AuthorTopic: Election Errata  (Read 96000 times)

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2016, 09:45:30 AM »
Cruz is prepared to sacrifice middle-class professionals on the tax altar, as he reduces taxes on both those at the bottom and the very top (his real agenda).

 Because there aren't many of us left, and because he has a good many of us remaining tax donkeys bamboozled by his religico rhetoric, we present a a soft target.

Read about his tax plan and tell me I don't get screwed worse than ever.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Eddie, the only plan you would like is one that doesn't tax your hard work at all. I feel the same way, but ultimately there is no escape. To keep the drug cartels from extorting protection money from you, itself a tax, and chasing your daughters and wife around when they are bored, requires $$ inputs to the men with guns. All of us not of the moocher class are caught in this bind, so sure, Cruz wants $$ to run his scheme, just as Ronny did, and Obama does, and so on and forth ad infinitum.

Look at it this way, they leave you enough to fly around to exotic Caribbean locations on a regular basis, maintain multiple residences and afford to corner the market on PVs. While sending your kids to school and buying cars and nice houses along the way. It could be worse, you could live on the other side of that border where thievery and Napoleonic law is quite a bit friendlier to dentists I imagine.

Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2016, 02:27:20 PM »
If Trump wins, doesn't he have to give up control over Trump Corp?  Who will hold the reins of the company while he is POTUS?  The Apprentice?

It will certainly make for great political theater if he wins.  I can't wait to see what his first Executive Order is.  ::)

Will it be:

1- Exec Order T1: Deportation of all Muslims
2- Exec Order T2: Demolish Detroit to put up a Trump Casino
3: Exec Order T3: Declare FSoA bankruptcy and do a LBO of Amerika
4: Exec Order T4: Shut down Da Fed and replace the Dollar with Trump Notes backed by Casino Revenues
5: Exec Order T5: Sell the rest of California to the Chinese

Don't forget the Great Trump Wall of Mexico!

Since it will be

1.  Extremely expensive
2.  Very noticeable
3.  Highly ineffective

I expect it to be a very high priority in a Trump presidency.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16110
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2016, 05:30:49 PM »
Cruz is prepared to sacrifice middle-class professionals on the tax altar, as he reduces taxes on both those at the bottom and the very top (his real agenda).

 Because there aren't many of us left, and because he has a good many of us remaining tax donkeys bamboozled by his religico rhetoric, we present a a soft target.

Read about his tax plan and tell me I don't get screwed worse than ever.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Eddie, the only plan you would like is one that doesn't tax your hard work at all. I feel the same way, but ultimately there is no escape. To keep the drug cartels from extorting protection money from you, itself a tax, and chasing your daughters and wife around when they are bored, requires $$ inputs to the men with guns. All of us not of the moocher class are caught in this bind, so sure, Cruz wants $$ to run his scheme, just as Ronny did, and Obama does, and so on and forth ad infinitum.

Look at it this way, they leave you enough to fly around to exotic Caribbean locations on a regular basis, maintain multiple residences and afford to corner the market on PVs. While sending your kids to school and buying cars and nice houses along the way. It could be worse, you could live on the other side of that border where thievery and Napoleonic law is quite a bit friendlier to dentists I imagine.

Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people. Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2016, 07:52:33 PM »
Eddie, the only plan you would like is one that doesn't tax your hard work at all. I feel the same way, but ultimately there is no escape. To keep the drug cartels from extorting protection money from you, itself a tax, and chasing your daughters and wife around when they are bored, requires $$ inputs to the men with guns. All of us not of the moocher class are caught in this bind, so sure, Cruz wants $$ to run his scheme, just as Ronny did, and Obama does, and so on and forth ad infinitum.


Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people.

Eddie, you do understand that you are solidly a 1%'er, and most everyone on this board would lump you in with the "real rich" in a heartbeat, right?

Wanna bet that self made folks, billionaire self made folks, don't consider themselves 1%'ers any more than you do, them having earned those billions fair and square? And complain about the tax issues the same way you do?

And those folks, they do have a point Eddie, even if you object to it.

Quote from: Eddie
Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.

