General Primary Discussion Thread

The debate thread is done with, and a lot of the time the Trump thread ends up diving into the wider primary anyway, so why don't we just have a thread on the primaries as a whole?

To start out with, here's the current betting odds of the various candidates winning their primary nods

And an article on whether or not the Republican establishment is losing control of the party to more outsider candidates like Trump, and even Carson and Cruz

hjenten-heynawl: Right. Look back at 2011. You would have thought Romney was in trouble because every so often a new alternative would pop up — someone against the establishment. But the polling clearly showed that Romney was going to pick up his fair share of the support once the alternatives started falling away.

natesilver: Still, one thing that’s unambiguously different this year is that you have so many candidates running.

micah: Here’s an argument: Trump is such an unusual candidate — he’s crazier than a Gingrich or a Cain — that his leading the polls right now is indicative of something unusual brewing among Republican voters. And the GOP establishment might have a tougher time reining that energy in this election than in past cycles. And the post-debate Carson bump, even if it’s temporary, backs that up

There's a whole lot more in there, if you're curious.

And the current state of the polls? According to the real clear politics average (which is simply averaging out every major polling firm- who are getting fairly different results. FiveThirtyEight does more weighing for accuracy, but they haven't started yet this year), the contenders with over 5 percent are:

Trump 22.0
Bush 10.7
Carson 9.7
Walker 7.7
Rubio 7.3
Cruz 7.3
Fiorina 6.3

(Paul, Kasich, and Huckabee are all not far behind at 4.3, Christie near them at 3.3, but those four are clearly in a separate pack at the moment, at least in my view)

But with the additional note that the last Fox poll put it at Trump-Carson-Cruz, with Bush all the way back in forth. Trend seems to be Bush sliding, the other outsider candidates rising. And Fiorina gaining from her performance in the B-list debate.

Oh, and I think I heard something about the Democrats holding a primary too. 54 Clinton, 22 Sanders. And the third place person isn't even running (Biden) and has more than all the lower ones combined, so really, this is a two-horse race. Sanders has a fanatical following among his group, but it remains quite questionable if he'll be able to break out, while Hillary has a much wider support base that makes her position very stable.

Probably later posts of mine here will include a lot more charts and graphs, but hopefully that's enough to kick us off ^^

A thread already exists for this.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=609292&pagenumber=26#post15322294

Kinda, but a lot of that was 'who will win the final thing?' rather than 'how is each primary going?'. Also, no-one's posted on it in most of a month.

I dont know why we need two threads about the exact same thing tbh, you could just post this there, and talk about it.

Well, the primaries are a subset of the overall race, aren't they? So we can use this thread for primary discussion, and the other for general presidential election discussion.

Dude TI whats your deal? Lol. Q99 made an overall thread for the general primaries..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the primaries are a subset of the overall race, aren't they? So we can use this thread for primary discussion, and the other for general presidential election discussion.

'Xactly.

And for one primary thing:

Bobby Jindal says Scott Walker's healthcare plan is too liberal, and calls it Obamacare lite.

Which I think is pretty rich, coming from someone who has no healthcare plan.

Mike Huckabee invokes MLK to criticize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/mike-huckabee-black-lives-matter-martin-luther-king-121524.html

My take: I don't think he's wrong that MLK wouldn't be comfortable with the movement, but that isn't an indictment of the movement, just a reflection on how MLK's worldview was a product of his era, and I don't think he'd understand that #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't, as its critics (like Huckabee) see it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mike Huckabee invokes MLK to criticize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/mike-huckabee-black-lives-matter-martin-luther-king-121524.html

My take: I don't think he's wrong that MLK wouldn't be comfortable with the movement, but that isn't an indictment of the movement, just a reflection on how MLK's worldview was a product of his era, and I don't think he'd understand that #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't, as its critics (like Huckabee) see it.

One nice quote I heard, " 'Save the Rainforests' doesn't mean '**** all other forests.' "

And I really don't see MLK having much problem with BLM... he knew full well the first step to getting heard was drawing attention, and the 60s civil rights movement drew far more negative attention than BLM ever did.

