The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[KimDracula]

I really think that much of this country is on the ropes, hence the trump phenomenon


It's not that simple, because of gerrymandered congressional districts in republican-controlled states.

And yet it's the only way to overcome that gerrymandering so it kind of is that simple.

 

[cybrguy]

Did anyone watch the new Samantha Bee show tonight on TNT? This show should be required viewing for everyone in this thread.

I hadn't, I have been waiting for it but not paying attention. I immediately went and watched it.
"A banquet of all you can eat crazy". Very good start...

 

[Farid]

separating a bowl of brown shit from dark brown shit is not simple

I do it when I char my ABV all the time though! Especially with convection vapes.

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[KimDracula]

Do you think that makes sense?

 

[Gunky]

Gail Collins executes a gentle rope-a-dope on Arthur Brooks: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/opinion/campaign-stops/whats-god-got-to-do-with-it.html

Now Marco Rubio is an all-purpose twit, but this was one of his worst moments.

 

[Adobewan]

...If people truly want to know what is happening they need to listen to Elizabeth Warren first and foremost. ...

She's my current political hero!

When people say Bernie can't win, I can't help but remember an America that was facing it's first potential black president. MANY people said, including Hillary supporters, that he couldn't be elected and Obama had a somewhat quiet past, while Bernie has been presenting his anti-establishment philosophy for many years.

A quick comment on America being adverse to voting in a "Socialist". Most of the anti-socialist rhetoric played out last century. Today's average American can't even tell you what Socialism is, much less align it with Communism and Marxism. Many America's DO want a radical change in our leadership(one of the reasons Obama's message of change, from a radically different candidate, rung so favorably in 2008), and of all the candidates, Bernie and Trump represent change(good or bad) the strongest. Remember it's not only political scientists going to the voting booth, but laymen who get their information in sound bites, AND , as we saw in 2008, young college students. As has been said, when they are fired up about a candidate, the will come out in presidential election years(they likely secured Obama's first win).
Now, which candidate currently has the ear of the college aged voter?

I understand some are die-hard Hillary fans(I understand the electability debate), but I don't personally know anyone who likes or supports her and that's out here on the "left" coast. To say the money she took from Wall Street will not effect her positions seems naive at best and for some, voting for W's war is a deal breaker.

I just believe that if it is so apparent that she is the right candidate, that her support would be overwhelming, but the fact is, it is not. She is establishment.

 

[grokit]

And yet it's the only way to overcome that gerrymandering so it kind of is that simple.

Can't do anything nationally to overcome a red-state legislature, or even if you're its democrat governor. In my state they had that scenario, and passed limits to get a two-term actual statesman out of office!

Bernie has been presenting his anti-establishment philosophy for many years.

I was for bernie before I even knew his name. There are legions of us that have been waiting for a chance like this to come along; many that have not participated in the past will make it to the polls this year.

 

[KimDracula]

Can't do anything nationally about a national political party taking over all levels of government that aren't POTUS? Actually, it seems like that should be a primary concern of the other major national political party. Gerrymandering is a problem but in no way makes this something that shouldn't be thought about or that cannot be overcome, especially since those districts will be redrawn under the influence of those who are in office in and/or after 2020.

 

[cybrguy]

Does Sanders Have a Lock on the Youth Vote?

The huge story coming out of the Iowa caucuses is that young people voted for Bernie Sanders 84/14. Thus developed the meme that he has a lock on that age group around the country and writers like Nate Silver are attempting to explain the phenomenon. But does the polling bear that out?

The problem with examining the question is that there are very few polls of states that will weigh in after New Hampshire - and even fewer that provide information based on age. So with the caveat that these are merely individual polls and should be taken with a grain of salt, here is a bit of evidence to test the meme.

Based on this NBC/WSJ poll (Feb. 2-3), it looks like the New Hampshire results will closely mirror what happened in Iowa with those under 45.

Sanders 72%
Clinton 27%

One of the states that holds its primary on March 1st (Super Tuesday) is Georgia. Here is how the under 40 vote looks in a poll conducted by Landmark Communications (Feb. 4).

Sanders 13.5%
Clinton 61%

North Carolina holds its primary on March 15th. Here’s what Public Policy Polling (Jan 18-19) found for voters under 45 in that state.

