Yesterday was a good day for Clinton and Trump, Kasich survived to fight another day, Rubio didn’t.
I’ll let our regular Floridian commenter’s remarks summarize the results in Florida:
FWIW, the Democratic Primary saw about 40,000 FEWER ballots cast than in the hotly contested primary (which Hillary won) in 2008 over Obama & Edwards. Sanders is basically winning the old Dixiecrat type of counties that Edwards won in 2008: counties with names like Dixie & Calhoun, and places that house Death Row inmates. Funny!
(Rubio is this year’s John Edwards: A box of hair that people fell in love with. The difference is that Edwards at least had some accomplishments, however dubious, in the private sector. Also, Rubio is likely to be a one-term Senator. He’s probaably not done with politics, as it’s all he’s done, but I don’t know that he’ll get elected to anything again.)
The Republicans had a hot primary in 2008 as well, which McCain won over Romney & Giuliani. The primary today had almost 680,000 MORE votes cast than the one in 2008.
Like I said, I don’t think this bodes well for Hillary, but I’m not sure the Dem primary was all that eagerly anticipated down here (other than by Debbi Wasserman-Schultz) so that may have depressed votes. I’d still think that with Sanders in that it would have drawn interest.
But like I also said, the rules don’t seem to apply this year, so who the f*** knows what’s going to happen?
Here in Illinois Hillary Clinton won, sort of. She carried a bare 50% of the vote to Bernie Sanders’s 49%. At this point it looks to me as though Bernie Sanders is just a protest candidate nationwide. Whether that tells us anything about the general election I have no idea. More people voted in the Republican primary against Trump than voted for him. He won 39% of the vote.
Incumbent Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez was defeated soundly by Kim Foxx, the Democratic establishment candidate. Alvarez only received 29% of the vote.
Tammy Duckworth won the Democratic primary for U. S. Senate over the Democratic establishment candidate. The incumbent Mark Kirk easily won the Republican primary.
Julia Stratton, the challenger for the Illinois House 3rd district for whom President Obama made campaign spots, won easily over incumbent Ken Dunkin. He’d crossed over to vote with Gov. Rauner too many times. Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan easily won his primary against two opponents to no one’s surprise.
About 80% of all offices were unchallenged here in Illinois which is the norm.
The only other remark I have about the presidential primaries nationwide is that it’s not really clear what’s happening. My intuition is that Democrats are crossing over and voting for Trump. If Trump is the eventual Republican candidate a lot will depend on just how many of those crossover Democratic voters are voting strategically. I think I need to amend what I’ve been saying. It won’t be just a turnout election. It will be a black turnout election.
Primary election turnout figures are not good predictors of general election turnouts. I
In Illinois, Trump scored big in the Chicago area, and based upon delegates being mostly awarded 3 per Congressional district, Trump’s haul will be much greater than his 38.84% of the statewide vote.
The downstate map looks strange in that Cruz did well in counties that normally would not go for the most conservative and religious identity-Republican, places like Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, and Springfield that went for Romney four years ago. Meanwhile counties that Santorum won 4 years ago, particularly in the border-south region went to Trump.
Basically Trump is doing well in all regions of the state, while the other candidates have spots, but in a crowded field ultimately couldn’t claim many counties. I could make the case that if Rubio had dropped out earlier, Kasich could have won the state, but it would involve more than a simple transfer of votes from one to the other. Kasich would have had to campaign in the state and grab anti-Trump-first Cruz supporters.
Chicagoland seems to be the big story on Republican side. In 2012, roughly 200,000 Republican primary votes were cast in Cook County. In 2016, roughly 300,000.
On the Democratic side, I’m not sure what I expected, but I didn’t expect Sanders to be the overwhelming downstate candidate and Cllinton to do well in Cook County (Chicago). I thought Clinton might be in trouble in Chicago w/ ties to the Mayor, and Sanders’ socialism would be too risky in the more conservative parts of the site. It looks like Clinton may have won the black vote even in Chicago?
Rauner was unable to punish the Republican Senator that crossed-over on an anti-union vote. This is my Senator and its not surprising that someone with so many state workers would cast that vote; his Republican challenger has said he would have voted the same. The difference btw/ McCann and Dunkin is that in a purple area, there will be cross-over Democrats galvanized by a proxy fight btw/ Rauner and Madigan or the unions. Seat now could flip in November as the incumbent has ethical issues.