Maybe. Maybe not. If working with economists has taught me anything, it is that the law of unintended consequences has far more to do with anyone's plan than most anyone appreciates. So Cruz creates his plan, or Ron Paul, or Hitlery, and guess what? A week later, the entire tax world...FLEXES.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3313
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2016, 08:25:24 PM »
Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people. Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.
One thing, people talk about a flat tax as if it were hypothetical.

Guess what? Pennsylvania has a flat 3.07% income tax rate.

It's actually in our state constitution that any taxes have to be "fair and equitable", and it has been ruled that a flat tax rate is necessary to fulfill that requirement.

Now, there is something called "special tax forgiveness" for low-income taxpayers, so it is not perfectly flat, but nobody ever gets out more than they put in.

Withholding for employers is a breeze, you just send the state $3.07 for every $100 you pay your employees.  The only people who really suffer are accountants and tax preparers  ;)
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2016, 09:22:42 PM »
Not so. I just object to all these "plans" that pander to the real rich while pretending to ease the burden on working people. Cruz's plan is just a way to shift the greatest tax burden onto the group of taxpayers least likely to be able to fight back, small business folks. The "flat tax" sounds good, but for the real poor it's regressive, and for the real middle class, it's a real ass-fucking. It lowers personal income tax, but institutes a brand new, extremely onerous tax on each and every business in the country. Do you really think that would stimulate the economy? It's a recipe for mass bankruptcy.
One thing, people talk about a flat tax as if it were hypothetical.

Guess what? Pennsylvania has a flat 3.07% income tax rate.

Who gives a crap. It is Pennsylvania. Ruled by unions, consisting primarily of coal miners and school teachers, it screws people absolutely BLIND on property tax. Why? Because it is how the school districts are funded, to feed the teacher unions.

The only good thing there is that they don't tax pension income.

Quote
Withholding for employers is a breeze, you just send the state $3.07 for every $100 you pay your employees.  The only people who really suffer are accountants and tax preparers  ;)

Let me guess...they aren't unionized? Gee...what a surprise...NOT.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14383
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #36 on: March 08, 2016, 08:31:00 AM »
From Bipartisan report-

Mitt Romney Files FEC Paperwork To Run In 2016 Election
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/07/mitt-romney-files-fec-paperwork-to-run-in-2016-election/

Here's the play-

"Establishment" runs Romney. The Republicans are split. According to the Constitution if no one gets the full 270 electoral votes, then the House decides the presidency.

Paul Ryan and the cohort of bought-and-paid-for right wing extremists and other servants of the moocher class will decide who becomes President. So it's possible that for the second time since 2000, the candidate with the most votes will not be president.

So if you don't want people like MKing deciding who your next President will be, get out and vote.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16110
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2016, 08:40:04 AM »
What they're angling for is a Romney campaign up and running before March 15th. This allows the probable outcome of a brokered convention where Romney (or even Rubio) might take the nomination.

See this:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thanks-to-the-republican-establishment-every-scenario-ends-with-hillary-clinton-winning-the-2016-election
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34185
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2016, 09:22:55 AM »
Sounds like the RNC will be a HOOT!  :icon_mrgreen:

If Romney runs on a the Republican Ticket, then Trump should run as an Independent, and Bernie can run as a Socialist with Hillary running on the Democratic ticket.  That will make a nice race.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16110
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2016, 09:34:48 AM »
Won't you please come to Chicago Cleveland , no one else can take your place.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pswvi3QN_tI&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Pswvi3QN_tI&fs=1</a>
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2016, 10:37:49 AM »
What they're angling for is a Romney campaign up and running before March 15th. This allows the probable outcome of a brokered convention where Romney (or even Rubio) might take the nomination.

See this:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thanks-to-the-republican-establishment-every-scenario-ends-with-hillary-clinton-winning-the-2016-election

Interesting commentary on Trump, not so much about Trump himself, but the people who mindlessly follow (from my perspective, it doesn't matter who or what).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/trump-is-the-symptom-not_b_9409098.html
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14383
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Neal Gabler: How the Media Enabled Donald Trump
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2016, 12:34:43 PM »
Neal Gabler: How the Media Enabled Donald Trump
by Vox Populi

"I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going." — Les Moonves, CBS

It is more than a little ironic that the Republican Establishment and the mainstream media are both now in full panic mode over the possibility of Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination. You would think that the Republican Party, which has been, let’s face it, hate-spewing, poor-bashing, government-stopping and corporation-loving for decades, ought to be the leading culprit for having paved the way for Trump’s success. As for the media, Marco Rubio, who claims to be exactly where he wants to be after losing 14 primaries and caucuses and winning only one, holds them responsible, which, from a candidate who has demonstrated little support outside the media, is a bit disingenuous. Still, even Rubio is occasionally right. The media did have a lot to do with enabling the rise of Donald Trump. Just not how Rubio or most people think.

