Presidential election minus 31 weeks

A thread for discussion of the US presidential primaries, in which this week’s primaries offered a decidedly mixed bag for the front-runners.

Another week, another dedicated thread for presidential election discussion. Since we last met, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump won big in Arizona and lost big in Utah, with Bernie Sanders also trouncing Clinton in Idaho. The Democrats have got Washington (101 delegates), Hawaii (25) and Alaska (16) on the weekend, whereas the Republicans have nothing doing until Wisconsin on April 5.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

58 comments on “Presidential election minus 31 weeks”

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2

  1. Judging by the lengths the media go to to dump on Trump I am surprised that most layperson commentators still claim that Trump is the establishment.

    He is not, he is a maverick and a patriot who is potentially dangerous to their interests.

    Yes his running for president may be equal parts patriotism & ego but it isn’t solely out of self-interest (if he stayed out of politics as a billionaire his interests would be well looked after by an establishment party candidate like Hillary).

    Hi support from the American people reflects this understanding.

  2. None of the above is accurate or evidence-based (aside from the ego bit). LGH is proof that Trump has acolytes in Australia.

  3. I still think that Trump is running it all for show. If he ever becomes president, he’ll just run it based on self-interest.

    That being said, I wonder what are the chances of a Republican National convention deciding to go with Cruz, and Trump deciding to run as a third-party instead. And if that happens, Sanders will too, and for the first time in a century, will there be a 4-way presidential election?

  6. sanders is a miracle of democracy – system wise and personally

    i cannot believe someone freely using tag of socialist gets such success – what are we bing told, that public are as stupid as told – that elections rigged? it is also amazing someone can sacrifice their later years like this and do so with success energy and application – i still have given up – everything that needs to be said about hilary has been, and it speaks volumes

  8. It’s true that many in the GOP establishment are uncomfortable with the idea of a Trump candidacy (and many more people with a Trump Presidency), yes, but it’s delusional to believe a billionaire, second-generation real estate tycoon is an “outsider” in the sense that post #1 framed it. He is a part of the system that many want changed and his “radical” ideas really only reinforce the current privileges within that system.

    Sanders at least is being honest when running as an outsider who wants to change things (whether you agree with him/support him, or not.)

    The clever thing about Trump’s approach is that he is basically manipulating people into viciously predicting their few social privileges (i.e. by scapegoating minorities etc.), instead of questioning why people like him unfairly and unreasonably have so many more. The GOP cannot complain too much about him because they had laid those foundations for years prior and now it’s biting them (similar to the Tea Party movement and the prevalence of the Religious Right in decision-making positions.)

  11. I can’t say I’ve been following the primary debates very closely, though I have been watching the results, one thing has begun to occur to me. Given that the Presidential primary elections and the Presidential election themselves are so arcane in that it elects Candidates/The President indirectly through delegates inherited from a system built for another time – largely due to the states being unwilling to change it to something more sensible and suitable for the times – how on Earth does Sanders think he can get any of his measures to apply across all “Blue” states, let alone the whole country? He appears to be missing the more important step to getting his programs implemented and that is to fundamentally change the way American federation works.

    I just wonder if he’s ever addressed that point, because I think a hostile Congress is the least of his issues, it’s the states that are the real problem, and I suspect that trying to circumvent their influence over health and education policy might alienate even some of his close political allies.

    What I also find interesting is Sanders apparent willingness to alienate the “Democratic Elite” who he will definitely need to get anything he wants done as President achieved. If I were him I wouldn’t be going around lying and making misleading claims about Clinton’s voting record (including claiming she voted for things she wasn’t in Congress to vote for) when he probably needs her more than anyone else to get people on his side to make stuff happen.

    … it will also be interesting to see if he stays on if he loses New York and Wisconsin by a big margin as seems to be the case, while there are friendly states in the next contest (Connecticut and Delaware), he’d likely struggle in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and it would be impossible from him to recover from a wipeout in New York and if he goes to California its unlikely if he wins it at all it would be by anywhere near large enough a margin to matter.