Sanders 31%
Clinton 51%

Perhaps these polls from Georgia and North Carolina haven’t accurately captured the millennial surge in those states. Or perhaps Bernimania will catch on there as the vote gets closer. Or maybe, like other age groups, a more diverse collection of young people will vote differently than the mostly white group that we’ve seen in Iowa and New Hampshire. We’ll have to wait and see. But it’s still a little early for all of the assumptions about how Sanders has a lock on the youth vote.

 

[gangababa]

... I question if we have a democracy any longer.

You're not the only one!

Jimmy Carter: ‘America no longer has a functioning democracy’...

The opposite of Democracy is Republicanism

 

[cybrguy]

The big banks will break themselves up before Bernie Sanders ever gets to it

 

[grokit]

It's issues like this that will be driving the 2016 election
At least they should be !

Michigan Activists Ask United Nations To Investigate Flint Water Crisis
"Our message to the United Nations is that we don't have confidence in our government to properly remedy the Flint and Detroit water crisis." - Detroit Water Brigade

A group of water activists have asked the United Nations to intervene in the Flint water crisis.
Flint, Michigan, - ironically, the Great Lakes State - was devastated when a city manager appointed by the governor mandated a new, cheaper source for the city's water. That change, meant to save money, ended up poisoning Flint's water supply with lead.

Last week, two members of the Detroit Water Brigade testified about the poisoning of the drinking water in Flint before the United Nations' Commission for Social Development at its Civil Society Forum. The Water Brigade followed up that appearance with a letter requesting the U.N. to send a "fact finding mission" to Flint.

"Our message to the United Nations is that we don't have confidence in our government to properly remedy the Flint and Detroit water crisis," said Justin Wedes, (photo right) co-founder of the Detroit Water Brigade, who spoke at the United Nations forum. "They've shown themselves unwilling and unable to take action urgently to ensure the human right of water for all."

There is precedent for such a visit. In 2014, the U.N. send just such a fact-finding mission to Detroit, after thousands of residents had their water turned off for unpaid bills.

Catarina de Albuquerque, who was at the time the Special Rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation, and Leilani Farha, the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, said in a joint statement they were concerned about water shutoffs affecting residents, especially poor and African-American people.

“It is contrary to human rights to disconnect water from people who simply do not have the means to pay their bills,” said Catarina de Albuquerque.

Now Justin Wedes is hoping the current UN Special Rapporteur, Baskut Tuncak, who investigates the human rights of managing hazardous materials around the globe, will travel to Flint. Mr. Tuncak did not rule out a visit, but said he would first would have to be invited by the U.S. Mission, which is run by the U.S. State Department.

In a letter to the U.S. Mission, the Detroit Water Brigade has made a formal request for the State Department to allow the U.N. visit, calling the situation in Flint a "humanitarian crisis."

"We understand this is an unusual request," the letter reads, "but we believe the extraordinary circumstances merit it."

Beulah Walker, chief coordinator for the Detroit Water Brigade who also testified before the U.N., (photo right) went so far as to charge that the failures of government in Flint violate international treaties that the U.S. signed, agreeing to provide access to clean water for all.

"They're violating the law and getting away with it," Ms. Walker said. "The message we're sending to the UN is to remind them of a treaty that all countries signed to provide access to clean water and sanitation."

Ms. Walker said she hopes the U.N. can shine a light on the lack of action in Flint because "the situation is not getting better."

The Detroit Free Press reports that the U.S. Mission did not answer an email request for a statement, and a spokesman for Michigan governor Rick Snyder did not return their messages seeking a comment.

Gov. Snyder may be in hiding after refusing an invitation today to speak to a congressional committee investigating the Flint water crisis.


http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ted_nations_to_investigate_flint_water_crisis

 

[howie105]

[

So according to Nate Silvers, 538 site, Iowa's voters, age 17-29 voted Bernie by 84%, age 30-44 went for Bernie by 58% but ages 44-64 goes to Clinton by 58% and over age 65 was Clinton by 69%

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/

My fear is that it takes 4-8 years of very bad times (republican leadership) to get these kids out and vote but we will see.

Tuff call, I think things may get nasty for more then the next four years and whatever party is in office when it starts is going to get more than its fair share of the blame. That would be bad enough but the blow back will make it much easier for the opposing party to takeover the office and perhaps for longer than the usual rotation.