That’s why I think there are a lot of Democratic crossover votes for Trump. What they might mean for the general election I have no idea. If they were strategic and Trump is the general election candidate, it could mean that he’ll go down in flames in November. If they weren’t strategic and Trump is the general election candidate, it could portend a major party realignment.
It’s hard to tell. I think Trump is doomed because he’s Trump. For every shitty thing he puts his name on he generates a huge amount of contempt. This is great for business. He doesn’t need me to make his money. His haters don’t cost him a cent. But they do in politics. It’s hard to see how he will improve on what the GOP said it needed to do–appeal to minorities. And it’s also hard to see how he will depress turnout for Hillary Clinton. John Kasich would, but not Trump. All he can really do is to grab disaffected white voters, but how many of these are left to grab? I don’t see him winning NY by driving upstate turnout, for example. Maybe I’m wrong.
The wildcard is that he won’t lose nobly–he’s not going to face defeat like any number of candidates who knew they were going to lose. I have a few ideas about he might do, all of them crazy, but no more so than the fact that he’s the nominee.
They ran out of paper ballots in my county, and the Clerk apologized for underestimating turnout. Usual turnout is 22.5% of registered voters, and he planned for 25%, and it turned out 43.21% of registered voters participated. To my eye, some of this increase has to be on the Democratic side with Bernie Sanders winning the County.
That’s precisely the kind of thinking that could result in our glaring at the inauguration of President Trump next January. Don’t assume that because you despise him that everybody feels the same way. Also, don’t assume you can rely on the polls. I think we’ve received sufficient confirmation that the polls are fatally flawed at this point.
I won’t vote for Trump and I can envision nothing that would impel me to vote for him. However, there apparently are people who don’t feel that way. I know that Michael thinks that the Trump voters are all a bunch of white racists. My suspicion is that the number of black and even Hispanic Trump supporters would probably surprise him. I’m not suggesting anything like a majority but they might have crept into double digits.
I’m finding this election cycle to be a head-spinner. The choices we have are pitiful. The emotional rhetoric surrounding their candidacy is hyperbolic, coupled with a primary turnout that has been overwhelmingly large. Punditry has been stepping all over each other, confounded in stretched attempts to intelligently explain what is happening. However, this morning I ran across the following comment — simply stated — that seemed to be one of the most cogently stated:
That’s precisely the kind of thinking that could result in our glaring at the inauguration of President Trump next January. Don’t assume that because you despise him that everybody feels the same way. Also, don’t assume you can rely on the polls. I think we’ve received sufficient confirmation that the polls are fatally flawed at this point.
The polls weren’t flawed at all. They were calling it for Trump the entire time. Nobody took them seriously.
As far as Trump doing better than Romney with black and Hispanic voters, yes, I would be highly surprised at that.
More people voted in the Republican primary against Trump than voted for him. He won 39% of the vote.
The same could be said of Obama in 2008. Actually, I believe Hillary ended up with more votes than Obama in the primary season, just fewer delegates due to the Democratic party’s undemocratic nominating process.
…
And for those that didn’t read my other comments, turnout was HUGELY in favor of Republicans in Florida, Ohio & Missouri last night, and somewhat so for them in NC. All of those are swing states. (Illinois is a non-starter, of course. It is and shall remain Democratic.) If the Republicans can unify….
Trump got more Hispanic votes in Florida than Sanders did, despite his rhetoric, running against three candidates instead of one, despite running against two Cubans, and despite running against a Favored Son.
Of course, what that really underscores is that Hispanics, like blacks, simply hate Jews, especially Jews who have spent their lives living as far away from them as possible.
But racism is a Republican thing only, yo.
Jan, you might find this useful as a framework for thinking about the year. An analogy is drawn to the Iranian Revolution:
Really, no one knows what’s going to happen. Anyone who claims they do is AT BEST merely betting the probabilities as they imagine them.
Ice–
When the Iranian revolution began, everybody was against the Shah–professors, Ayatollahs, theocrats, and marxists. The Ayatollah was quick to end that. (A friend of mine has an uncle who was held and tortured by SAVAK and then the Ayatollah’s security forces in the exact same building and the exact same room.)