To enable Trump, what the media did is fulfill what almost seemed to be a longtime mission: to create the first “pseudo-campaign” with the first “pseudo-candidate.” And now they are having buyer’s remorse.

That is not the standard line. The standard line on how the media are to blame is that they give him far more attention than any other candidate, and far more than his empty, sloganeering campaign warrants. According to the Lexis-Nexis tracker, which follows the coverage for each candidate on the web, Trump laps the field. This past Thursday, he was the subject of 52,683 articles. Bernie Sanders was next at 4,400. In a measure of what LexisNexis calls “voice,” which tallies both web mentions and mentions on social media like Twitter, Trump received 84 percent of the Republicans’ share. No surprise there.

How much of this attention is driven by the media itself and how much by public fascination is hard to determine since these two feed each other. We do know, as Rubio said, that the media gives Trump attention because he is a ratings-getter, and he has cleverly played off this. CBS head Les Moonves gave away the game earlier this week when he admitted, “It may not be good for America,” meaning the Trump-dominated campaign, “but it is damn good for CBS,” meaning the ratings. And then he kept doubling down: “The money’s rolling in and this is fun.” “I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” “Donald’s place in this election is a good thing” – presumably for CBS stockholders. To which I can only say that the networks were granted licenses to the public airwaves, our airwaves, by promising to provide a public service. Moonves just blew that pretense all to hell.

But the media’s absorption with Trump wasn’t Rubio’s sole plaint. He also grumbled that they were not only giving Trump free time, but also pretty much of a free pass. This certainly isn’t true when it comes to the press’s characterization of Trump. “Stop” has this week replaced “Donald” as Trump’s first name. And both left and right certainly purport to hate what he represents. Yet Rubio is largely correct when it comes to challenging Trump for what he says. The media should be pounding Trump not for his bloviation or his braggadocio or his bad manners or even his implied racism and explicit nativism. They should be pounding him for what he purports he will do as president. But they don’t, and Trump knows they won’t. He knows he can easily bulldoze the press because it is too cowardly to take him on face to face – though, truth be told, Fox News, which has a particular animus toward him, did a pretty good job of taking him on in last Thursday’s debate.

The far more grievous crime is what the media have been doing to our politics for decades now – something for which Trump just happens to be the chief beneficiary.

But even that cowardice isn’t the most important way in which the media have enabled Trump and nudged him to the brink of the Republican nomination, even as they wail about the prospect. The far more grievous crime is what the media have been doing to our politics for decades now – something for which Trump just happens to be the chief beneficiary. Nearly 60 years ago, the historian Daniel Boorstin in his seminal book The Image described a society in which things were increasingly staged expressly for the media without any intrinsic merit of their own – things like photo ops, press conferences, award ceremonies. He labeled these “pseudo-events” because they only looked like real events, while being hollow inside. And Boorstin defined pseudo-people too – people whose activities, as he put it, had no intrinsic value either. He called them “celebrities,” and he defined them as people who were known for being well-known.

Politics would seem a far cry from the pseudo, if only because it determines real things with real effects, namely how our country is governed. But almost from the time Boorstin was writing, the media had been growing increasingly bored with traditional politics. The media, after all, were in the business of getting an audience, not educating it, which is why campaigns began to assume the contours of movies, and why personalities began to overshadow policies. Still, campaigns retained some grain, however small, of seriousness. Issues were debated. Party ideologies were contrasted. Qualities of leadership were dissected.