    Say what you will about Clinton/Obama, it was a close race right to the end and this race isn’t nearly as competitive. It doesn’t say much for Sanders that after all his posturing about polls (and he talks about them a lot, much like Trump) he still hasn’t convinced actual registered Democrats and their Independent supporters to vote for him, how well would he actually fare in the real contest?

  12. [I just wonder if he’s ever addressed that point, because I think a hostile Congress is the least of his issues…]
    He has directly addressed this. He says people power will sway the recalcitrants. Yes we can?

    [Say what you will about Clinton/Obama, it was a close race right to the end and this race isn’t nearly as competitive.]
    A few days ago, 538 had Sanders at 89% of their target for pledged delegates for this stage of the contest. If we were to ignore the superdelegates, that seems to suggest he is behind but close.
    [he still hasn’t convinced actual registered Democrats and their Independent supporters to vote for him, how well would he actually fare in the real contest?]
    He certainly struggles in the closed contests. And there are some important ones coming up. But he overwhelmingly gets the unaffiliated voters in open primaries.
    I am not sure how this would effect him in a Presidential election. There are pros and cons and I am not expert enough to figure it out. My hack opinion is this issue is less important than which of the two can win the important swing states (IMO -Clinton).

  13. Simon Katich,

    I think Sanders sees himself as a kind of American Whitlam. I guess the main point of difference is that Whitlam had spent a lot of time before he lead the party to battle the system and he already had a very good idea of how to go about it. Not only that, but he only had to deal with six states compared to 50 states trying the kind tricks Bjelke-Peterson dealt to Whitlam. Sanders doesn’t really seem to have much idea of how to push his plans Constitutionally, let alone handle the inevitable bitterness that would come as he battles the recalcitrant Red states – there being 30 Republican Governors to the Democrats 19. My point was more that it appears a majority of Democrats don’t see Sanders as being able to achieve his goals when it comes to the crunch and actually voting so I’m not sure the current polls are going to hold out in an actual election campaign.

  15. I look at the Clinton-Sanders contest more like Albo-Shorten contest. Clearly Clinton has the upper hand, and the support of the democratic establishment, but Sanders might be closer to the man on the ground.

    It may or may not be close, but it’s been a healthy discussion of ideas for the Democrats. I’ll be happy to see Clinton adopt many of Sanders’ policies.

    And I don’t think Sanders is a fly by night operator. He’s been a household name in Vermont since his youth.

  16. RaaRaa @15:

    I agree. I don’t really get the level of animosity being being directed by Clinton supporters at Sanders for remaining in the race (nor, for that matter, the animosity towards Clinton shown by a lot of Samders supporters.) Especially by people all the way over here

  17. RaaRaa @15:

    I agree. I don’t really get the level of animosity being being directed by Clinton supporters at Sanders for remaining in the race (nor, for that matter, the animosity towards Clinton shown by a lot of Sanders supporters.) Especially by people all the way over here in Australia.

    Nor do I think a long Democratic contest will really harm either candidates chances of winning the general election. A very notable difference between the Democratic and Republican primaries this year is how careful both Clinton and Sanders have been to remain relatively civil with each other and not to harm each others chances of potentially winning the general election. Even if Trump secures the nomination well before Clinton, I think the level of childish squabbling, attacks and smear campaigns traded between the Republican candidates has done a lot more damage than an lengthy Democratic primary will do to Clinton (or Samders.)

  18. AshaLeu

    [I agree. I don’t really get the level of animosity being being directed by Clinton supporters at Sanders for remaining in the race (nor, for that matter, the animosity towards Clinton shown by a lot of Sanders supporters.) ]

    A great many Clinton supporters are focused on the bigger fight ahead in November. Not just the Presidency, but Congress, where the Dems have a real chance of winning back the Senate (and possibly make strong gains in the House, if Trump damages the entire Republican ticket).

    Democratic resources are still being frittered away on the primaries. The result is a foregone conclusion. Barring some disaster (indictment or prosecution) Hillary has this contest won.