 

[Joel W.]

Bernie Sanders Wins Every Demographic Group
Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

Even so, there were a few silver linings for Mrs. Clinton. While Mr. Sanders bested her among all age groups younger than 45, the two candidates polled evenly among voters aged 45 to 64. And Mrs. Clinton won the support of voters 65 and older. And, though Mrs. Clinton lost nearly every income group, she did carry voters in families earning over $200,000 per year.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-ham.../bernie-sanders-wins-every-demographic-group/

 

[Derrrpp]

The Battle Between Populist Sanders and Establishment Clinton Is as Old as the Country Itself
What the political battles of the late 18th century can teach us about people power.
By Thom Hartmann / AlterNet
February 8, 2016

Right now, at both ends of our political spectrum, there is a battle being waged between We, The People, and the rich and powerful, aka "The Establishment." And, while there is a debate to be had about who does or does not represent each category right now, the battle between the people and power is as old as our republic.

One of the early famous “establishment” debates took place between Thomas Jefferson, who believed We, The People should control our own destiny, and John Adams' Federalists, who believed that the “rabble” could not be trusted to govern ourselves. Much like the establishment debate today, our founders disagreed over banks, debt, and corporate regulations. (For wonks of that era, I wrote part of a book about this, titled The American Revolution of 1800, co-written by Dan Sisson.)

That debate shaped our nation for the next two centuries. And, the outcome is reflected in the Bill of Rights we still hold dear today.

After the Revolutionary War was over and the Constitution was being worked out and presented to the states for ratification, Thomas Jefferson (then living in Paris as our envoy to France) turned his attention to what he felt was a terrible inadequacy in the new Constitution: it didn’t explicitly stipulate the natural rights of the new nation’s citizens, it allowed the army to continue to exist during times of peace, and it didn’t protect against the rise of commercial monopolies like the East India Company.

On Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns regarding the Constitution. He said bluntly that it was deficient in several areas:

I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations.​

Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t be limited to America, Jefferson believed. “Let me add,” he summarized, “that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

In 1788 Jefferson wrote about his concerns to several people. In a letter to Alexander Donald, on February 7, he defined the items that should be in a bill of rights. “By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil, which no honest government should decline.”

Jefferson kept pushing for a law, written into the Constitution as an amendment, which would prevent companies from growing so large that they could dominate entire industries or have the power to influence the people’s government.

On Feb. 12, 1788, he wrote to Mr. Dumas about his pleasure that the U.S. Constitution was about to be ratified, but he also expressed his concerns about what was missing from the Constitution. He was pushing hard for his own state to reject the Constitution if it didn’t protect people from the dangers he foresaw:

With respect to the new Government, nine or ten States will probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it. Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less moment, she [Virginia] will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new Constitution, i.e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases; 4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army. Upon receiving this bill of rights, she will probably depart from her other objections; and this bill is so much to the interest of all the States, that I presume they will offer it, and thus our Constitution be amended, and our Union closed by the end of the present year.​

By midsummer of 1788, things were moving along, and Jefferson was helping his close friend James Madison write the Bill of Rights. On the last day of July, he wrote to Madison:

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine States. It is a good canvass, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion, and monopolies.​

The following year, on March 13, he wrote to Francis Hopkinson about continuing objection to monopolies:

You say that I have been dished up to you as an anti-federalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it, I will tell it to you. I am not a federalist....What I disapproved from the first moment also, was the want of a bill of rights, to guard liberty against the legislative as well as the executive branches of the government; that is to say, to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury, in all cases determinable by the laws of the land.​

All of Jefferson’s wishes, except two, would soon come true. But not all of his views were shared universally.

(continued in next post)

 

[Derrrpp]

Shortly after George Washington became the first president of the United States in 1789, his secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed that the federal government incorporate a national bank and assume state debts left over from the Revolutionary War. Congressman James Madison and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson saw this as an inappropriate role for the federal government, representing the potential concentration of too much money and power.

The disagreement over the bank and assuming the states’ debt nearly tore apart the new government and led to the creation—by Hamilton, Washington, and Vice President John Adams — of the Federalist Party.