Old white people uninvolved with civil rights trying to invoke MLK to speak against a movement aiming for black equality, is something I think mainly shows how out of touch they are with who they're talking about. Granted, I can't speak for Martin Luthor King Jr. either, but he was not a 'don't rock the boat' type, to say the least. Like, that's the opposite of him. There were 'don't rock the boat' civil rights leaders, and they're largely forgotten due to that not remotely working and people like King and his 'let's hold marches where ever it takes to gain the attention of our problems and make speeches calling people out,' were far more successful.

I don't think Huckabee's comment is a very savvy move, but on the flip side, he's not trying to get the black vote either, and it's not a major thing on the Republican side of the primary, so it's not like it's gonna hurt him. The Democrats do definitely have to pay much closer attention to the subject since they're the ones who will be arguing that they can represent these communities.

While MLK certainly wasn't a "don't rock the boat" guy, I don't think he would approve of the current movement either.

Originally posted by psmith81992
While MLK certainly wasn't a "don't rock the boat" guy, I don't think he would approve of the current movement either.

He understood that there was only so much blacks could hope to attain in the society they lived in, and compared to other major black leaders (ahem, Malcolm X) he was rather cautious and modest in his goals and methods. We don't know how he'd react though if he saw that decades after the Civil Rights Act there's so much de facto discrimination.

I think it's useful to draw a parallel with feminism here. Feminism has multiple waves, the first, which ran from the 19th century till the middle of the 20th sought to eliminate de jure inequality of the sexes (women's suffrage, equal property rights, etc), whereas the second and third waves have focused on fighting de facto inequality. That's what #BlackLivesMatter is for black people.

Interesting articles. I like betting odds. They're a nice way to cut through bias. Works that way in sports too. Emotional influences affect the narrative too often in sports commentary, and sports predictions. The Vegas line is usually a better indicator of who's more likely to win. Ironically, though I don't think he'll get the nomination, if I were a gambler, I'd absolutely take Trump at 40/1. It's just too good a return for someone currently leading the polls, even if he's ultimately a glass cannon.

There are some interesting remarks here - and I've seen them elsewhere - about Republicans and their grasp on the party as a whole. While I don't necessarily think there's an "entrenched" Republican party as opposed to party "outsiders", I do think the party has a bit of an identity crisis. And has had one at least since Bush was in office and likely before that. There was a sense at the time that they needed to rally around Bush or risk vacating the White House for another 8 years after Clinton. And they were probably right. But there was a bit of desperation, since no one else had the name or stature to invoke such a push.

Economics aside, I think the country is quite obviously trending socially progressive, and Republicans will need to find some way of expanding their base if they don't want to be on the outside looking in (to the White House) for the vast majority of the next 20 years or so. There are viable ways for a Republican to win many key swing states, but if the party lines stay the same, as do their stance on social issues, I'm not sure they'll be able to say that in, say, 10 years.

Anyway. Obvious Dem. money is on Hilary. And while I'd take the field over any single Republican candidate right now, Bush is probably the safest, since I can see the others burning bright then dying out.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think "don't rock the boat" describes him well, to a point.

I think the standard depiction of him gets overly sanitized and painted as less confrontational because some people find that uncomfortable. White people like to paint him as this patient, non-confrontational figure... but that's not really accurate.

A Riot is the language of the unheard is one of his quotes, after all. And it's not like the BLM crew are even rioting.

He understood that there was only so much blacks could hope to attain in the society they lived in, and compared to other major black leaders (ahem, Malcolm X) he was rather cautious and modest in his goals and methods. We don't know how he'd react though if he saw that decades after the Civil Rights Act there's so much de facto discrimination.

Note that while he was non violent, his methods were very confrontational.

Indeed, He famously said that one of the greatest stumbling blocks to freedom was the moderate who valued order and not rocking the boat over taking direct action

If one march was met with no reaction and didn't make the news, he'd go somewhere else where there would be. Non-violence, but driven to make a splash and be heard.