    Sanders did well in Washington and Alaska, and may do well in Hawaii. But Sanders tends to perform well in caucuses.

    I like Bernie, I really do. He’s made his point, and I agree there’s been a healthy discussion of ideas – including the direction of the Dem Party. But why is it dragging on? He can’t win, and it’s disingenuous of Bernie to tell his idealistic supporters that he can win.

  19. [Democratic resources are still being frittered away on the primaries.]

    Not really a problem considering the state of the Republican primaries right now.

    The only time a long primary race is a problem is when battling an incumbent who is virtually unopposed (i.e. ignoring the perennial also-rans who don’t even appear on the radar) in their own party’s race (like was the case in 2012, 2004, 1996 and 1984)

  20. Looking at the way the Republicans are divided lately, I think there’s a chance Senate and the House of Reps might see some gains for the Dems, with the only limitation being that the last boundaries (redistricting) were drawn by Republican lawmakers.

    I think Bernie isn’t off by a longshot, so he should keep fighting. It doesn’t seem to harm the Democrats the same way the Republican contest has. It’s a battle of ideas, but hasn’t gone downright vile. The only negatives I can see are that some supporters on either sides (Clinton vs Sanders) getting a bit too carried away but it hasn’t been picked up by mainstream media the way we see those anti- and pro-Trump clashes.

  21. Gerrymandering is a huge problem (well, for Dems anyway in the current geography). As I posted in another thread, if there was ever any doubt of the perverse extent of gerrymandering in the US, just check out the congressional district boundaries in Texas.

    The boundaries were drawn up by the Texas-dominated state legislature. To the surprisement of nobody, the boundaries are designed to quarantine the Dems into the smallest number of districts possible. Texas 33rd and 35th in particular are absolute triumphs of gerrymandering.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Texas

  22. Raaraa

    [I think Bernie isn’t off by a longshot, so he should keep fighting. It doesn’t seem to harm the Democrats the same way the Republican contest has. It’s a battle of ideas, but hasn’t gone downright vile. ]

    I’m all for a battle of ideas. But I think the money spent on pursuing this battle could be better deployed – against the GOP.

  23. It’s evidently ridiculous.

    Can you imagine an Australian member having to represent a long snake of a division through multiple parts of Western Sydney? You could theoretically see someone having to represent tiny parts of Liverpool, Bankstown and Parramatta.

  26. Re Raaraa @24: that’s a very interesting read. I can see parallels with Abbott as Opposition leader, especially in his appeal to emotion and disregard of facts. Of course Abbott was nowhere near as smart as Trump, but this was offset, at least while he was in Opposition, by the support of most money and power (the ‘establishment’ if you wil) in this country. He also had grass roots support from similar demographics to those supporting Trump.

    Of course once Abbott attained power, he proved to be incompetent and was ditched within two years. If Americans are stupid enough to elect Trump, they’ll be stuck with him for 4 years.

    There are also parallels with Clive Palmer, although Clive is a far more benign figure. In any case, he couldn’t follow through.

  27. kakuru

    The problem for the democrats is who they choose is dependent on the Republican choice.

    It seems that in the unlikely event the republicans choose Kasich, Sanders would be the better Democratic candidate. for the other two nutters it soes not matter so much.

  29. My son and I have drawn up the criteria for Hillary’s running mate —

    Ideally, of course, it should either be Obama or a younger version of Clinton (or Matt Santos), but the ideals aren’t available so —-

    Male, white, charismatic, young (ish – as in, could reasonably be President in 9 years time), ‘soft’ style, from one of the states/areas Hillary isn’t strong in (California or Washington would be good). (In Australia, he might be a union rep).

    Doesn’t need to be ‘on the radar’ politically (has eight years to develop a profile), doesn’t need to be good on foreign policy, doesn’t need to appeal to minority groups.

    Any ideas who might tick these boxes? I couldn’t see anyone who was a Dems candidate this time around who fitted the profile.

  30. Just names out of a hat, but maybe Harry Reid? Or Jon Tester or Patty Murray. Possibly Ron Wyden or Michael Bennet.

    I think Sanders would pick Elizabeth Warren, but that’s just a guess.

