

But doing all this math indicates to me that the percentage of people who will be influenced not to vote for Hilary on account of her gender is relatively small. On the other hand, she gets hit hard by voters of all genders who rate "trustworthiness" as a priority. And she's definitely on the wrong side of the divide for people who are looking for significant change from the current administration - you can definitely expect Trump to paint her as "Obama's third term".

Some of this is likely to motivate people to vote for Trump. That solid 35 or so percent he's getting is people who really want things to change and wouldn't be likely to vote for anyone perceived as an insider. But much of it may motivate people to sit the election out. This is what I mean about Trump maybe having a ceiling; Clinton may likewise have a ceiling if she can't figure out how to connect with the young and independent voters who have been backing Sanders. I expect this to be a MUCH bigger factor than sexism in this election, but I've been wrong before.

[sariel-t.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I always enjoy reading your writing. I am sad to say I think you're right about Sanders.

[drwex]

Thanks, glad someone likes it :)

[tamidon.livejournal.com]

At this point, Sander's benefit to the election is keeping Clinton from turning right too hard. He's shown there is a place for actual progressive politics. I hope he hangs in there long enough to keep up the effect.

[drwex]

Interesting. I'm not sure she can move right without risking losing too much of her base, at this stage. I still expect her to veer sharply right in the general election. You and I are old enough to remember Bush I complaining that Bill Clinton was running to the right of _him_ and I didn't compare Ms Clinton to Margaret Thatcher on a lark - I think it's a serious comparison.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

In a battle between a warmongering center-rightist and an out-and-out insane fascist megalomaniac, we must give critical but unconditional support to the warmongering center-rightist.

And drink heavily. So heavily.

[drwex]

Yeah I believe no matter the outcome of this election I'm going to be drinking heavily

What do you think of this opinion piece?

[sweetmmeblue.livejournal.com]

https://medium.com/@shava23/why-i-m-not-so-secretly-not-rooting-for-bernie-by-shava-nerad-9c629db09ce5#.yspuknm5r

Re: What do you think of this opinion piece?

[drwex]

Enh. Shava's doomsaying about Sanders is pure speculation. If she's concerned about his lack of experience, well, that's what transition teams are for. If she thinks Sanders can't hire competent people then I don't see any evidence to support that. I don't think Sanders is in it just to shape the dialog - that is the Warren strategy and she's been very effective at it.

[c1.livejournal.com]

The more this election season rolls along, the more I'm noticing that this isn't your father's election season. Or grandfather's. It may not even be replicated ever. You've got someone on both sides of the aisle playing to disenchanted voters, and they're both taking in enough votes to be viable candidates (though Bernie is looking like his ship is slowly sinking.) But because of that, their competitors can't deny the message: voters are pissed at the establishment because the establishment is not just failing them, it's disregarding them. The economy tanked under Bush. It remained utterly anemic under Obama.

All the talking heads are saying how the economy is moving up, but the spoils are going most decidedly to the oligarchs, not to those on whose backs the oligarchs are making their money. And when we look to the future, what does the lower and low-middle class see? Increased automation and offshoring of jobs, and of the jobs that stick around, you might get a part time temp position with no benefits. College used to be the ticket to a better life, but these days, it's a ticket to crushing debt that won't ever be paid off.

Bernie is striking a chord because he's making it clear that the system is failing the young, unestablished, and disenfranchised. Trump is striking a chord because he's at least paying lip service to the fact that blue collar workers are seeing their jobs market being eviscerated. I think this election is going to be decided in large part by people who can't afford bank accounts, when in the past, it was the middle class.

Bernie will likely fall to Hilary within the next few weeks -- he's just not connecting with enough primary voters to remain viable for long. (And I think democrats are scared of Trump and want to see a strong Hilary who can defeat his inevitable candidacy.) But don't count Trump out if this goes to the general election: there are a lot of extremely pissed off voters out there.

[drwex]

I don't think this election season is so sui generis as all that. Trump has more than a passing resemblance to H Ross Perot and while I've been arguing for a long time (a) that the Republicans brought this on themselves by ingesting what ought rightfully to have been a separate third party and (b) Trump is a symptom not the disease, it's still the case that we've seen this sort of thing before. It just happens rarely enough that it's remarkable.

[c1.livejournal.com]

Passing resemblance? You mean Perot was a (presumptive) establishment party nominee in 1992, while he was running against Bush Sr. and Clinton? Or do you mean Trump is really a third party candidate in 2016, and Rubio has no-one to worry about other than Cruz? I'll also mention that the day Trump hauls out some pie charts and starts attacking with logic is the day hell freezes over. Trump is not Perot. He may be the tail that's wagging an increasingly confused dog, but he's no Perot.

[howlin-wolf-66.livejournal.com]

I can definitely see Cruz in a toga, and that's not a compliment!