Several factions arose in opposition to the Federalists, broadly referred to as the anti-federalists, including two groups who called themselves Democrats and Republicans. Jefferson pulled them together by 1794 into the Democratic Republican Party (which dropped the word Republican from its name in the early 1830s, today known as the Democratic Party, the world’s oldest and longest-lived political party), united in their opposition to the Federalists’ ideas of a strong central government that was run by the wealthy and could grant the power to incorporate a national bank to bestow benefits to favored businesses through the use of tariffs and trade regulation.

The powerful Federalists kept the protection from monopolies out of our Bill of Rights, and the rise of corporate power began. Arguably, this helped the wealthy keep control of one branch of government for another century, and it kept Jefferson and Adams debating the issue long after each had been president.

On Oct. 28, 1813, Jefferson wrote to John Adams about their earlier disagreements over whether a government should be run by the wealthy and powerful few (the pseudo-aristoi) or a group of the most wise and capable people (the “natural aristocracy”), elected from the larger class of all Americans, including working people:

The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy. On the question, what is the best provision, you and I differ; but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise of our own reason, and mutually indulging its errors. You think it best to put the pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation [the Senate], where they may be hindered from doing mischief by their coordinate branches, and where, also, they may be a protection to wealth against the agrarian and plundering enterprises of the majority of the people. I think that to give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief, is arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil.​

Adams and the Federalists were wary of the common person (who Adams referred to as “the rabble”), and many subscribed to the Calvinist notion that wealth was a sign of certification or blessing from above and a certain minimum level of morality. Because the Senate of the United States was appointed by the states (not elected by the voters, until 1913) and made up entirely of wealthy men, it was mostly on the Federalist side. Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans disagreed strongly with the notion of a Senate composed of the wealthy and powerful.

“Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively,” Jefferson wrote to Adams in the next paragraph of that 1813 letter, still arguing for a directly elected Senate:

Of this, a cabal in the Senate of the United States has furnished many proofs. Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation, to protect themselves....I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.​

Jefferson’s vision of a more egalitarian Senate—directly elected by the people instead of by state legislators—finally became law in 1913 with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, promoted by the Populist Movement and passed on a wave of public disgust with the corruption of the political process by giant corporations.

Almost all of Jefferson’s visions for a Bill of Rights—all except “freedom from monopolies in commerce” and his concern about a permanent army— were incorporated into the actual Bill of Rights, which James Madison shepherded through Congress and was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.

But the Federalists fought hard to keep “freedom from monopolies” out of the Constitution. And they won. The result was a boon for very large businesses in America in the 19th and 20th centuries, with big companies now even using trade deals like the TPP to expand their monopolies.

Thus began the American struggle to balance the power of corporations and We, The People. From the very moment our founders signed the Bill of Rights to the debates now about the future direction of America, we have witnessed Jefferson's concerns become reality. And we've seen the corruption, undue influence and “mischief” he warned of continue to lie at the heart of our political debates.

Once again we find ourselves on the edge of a possible turning point in the era of monopolistic power, and our decision in the voting booth may well shape the next 200 years of our nation.

 

[grokit]

Bernie's toughest nomination challenge may not be the popular vote,
but hillary's "superdelegates"; russia explains:

Superdelegates: Clinton’s major advantage Americans aren’t aware of

While Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) scored a major victory in New Hampshire Tuesday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign still leads over the candidate thanks to winning superdelegates. Gayane Chichakyan explains who superdelegates are and why many Americans might not be aware of these crucial components to the Democratic Party.

 

[cybrguy]

Voter turnout challenges Sanders’ recipe for success

02/10/16 12:53 PM—Updated 02/10/16 01:39 PM

By Steve Benen
It’s not exactly a secret that Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign faces skeptics when it comes to “electability.” With so much on the line in 2016, including the prospect of a radicalized Republican Party controlling the White House and Congress, plenty of Democratic voters, even some who may like Sanders and his message, are reluctant to nominate a candidate who’s likely to fail in a general election.

And on the surface, those concerns are hard to dismiss out of hand. Sanders is, after all, a self-described socialist senator running in an era in which most Americans say they wouldn’t support a socialist candidate. He’s 74 years old – two years older than Bob Dole was in 1996. Sanders has no experience confronting the ferocity of the Republican Attack Machine.