Until 2016. If the media were spoiling for a pseudo-campaign, they finally got their wish this year at the point where all the usual trimmings and frivolities of a campaign moved to the center, and the center disappeared. Just look at the horse race aspect, which has long consumed 95 percent of our election coverage. Trump is the horse-race candidate, expatiating on little else besides his lead in the race. But let’s be clear: Donald Trump did not create this situation. He is its heir, and simply the most gifted practitioner of the pseudo-campaign, though Cruz and Rubio, equally pseudo, try hard to purvey the same lack of substance. And let’s be clear about something else: we only tolerate this state of affairs because the media have changed our expectations of a campaign. Having given us nothing in election after election but a show, we expect nothing but a show.

Donald Trump was born for this. If he is the heir to our first pseudo-campaign, he is also our first pseudo-candidate because he is, in Boorstin’s terms, a celebrity who stands for little besides his celebrity, which doesn’t mean that he isn’t potent. He is. It just means that he is not held to the standards to which politicians have been traditionally held, not because, as Rubio would have it, the media benefit financially from the drama that surrounds him, though clearly they do, but because they treat him like a celebrity and not a real political candidate. Celebrities aren’t expected to be substantive. In any case, while celebrity may not be much of a recommendation for the presidency, it is a hell of a recommendation for a presidential aspirant performing before a media that is far more interested in creating a reality show than presenting a process for selecting a leader. Trump is the Kardashian of politics.

Of course, just about everyone in the media now, excepting Les Moonves, is bemoaning the inevitability of Trump’s nomination, which is a bit like the boy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The media may say they regret it, but they did this. They systematically destroyed our politics in the name of entertainment. They systematically conditioned us to anticipate a show. And, frankly, they will keep on doing it. In fact, Moonves seems to indicate that he would fire anyone who didn’t.

So the media can cry all they want and hope to exculpate themselves by trying to stop Trump. But in the end, Trump could only make a mockery of our politics because the media already had.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34185
    • View Profile
Jekyll Island Revisited
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2016, 02:07:00 PM »
The Oligarchs are Planning...

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-08/gop-leaders-tech-execs-plot-against-trump-secret-neocon-island-meeting

GOP Leaders, Tech Execs Plot Against Trump At Secret NeoCon Island Meeting



Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/08/2016 12:11 -0500

    Apple Donald Trump Google Joe Biden Kevin Brady Nomination None Ohio Recession Trade War White House

Last Thursday, in a speech delivered at the University of Utah, Mitt Romney blindsided Donald Trump in what amounted to a scathing indictment of the billionaire’s ability to lead the country.

"If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished," Romney said, in an apparent effort to play party elder. "If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession," Romney continues, hitting Trump on the economy. "A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America."

We covered the story exhaustively, and for those who would enjoy a review of the verbal melee, see here, here, and here.

More important than what Romney said (after all, it's not as though he's the first person to essentially call Trump a demagogic lunatic who has no business being President) was what his speech represented: all-out panic on the part of the GOP establishment.

This is it folks. Trump is on the verge of winning the nomination and although most still think he can't beat Hillary, the national election is a wildcard. If Trump can go from laughingstock to presumed GOP nominee in nine months, there's no reason to think he can't ride the populist wave all the way to The White House.

With diplomats the world over voicing their concern, and with America's reputation on the line (of course we can debate about what's left of that reputation after Bush and Obama) heavyweights from across America's political aristocracy and business community are scrambling to figure out how to derail Trump's momentum. In short, the Michael Bloomberg deus ex machina isn't coming and Joe Biden isn't likely to ride into the race in a red Camaro and save the day either, so what now?

That question, apparently, was on the agenda at the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, a secretive affair held on Sea Island, Georgia.

(the scene)

"The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump," Huff Post writes. Here's a list of attendees:

    Apple CEO Tim Cook,
    Google co-founder Larry Page,
    Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
    Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk 
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
    political guru Karl Rove,
    House Speaker Paul Ryan,
    GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
    Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
    Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) 
    Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
    Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
    Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
    Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
    Diane Black (Tenn.)

"A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald Trump," the Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol wrote in an emailed report from the conference, borrowing the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto. "There was much unhappiness about his emergence, a good deal of talk, some of it insightful and thoughtful, about why he's done so well, and many expressions of hope that he would be defeated."