  31. zoomster

    [My son and I have drawn up the criteria for Hillary’s running mate —]

    I’d favour a moderate Democrat from a midwestern or southern state. Maybe Tim Kaine or Mark Warner (both former governors of Virginia, now Senators). Or Tom Vilsack (former governor of Iowa, current Agriculture Sec in the Obama administration.)

    There’s a rumour going around that she may ask Kasich to be her running mate, under the banner of national unity. I really don’t believe it. I think.

  32. dtt

    [It seems that in the unlikely event the republicans choose Kasich, ]

    It’s hard to say a pathway by which Kasich could be the nominee. A brokered convention (if it happens at all) would probably see the nomination go to Cruz.

    By all objective criteria, Kasich is by far the most electable of the three GOP candidates. But that’s not how primaries work.

  33. [Ideally, of course, it should either be Obama]
    Michelle?

    As I like the unlikely I will stick with a woman as running mate. Warren still hasnt sided with Sanders so that makes me think she is in the mix for Clinton. Wouldnt that be something – Clinton/Warren! There are a couple of other women who could do it.

  34. OK, done a bit of research and either Martin O’Malley or Martin Heinrich look the best fit so far. Probably the latter.

    My biggest problem with those two is that they come from the wrong kind of states (too much the kind Hillary’s already strong in).

  35. Cruz wins Louisiana after grabbing the Rubio and uncommitted delegates! (Before it was 18-18-5-5, now 28-18).

    And I have heard that his campaign, beung much better organised, has been able to get some of his supporters elected as Trump delegates too.

    Of course, those delegates are bound to vote Trump in the initial ballot. But… if nobody gets a majority then the delegates can vote as they wish.

    Or… what if there were enough delegates to change the rules at the convention? Would he go that far to win?

  36. mimhoff

    [Or… what if there were enough delegates to change the rules at the convention? Would he go that far to win?]

    If the GOP do have a brokered convention, it may become a game of Calvinball: make the rules up as you go along. In this case, the “new” rules would be designed to keep Trump out.

  37. So the job of a running mate is to balance out the ticket; to bring something to the ticket that was missing.

    If the candidate in question is young, they might be perceived as inexperienced, therefore a more senior politician with years of experience in Washington etc. can balance that out.

    On the other end of the spectrum, if the candidate is perceived as very old, then the VP needs to be someone who is young, to keep the ticket looking energetic.

    If the candidate is a non-Washington-insider (eg. a Governor), then a veteran Senator or something can always help with that)

    And so on…

    If all else fails, you can go for regional balance.

    Some rules to remember:

    – A presidential candidate is far more likely to strike out on the choice than to hit a home run with it, so candidates will play it safe, unless desperate (see: McCain in 2008.)

    – This is the first appointment made by the candidate, so it’s a test of the caliber of people that will be appointed by the candidate as president (so both quality and ideology will come into play)

    – Taking the two previous points into consideration, this is a test more than a magic wand to make the candidate electable. A terrible candidate can pick anyone they want – it won’t make a difference.

    – Remember, a VP might be in a situation where they become President and voters know this. The worst thing a VP candidate can be is somebody you don’t want anywhere near the White House (especially if the Presidential candidate in question is older or has a history of health issues.)

    – A running mate must never take the spotlight from the candidate. Boring is better than limelight-hogging. Still, a VP candidate can be interesting, as long as they know their place.

    – A running mate MUST be willing to be 100% on board with the candidate’s platform and, should they get elected then one day suddenly become President, be willing to stay as true to the predecessor’s agenda as possible, at least until they are elected in their own right.

    – Don’t ever pick a running mate with the intention of trying to win a single state. It’s cynical, rarely works and is a recipe for defeat. It worked for Kennedy because Johnson pretty much had Texas cooked in his favour.

  38. In Hilary’s case she needs a youngish male, preferably from Florida, since that is the main state she MUST win to become president.

    However this male should NOT be in the system- needs to present an anti -establishment image.