When GOP officials, leaders, and candidates take steps to help the Sanders campaign, it’s pretty obvious why.

But Sanders and his supporters have a counter-argument at the ready. Below these surface-level details, the argument goes, Sanders’ bold and unapologetic message will resonate in ways the political mainstream doesn’t yet understand. Marginalized Americans who often feel alienated from the process – and who routinely stay home on Election Day – can and will rally to support Sanders and propel him to the White House.

The old political-science models, Team Sanders argues, are of limited use. Indeed, they’re stale and out of date, failing to reflect the kind of massive progressive turnout that Bernie Sanders – and only Bernie Sanders – can create.

This isn’t the entirety of Sanders’ pitch, but it’s a key pillar: the Vermont senator will boost turnout, which will propel him and Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to victory.

There is, however, some fresh evidence that challenges the thesis.

In last week’s Iowa caucuses, turnout was good in the Democratic race, but it dropped when compared to 2008, the last competitive Democratic nominating fight. (Republicans, however, saw turnout increase this year to a new, record high.)

In yesterday’s New Hampshire primary, turnout was again strong, and with nearly all of the precincts reporting, it looks like about 239,000 voters participated in the Democratic primary. But again, in the party’s 2008 nominating contest, nearly 288,000 voters turned out, which means we’ve seen another drop. (Like Iowa, Republican turnout in New Hampshire yesterday broke the party’s record.)

This is obviously just two nominating contests, and there will be many more to come. It’s entirely possible that Sanders-inspired turnout will start to appear in time.

But Iowa and New Hampshire are arguably the two best states in the nation, other than Vermont, for Sanders. But that didn’t produce an increase in voter turnout.

It’s a metric that may give Democrats pause as the fight continues. If Sanders’ entire model of success is built on the idea that he’ll bring more voters into the process, it matters that there’s no real evidence of that happening, at least not yet.

Update: I received an update from a reader who suggested comparing 2016 turnout to 2008 turnout isn’t entirely fair, since the 2008 Obama-Clinton race was an epic fight that drove numbers up. It was, in this sense, an outlier – which makes it a poor point of comparison.

And while there’s likely something to this, it actually helps reinforce my point: if a 74-year-old socialist is going to become president of the United States, he’d need to boost turnout in ways without modern precedent. Or more to the point, he’d need to be able to match and build on the kind of turnout Dems saw in 2008. So far, the numbers simply don’t show that.

 

[His_Highness]

I watched several of the candidates make speeches after the NH polls closed.

I ended up jumping on my PC to re-check the results because......after listening to those speeches I thought every candidate won. I wondered if the NH primary was being run the same way some kids athletic events are these days.....where everyone gets a trophy for just showing up.

Cruz in particular had me wondering what primary he was speech-a-fying about. I hope somebody finally told him he didn't win

 

[His_Highness]

I see Bernie as a much more powerful candidate than 'establishment Hillary'. I think many voters will vote for Bernie because Hillary is so completely unacceptable. Personally I would rather see Trump in the White House than either Clinton, Bill or Hillary. I want America to move forward on new ideas not old Obama and Clinton ideas.

Rather see Trump in the White House than Hillary?!?! Gotta give ya credit my friend....You've got balls the size of grapefruits making a statement like that in this thread!!!

 

[cybrguy]

It's not like the idea of Bernie taking Iowa and New Hampshire is a new or unpredictable possibility. It really says very little about the rest of the primary other than that Hillary has to keep working on the youth vote and be more careful about her surrogates...

This article is from July...

Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire. Then Lose Everywhere Else.

By Nate Silver

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is now telling reporters that she is at risk of losing Iowa to Bernie Sanders in the February caucuses. One ought to view these stories a bit cynically: It almost always benefits a candidate to lower expectations in Iowa, and these warnings are often designed to activate lethargic supporters. At the same time, the campaign press loves stories that suggest it’ll have a competitive Democratic primary rather than a walkover.

But in this case, Clinton’s campaign is probably right: Sanders could win Iowa. He’s up to 30 percent of the vote there, according to Huffington Post Pollster’s estimate. What’s more, Sanders could also win New Hampshire, where he’s at 32 percent of the vote. Nationally, by contrast, Sanders has just 15 percent of the vote and has been gaining ground on Clinton only slowly.