Predictably Karl Rove, GOP mastermind, gave a presentation outlining what he says are Trump's weaknesses. Voters would have a hard time seeing him as "presidential," Rove said. Which we suppose is why they are turning out in droves to vote for him.

In any event, this underscores how serious the situation is. America is apparently facing an identity crisis wherein the country's elected representatives as well as the business community feel a sense of paternalistic duty to keep the public from making "a mistake" at the ballot box.

But they don't seem to understand that that plays right into Trump's hands.

It's "the establishment" trying to bend the will of the electorate.

It's "entrenched business interests" aligning with bought-and-paid-for politicians to stand in the way of a populist revolution.

And on, and on, and on. The soundbites are unlimited for Trump.

Now, he can say that a billionaire who refuses to unlock an iPhone to aid in the fight against terrorism on American soil, the House Speaker, Elon Musk, and none other than Karl Rove himself are secretly commiserating on an island at a lavish, neocon-hosted conference to stop America from exercising their right to choose the next President!

It would be difficult to craft a better narrative to tell working class Americans if you tried.

Long story short, if the establishment and the business community keep focusing on how to subvert democracy rather than on how to craft a message that resonates with voters, they are going to end up handing the keys to The White House to Trump on a silver platter.

Which we suppose is just how he likes to be handed his keys.

Only the platter would preferably be gold.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34185
    • View Profile
Burnie Pulls a Yogi Bera: It's not OVAH till it's OVAH
« Reply #43 on: March 09, 2016, 01:58:04 AM »
Bernie won Michigan.  It's a Horserace now.

If Bernie can win CA and NY, the DNC should be as lively as the RNC.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/

2016 Election   1:09 AM Mar 9, 2016
What The Stunning Bernie Sanders Win In Michigan Means

By Harry Enten


Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally on Tuesday in Miami.  Alan Diaz / AP

Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.

Both the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus and polls-only forecast gave Clinton a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. That’s because polling averages for primaries, while inexact, are usually not 25 percentage points off. Indeed, my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset. In that contest, the polling average had Walter Mondale beating Gary Hart by 17 percentage points, but it was Hart who won by a hair over 9 percentage points.

Indeed, my initial thought was to compare the Sanders upset with Clinton’s over Barack Obama in the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary, but that undersells what happened Tuesday night. I was in New Hampshire when Clinton won in 2008 and sat in stunned disbelief — Obama lost by about 3 percentage points when the polling average had him ahead by 8 percentage points. In other words, tonight’s error was more than double what occurred eight years ago.

The question I am asking myself now is whether this means the polls are off in other Midwest states that are holding open primaries. I’m talking specifically about Illinois and Ohio, both of which vote next Tuesday. The FiveThirtyEight polling average in Illinois gives Clinton a 37 percentage point lead, while the average in Ohio gives her a 20 percentage point lead. If Michigan was just a fluke (which is possible), then tonight will be forgotten soon enough. If, however, pollsters are missing something more fundamental about the electorate, then the Ohio and Illinois primaries could be a lot closer than expected.

Either way, this result will send a shock wave through the press. Heck, as a member of the press, you might be able to tell how surprised I am. This will likely lead to increased press coverage of the Democratic race, which Sanders desperately needs to be competitive next Tuesday and beyond.

Sanders must rack up big wins and fast. Thanks to an 83 percent to 16 percent win in Mississippi, Clinton gained in the overall delegate count on Tuesday and leads Sanders by more than 200 pledged delegates. Her strong performance in Mississippi also put Sanders further behind his FiveThirtyEight delegate targets. That may not be as sexy as the tremendous upset in Michigan, but math is rarely sexy.

Sanders, however, can breathe a deep sigh of relief that all the states in the Deep South have already voted. He can hope that tonight’s Michigan win will help propel him to victory or at least make him more competitive in states with large delegate prizes left like California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. We’ll see if it does.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16110
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2016, 06:59:14 AM »
Quite surprising to me. Detroit, of course, went full Hillary.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Errata

Started by Guest The Kitchen Sink

0 Replies
291 Views
Last post October 13, 2016, 02:05:21 AM
by Guest
3 Replies
991 Views
Last post November 08, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
by monsta666
24 Replies
3192 Views
Last post February 28, 2017, 06:54:54 AM
by RE