    Should Sanders win, he also needs to have a youngish person, probably from the Florida once again.

  42. dtt

    [In Hilary’s case she needs a youngish male, preferably from Florida, since that is the main state she MUST win to become president.]

    Not necessarily. Florida is far less important than it used to be. There’s a collection of other swing states that win the electoral college for Hillary, without Florida. Though winning Florida certainly makes the task that much easier.

    The good thing for the Democrats is that the demographics of Florida are trending in their direction. Among other factors, generational change means that the Cuban American population is much less partisan (pro-Republican) than it used to be.

  43. [I disagree that an old-ish candidate needs a young VP.

    Younger, sure. But young, even young-ish… no.]

    You do realise that in the context of this conversation, “young” means someone in their 40s, possibly 50s, right? We’re not talking 20-year-olds* here.

    *(Yes, I know that’s constitutionally impossible – I don’t need the resident know-it-alls to correct me on that.)

  44. So, a couple of names I have been thinking for Clinton are:

    Julian Castro – good for shoring up Latino vote, also rising star in the party is his own right (gave the keynote speech at the 2012 Democratic convention.) It would be very hard to overlook him.

    Sherrod Brown – Senator from Ohio – not only an important state in the electoral college but also very economically populist and concerned with things like employment. Brown also has a more liberal voting record without coming across as radical, which might help with mobilising the left of the Democratic base.

    Mark Dayton – Governor of Minnesota. If you want to double down on experience, Dayton is a good candidate. He’s slightly older than Clinton, so you’re definitely not appointing a 2024 successor here but, should something happen to Clinton, you know the country would be in good hands as the guy has years of experience in the US Senate, as well as subsequent experience as Governor. He has a good liberal voting record and is a popular Governor from a mid-Western state (but it’s Minnesota, so not a conservative state.)

  46. Some tricky stuff going down in the democrat camp.

    Sanders “accidently” left of a ballot in DC

    And why are the poling sites still not reporting the complete tally for Washinton state. The NYT reports Sanders with 74/101 delegates but all the other sites are giving him 29 or 31. I know it is to do with the reporting by district, but it seems to be taking a very, very long time.

  47. [You do realise that in the context of this conversation, “young” means someone in their 40s].
    I do realise.

    To me, early 40’s would be young in this context. Mid/late 40’s is young ish. But the precise age is not as important as their demeanor.

    Rubio failed poorly in that set-to with Trump in the GOP debate. He was made to look young. Cruz comes across as older yet they are similar ages. Which is interesting as Cruz doesnt have the history of elected experience that Rubio has. Maybe its his experience outside of elected office that helps with that?

    C@t brought up Castro as a viable VP for Clinton. He is 41 and in the interviews I have seen he comes across as young.

    So why is 40’s young? And why does it matter? Historically, 40 is young, but this is more pronounced now. Trump is a similar age to Clinton and historically they (and Sanders) are ‘old’ as candidates. But times have changed and people are living longer and healthier. Comparatively, 40 is young.

    Paradoxically, I believe Clintons age could be a factor if she has a young, inexperienced running mate. Its not so much that Clintons age would be questioned but the running mate would come under more scrutiny in those ‘heartbeat away from being president’ questions – especially if Cruz or Trump select a Bentsen type of running mate. IMO, a Clinton running mate needs to be a reliable pair of hands first and foremost. Demographic appeal comes second.

    And yes, I do realise Dukakis and Bentsen lost… by a lot. For a laugh, Dukakis is prominent in the funniest scene in Naked Gun.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fpO7vN2-vY

  50. A few names for the VP pick if Clinton gets the nomination as seems inevitable.

    -Al Franken, Minnesota Senator
    -Tim Kaine, Virginia Senator
    -Sherrod Brown, Ohio Senator
    -Tom Perez, Secretary of Labor.

    I use to think that Julian Castro would be a likely pick but if the race is between Clinton and Trump I don’t think Clinton will need to shore up the Latino vote who are unlikely to support Trump in any significant number.

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *