The Democratic Party is most Undemocratic

There was a moment, it lasted from the netroots uprising to the election of Barack Obama, but then it died. The establishment killed any populism that was in the trenches. All that's left are cheerleaders. Bernie's attempt to inject a populism in it are admirable. The Democratic party is corrupt, moreso even than the Republican Party, with its nomination process. Yes, it's also bankrupt of new ideas, and stuck in the idiocy of identity-based stupidity and dumbass partisanship... but its use of superdelegates is what is completely undemocratic.

The latest screed is that Bernie Sanders is winning the popular vote, no, he's crushing it, but is well behind in delegates. Well, that's what he gets for joining the Democrats after holding out for all these years. Bernie ought to throw down the gauntlet and declare that if the superdelegates over-rule the popular vote, that he will run as a third party candidate.

Yea, he can run on this issue, it's a great one to run against the establishment on. I expect Bernie to win in Nevada, and yet, Clinton will pull in more delegates.

South Carolina though, (contra guns) that will turn out for Clinton. And Trump wins the GOP. But the way that this is going for Clinton is not good at all, she's got to put Sanders away decisively by March 1st.


A Bloomberg Scenario & NH guess

He is putting out feelers in case of one scenario. And that is if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination. Even better for Bloomberg, is a Sanders vs Trump contest. That would allow him to run as the establishment, the moderate, and the businessman mayor for the country. And in that scenario, he'd have a good shot at winning.

It's a 3-lane race then with the slots filled; except for the evangelical and conservative movement types. They would not be at all happy with either of those three candidates. But, that could be assuaged by Trump choosing Carson or Cruz for VP (at least among the evangelicals). But I'm getting off the point.

Bloomberg does have an opening, but not with Clinton in the contest, and not with an establishment choice as the Republican nominee, ie Bush, Kasich, or Rubio.

Out of those three, I gotta think that the silent NH last-minute-vote goes to Kasich, as he's cleaned up the endorsments and has camped in the state. His problem is that so has Bush. I think that's going to make the difference, and it goes:

Trump 28
Kasich 22
Bush 14
Rubio 12
Cruz 10
Christie 7
Fiornia 5
Carson 2

On the Democratic side, I Sanders strength is formidable in the state, but will guess the undecideds break heavily for Clinton:

Sanders 54
Clinton 46


NH one day out

Someone is going to get 2nd place in New Hampshire, but who? Trump is going to win. If he lost, that would be a major shocker. If he wins with less then 30% of the total vote, it's not strong. If he wins with more than 35% of the vote, he's got his momentum back. In between 30-35% is what is about expected.
So, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Kasich, they are all in 2nd place in one of the tracking polls right now. Cruz and Rubio may have lost momentum, Bush is regaining some of his lost support, Kasich has momentum.... who knows.

If Clinton keeps the win by Sanders to below double-digits, she's done well. Yes, the count is stacked to Clinton's side. Even with a loss, Clinton will take most of NH's delegates. If Bernie did anything, he should take up the cause to demand a complete overhaul of the Democratic nominating process. No more caucuses, no more super-delegates; just a straight up democratic process. It's just ineptitude and cronyism as it works now.


Iowa Caucus Result

What a caucus, so close. A Clinton vs Cruz contest is a nightmare for Republicans and a dream scenario for Democrats. It would be like Goldwater vs Johnson, yes, but even moreso, with the way that congressional campaigns no longer run as separate to the national election.

Clinton has finally won Iowa, haha. Bern, so close, 49.6 - 49.3. Hard to fathom that O'Malley's .05 is the difference maker. They will split the delegates, Clinton and Sanders, but you know that Clinton is going to make a sweep, or pretty close, of the superdelegates.

Trump lost the groundgame. That was the big question mark. The total amount of voters was very high, over 186K, but Trump fell below 50k that was his benchmark. How about Santorum finishing 11th out of 11th after winning it all last time. The Governors, Christie, Bush & Kasich need to get in a room and decide which one of them will get the other two behind. Rubio did the best in the more urban areas of Iowa, which is the most difficult to pick up in polling. It's also due to the paper's endorsement.

Anyway, Trump. I thought he would win, but he lost because of having no ground game. I remember being in Iowa for 2008, and caucus night, I was in a eatery before the vote, talking with a couple. Young, moderate Republican-Independents, they supported Obama. But, last minute, they decided to go out to eat and to a movie instead of the caucus. Weak support, or newtime voters, have to be prodded to vote. Obama had the machine to turnout an extra 25K, Trump did not, even though the supporters were there for him to get. It was also a huge hurdle that to vote one had to register as Republican. Yuch.

Onto NH. I love that primary, Dixville Notch pre-election night is a sight to behold. One-of-a-kind. It's on c-span now, but to actually go there, to that old place, get tea and cookies, mingle with the locals as they come in to vote. I did it once, which was enough, because I had to drive back to Burlington that night, over White Mt in windy cold with snow conditions.

We shall see what the polls say. Rubio will have appeal in NH, he will get a bounce. Cruz winning Iowa is probably best for Trump in the long run. First, to show his supporters that they have to vote, and second, as Cruz taking 20-25% of the vote means Trump wins with pluralities in the open-voting primaries. Maybe Kasich already peaked in low double-digits in NH. Probalby half a dozen R's drop out and endorse, or not, before the primary next week? Certainly afterwards there will only be a handful left. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, two-three other slots. Carson if he wants it; Paul could always linger too; maybe someone that gets 4th in NH.

Sanders must win NH, looks like he will handily. Like 57 - 43, but I suspect that will close to within single-digits. Higher turnout would bring up her numbers, of course, she is likley underpolled among women too, as she was in 2008.


Caucus Day Morning

I really love the Bernie Sanders emails. Who else has ever started them with "Sisters and Brothers" and ended with "In solidarity"? Fantastic.

From the comment on the Iowa prediction thread:

  • It all depends on turnout now. If the Dems turn out en masse, then Bernie is likely going to win. Bernie's supporters are extremely passionate, much like Obama's were in 2008. Hillary's support is soft.

Maybe I am a bit too optimistic about Clinton's Iowa machine with the 10% win prediction? Could be, polls have closed tighter (But Clinton will take a strong majority of the delegates). On the GOP side, it does look like Rubio will have that surge. In either IA or NH, an establishment candidate beating out Cruz for 2nd is not great for Trump. But, who knows, Trump seems to be pulling in quite a number of Democrats and new voters, so it may not matter.

  • Most voting for her have simply accepted the media hype that she's our anointed candidate without question. Hillary may receive support based entirely on gender but I believe that most voters aren't that shallow. Americans are sick of the rigged system that Hillary won't dismantle. Hillary has prospered handsomely from that rigged system. And since she is relying on campaign donations from the wealthy elite, she will owe them if they help her win...

Yes, that is a shared-feature behind both the Trump and the Sander's surge. John Judis wrote about the common features:
It's the beginning of a populist plurality, perhaps majority, if it can compartmentalize the divisive cultural issues from the essential economic ones.

  • Hillary's poll negatives are greater than her positives. Rarely has a candidate won with high negative poll numbers...

We can probably throw out the correlation of high negative numbers with winning. It's not what it used to be, in that regards. Trump's numbers are just terrible, but in a polarity, where people are looking to upset the system, they will say its a terrible messenger at the same time they vote for that alternative.