I think it's useful to draw a parallel with feminism here. Feminism has multiple waves, the first, which ran from the 19th century till the middle of the 20th sought to eliminate de jure inequality of the sexes (women's suffrage, equal property rights, etc), whereas the second and third waves have focused on fighting de facto inequality. That's what #BlackLivesMatter is for black people.

I don't think it's quite the same. "The system kill us and treat us as less worth protecting," is something that'd resonate with him too. I mean, it was around in his time. This isn't a new wave, it's just, 'yea, the stuff that was happening before is still happening, just less overtly.'

Really, this is something that could take up it's own thread...

Originally posted by Digi
Interesting articles. I like betting odds. They're a nice way to cut through bias. Works that way in sports too. Emotional influences affect the narrative too often in sports commentary, and sports predictions. The Vegas line is usually a better indicator of who's more likely to win. Ironically, though I don't think he'll get the nomination, if I were a gambler, I'd absolutely take Trump at 40/1. It's just too good a return for someone currently leading the polls, even if he's ultimately a glass cannon.

Right, odds makers don't make money by leading with their guts.

There are some interesting remarks here - and I've seen them elsewhere - about Republicans and their grasp on the party as a whole. While I don't necessarily think there's an "entrenched" Republican party as opposed to party "outsiders", I do think the party has a bit of an identity crisis.

Establishment is the term. And basically it just means, someone connected to and supported by the traditional political power base. Pretty much every winning Republican candidate for a long time is Establishment.

And has had one at least since Bush was in office and likely before that. There was a sense at the time that they needed to rally around Bush or risk vacating the White House for another 8 years after Clinton. And they were probably right. But there was a bit of desperation, since no one else had the name or stature to invoke such a push.

I think there was some unease brewing starting around the time of Bush 1, but it was one that gradually grew and when they were winning, seemed to subside. One of the big problems the Republican party had is every time it doesn't win, it grows increasingly uneasy with the idea of the 'loyal opposition.'

In the 70s and 80s, when a party lost, they'd acknowledge the other side won, but view themselves as a check, and use their potential-stopping power to make deals. Starting with Bill Clinton, that became less of a thing, the fillibusters started to rise, and the push tended to be more of the 'sink the other side' variety (remember the impeachment?). Even so, things were controllable at that point and didn't get really out of hand til Obama, because with his arrival, they decided to open the floodgates and let the 'angry grassroots' camp, the Tea Party, in en mass because they thought it'd give them the power to win-win and push the Democrats out. Since that didn't happen, now they've got this lump of anger they've let it, that's also angry at them for not winning, and they need to deal with it more than the democrats do, it can't just be set on their foes.

Economics aside, I think the country is quite obviously trending socially progressive, and Republicans will need to find some way of expanding their base if they don't want to be on the outside looking in (to the White House) for the vast majority of the next 20 years or so. There are viable ways for a Republican to win many key swing states, but if the party lines stay the same, as do their stance on social issues, I'm not sure they'll be able to say that in, say, 10 years.

Ironically, the best way to gain power would be to give on one issue, be it race or whatever, but they seem to have put themselves in a place where they can't bring themselves to do that.

Anyway. Obvious Dem. money is on Hilary. And while I'd take the field over any single Republican candidate right now, Bush is probably the safest, since I can see the others burning bright then dying out.

Yea, Bush is the safe bet, but I do wonder if his fairly low key play-it-safe approach will work in this multi-way rumble which is so much about getting attention. He hasn't really gone in and shown himself much of a scrapper, not like even Walker and Rubio have.

One interesting thing with primaries is overperforming or underperforming often matters more than pure numbers. If Bush spends a lot of time in 3rd or 4th, it makes him look the weaker candidate, even if his numbers aren't too bad.

Economics aside, I think the country is quite obviously trending socially progressive, and Republicans will need to find some way of expanding their base if they don't want to be on the outside looking in (to the White House) for the vast majority of the next 20 years or so. There are viable ways for a Republican to win many key swing states, but if the party lines stay the same, as do their stance on social issues, I'm not sure they'll be able to say that in, say, 10 years.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I have to disagree with you there. While it's true that the country is slowly trending socially progressive, economically it is still largely fiscally conservative and economically is where the candidate will win. [/B]

Current social zeitgeist says otherwise, imo. But disagreements like this are part of the reason we have elections, and why different politicians elect to try different strategies. Because I agree that having a job and money in your wallet are bigger than any one single social issue. But I don't see the kind of fervor for any one economic approach that I see for all kinds of social issues.