One theory to explain these numbers is that Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are early adopters of Sanders’s populist-left message. It isn’t a bad theory. These states have received the most intense campaign activity so far, and Sanders’s name recognition is higher among Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire — perhaps about 70 percent or 80 percent, based on recent polls — than it is nationally. If the theory is true, Sanders’s numbers will improve nationally as Democrats in other states become as familiar with him as those in Iowa and New Hampshire are.

There’s another theory, however, that probably does more to explain Sanders’s standing in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it’s really simple. Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire are really liberal and really white, and that’s the core of Sanders’s support.

Sanders, who has sometimes described himself as a socialist, isn’t likely to do so well with moderate Democrats, of course. That’s a problem for him, since a thin majority of Democrats still identify as moderate or conservative rather than liberal. But Sanders has a few things working in his favor. The share of liberal Democrats is increasing — pretty rapidly, in fact — and those Democrats who turn out to vote in the primaries tend to be more liberal than Democrats overall.

What’s received less attention is that Sanders has so far made very little traction with non-white Democrats. The most recent CNN poll found his support at just 9 percent among non-white Democrats, while the latest Fox News poll had him at only 5 percent among African-American Democrats. (Fox News did not provide crosstabs for Hispanics or other minority groups.)

In Iowa and New Hampshire, that isn’t a very big deal. In 2008, 93 percent of Democrats who participated in the Iowa caucus were white, while 95 percent of those who voted in the New Hampshire primary were.

In fact, along with the Democratic electorate in Sanders’s native Vermont, those in Iowa and New Hampshire are as favorable to him as any in the country. In the chart below, I’ve listed the share of Democratic voters who identified as liberal, and as white, in the 39 states where the networks conducted exit polls during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Then I’ve multiplied the two numbers together to estimate the share of Democrats in each state who were both white and liberal.1

I estimate that 54 percent of the voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary were white liberals in 2008. That’s the second-highest figure in the country,2 after Vermont (59 percent). In the Iowa caucus, meanwhile, white liberals made up 50 percent; that put the state in a tie with Massachusetts for the third-highest percentage.

The percentage of white liberals isn’t so high in other early primary states, however. It’s just 29 percent in Nevada and 19 percent in South Carolina. The percentage is also low in high-population, delegate-rich states like California (26 percent) and Texas (17 percent).
Put another way, Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t representative of the more diverse electorates that Democrats will turn out elsewhere. It just so happens that the idiosyncrasies of the first two states match Sanders’s strengths and Clinton’s relative weaknesses.

Clinton performed well among Hispanic voters in 2008, and while her failure to win African-American votes was a central reason her campaign failed, she now has excellent favorability ratings among black voters that are nearly as high as Barack Obama’s. If Clinton begins to see her support erode among those groups, her campaign will have some real reason for concern. Otherwise, just as was the case throughout the 2008 campaign, the media will misconstrue voting patterns that occur because of demographics and attribute them to “momentum” instead.

 

[grokit]

Not so great for women

 

[grokit]

This is exactly what I am talking about. The guy is disruptive and Trump makes me laugh more than any other candidate. Many things he says are more shocking, crude, and misogynistic than funny which are all good reasons not to vote for Trump. Four years of Trump would give me a hernia from laughing so hard. On the serious side of things Trump has 'BY FAR' the most considerable skills than any other candidate, right or left, when it comes to running enterprises and being successful. Trump would be guaranteed to shake things up and he does make great deals. That's just a fact.

It's almost as if he doesn't really want the job, the way he keeps getting more and more outrageous. But his supporters seem to love it, and his momentum hasn't slowed down one bit. Interesting election so far.

 

[CarolKing]

We can look on the bright side, if Trump gets the presidency he would better be to the cannabis community than most of the other republican candidates. Some of them are talking about not honoring the legal cannabis that voters decided upon in CO, WA, OR and AK.

Trump was being interviewed this morning and he said if he's elected president that he would act more presidential. Meaning he wouldn't name call as much is what I gathered from the conversation.

 

[grokit]

We can look on the bright side, if Trump gets the presidency he would better to the cannabis community than most of the other republican candidates. Some of them are talking about not honoring the legal cannabis that voters decided upon in CO, WA, OR and AK.

Smoke trump (diversified mj strains inc.) for patriotism !