Originally posted by Q99

...snipped for space [/B]

I like your point about the Tea Party. One could argue that it's done a lot to hurt the party, because several candidates have to court Tea Party-ers bc they're where they are bc of that base. But in doing so they lose out on a significant portion of moderates. It's not wholly responsible for the party's identity crisis, as I termed it. But it certainly hasn't helped.

Originally posted by Digi

I like your point about the Tea Party. One could argue that it's done a lot to hurt the party, because several candidates have to court Tea Party-ers bc they're where they are bc of that base. But in doing so they lose out on a significant portion of moderates. It's not wholly responsible for the party's identity crisis, as I termed it. But it certainly hasn't helped.

Yes, I don't think it started things, but I think it was the breaking point.

Before the tea party, the Republican party had flexibility in how it could. Taking in the tea party really set it on a path, a decision that it's way-to-expand was in this direction.

And yay, graph time!FiveThirtyEight contrasts Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama

Starting with, interesting, comparing Hillary Clinton with... Hillary Clinton:

Hillary is stronger this time than she was at the same place last time (when people were calling 'coronation' for awhile there too), suggesting that Barack may not have been able to overcome this Hillary.

"Clinton is doing better in every single state. On average, she’s doing 21 percentage points better. Nationally, she’s 18 percentage points ahead of her old mark. (This shrinks to 12 percentage points if you just look at August data.)

The only state where Clinton is not doing at least 10 percentage points better is New Hampshire, which is right next door to Sanders’s home state."

That's pretty significant.

Also, endorsements from Senators and Governors... well, I'll skip that, since Hillary has more than Hillary and Obama combined, and Bernie has zero.

Talking establishment vs not, that's the difference. Having support of governors and senators of either party matters, especially governors. A non-establishment candidate has a much harder time getting that backing.

In short, we shouldn't be looking at a close race like we had between Barack and Hillary.

Its fun watching CNN suckle up to Trump and shun and harass Hilary.

She's done, soon as FBI bring up charges, she will be dropping out.

Its so fun watching Q99 suck up to Hilary here all day. Everyone including all major new channels including MSNBC, CNN and FOX are aligned against Hilary for her continuous scandals with the emails which she has purged herself and lied to the FBI and the public as well as destroy evidence.

"Oh I dunno, I kept one secured server in my bathroom and another in a barn."😂

It's kinda funny how we've been hearing the "But this scandal will totally sink Hillary, for real this time," for years and it's still yet to actually happened.

I'll believe it when I see it, not when people who thought Benghazi was a career sinker say it is. Current word on the e-mails is "Yes, there were classified e-mails on there... because people sent her unlabeled classified ones, that she didn't have a reason to believe were classified." Which, woo-hoo? Doesn't sound a campaign sinker to me.

Also note: I find noting who is and isn't ahead, who's got stronger fundamentals or upcoming hurdles, and by hurdles I mean stuff like 'needs to get this demographic or that one,' (Bernie) or 'will they be able to maintain their position when their foes stop dividing the opposition vote such much?' (Trump- and much to my surprise, things are moving in his favor there), rather than trying to convince people here that various events are game enders/winners.

Or to put it another way, I'm not trying to convince you that X or Y will win the presidency, I'm going to talk about what the campaigns currently look like.

Heck, since we're talking primaries, I'm only talking Hillary vs Sanders anyway. No need to get so defensive yet, hold it for the main race when she'll actually be taking on Republicans.

Also:

Its fun watching CNN suckle up to Trump and shun and harass Hilary.

It will be fun remembering this when people complain about liberal media bias later on.

It is true at this point, the media is not going out of it's way to do Hillary any favors. She's a clear front runner, and drama-wise, that's no good, is it? It's much more exciting if they can make it look like Sanders is on her heels.