Trump is not going to be doing that and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Goddamn but you’re stupid. The point is that sometimes all the old norms of collective behavior breakdown, and that when that happens prediction becomes impossible – even predictions that later appear to have been accurate are no more than lucky guesses because the variables are too many and too wild.
And that would seem to be the case when a reality TV star with no experience running for office finds himself as the prohibitive favorite knocking off one candidate after another, especially given that those candidates have spent tremendous amounts of money and he hasn’t. Not to mention the $2 billion or so worth of free NEGATIVE advertising done against by all the TV networks.
Seriously, the old norms of collective behavior at the US ballot box are breaking down. How far it will go no one can tell at the moment. And THAT was the point.
Instead you start talking about torture suites run by the authoritarians in charge. Seriously, is there any non-fertilizer in your skull?
Ice, that was an interesting excerpt, and is applicable to today. It reminds me of one democrat strategist’s earlier comments to how she feels the dems would respond to Trump being the nominee. She said that the dems had a playbook already compiled for each of the republican candidates. However, with Trump’s unpredictability, in not following any politically correct or conventional patterns, there was no playbook written on him, which was disturbing to people like her.
By their very repeating nature, routines become safe comfort zones, giving people a sense of control when anticipating the probable impact of future events. With Trump, there is no such comfort zone.
In tandem with this discussion I suggest reading the following piece: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Don It’s a twisted way of rationalizing the benefits of a Trump candidacy, especially when the author compares it to the awful outcomes of The Arnold’s performance and policies here in CA.
“Seriously, the old norms of collective behavior at the US ballot box are breaking down. ”
We’ve never had an investment that got into serious trouble because of the knowns, or traditional risk analysis. It’s always been out of left field. Over time one learns to take a Bayesian attitude.
@jan
If the Senate Republicans refuse to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, you can thank or blame Donald Trump.
Collective norms haven’t broken down. Your argument has no meaning to anybody outside of your bubble. And guess what–your bubble is small. Read Jan’s wonderful link. The reason the author is coming to love Trump? Because Trump will take us back to the glory days of Willie Horton ads. Obama’s approval rating is 50%, but somehow, it’s all about to break apart because people will find out what they’ve been missing–race-baiting c. 1988.
“We’ve never had an investment that got into serious trouble because of the knowns, or traditional risk analysis. It’s always been out of left field. Over time one learns to take a Bayesian attitude.”
Yup. Cant seriously plan for the unknowns very well anyway.
Steve
The Daily Stormer – one of if not the largest white supremacist site – has endorsed Trump. David Duke, former KKK Imperial Wizard, has endorsed Trump. The racist blogosphere is ecstatic at Trump’s rise.
And meanwhile, Trump has endorsed Putin, encouraged violence against protesters, promised riots if he doesn’t get his way in Cleveland.
So clearly we’re all ridiculous to suspect that racism and authoritarianism have anything to do with his rise.
No, I’ve never said or believed that. Not all. Just enough. Not all Germans were Nazis, just. . . enough.
Of course Trump voters have perfectly legitimate concerns. So did the Italians in the 20’s and Germans in the 30’s. So did the Russians who gave us Stalin and the Iranians who gave us Khomeini and the Cubans who gave us Fidel and the Zimbabweans who have us Mugabe and on and on and on.
What’s the theory here? That racists and authoritarians and various other madmen never make good points? That’s absurd. Of course they make good points from time to time. Half the monsters of human history rose on a wave of perfectly legitimate concerns. And there are always the relatively rational middle class thinking, “Let’s just roll the dice.”
And how does it work out? Pretty well? Not so much?
No, Trump won’t get black votes. And he won’t get Jewish votes, either. We know better.
…and, Larry Flynt’s endorsement of HRC might fly in the face of her feminist constituency as well.
While fringe endorsements are not welcomed in the arena of mainstream politics, they continue to roll in, unsolicited, for people like Clinton and Trump. Unfortunately, though, a pornographer’s or racist’s unsettling thumb’s up does give fodder for a few to enthusiastically slap labels onto others, either to make political points or subjectively inject negative judgments onto someone’s character. The post above was Michael’s shot at Trump.
Although Trump deserves many uncomplimentary descriptions, I personally think “racist” is not one of them. However, his strong, barbarian temperament is construed by some as having commonality with racists. This interpretation, though, swings both ways in being embraced by racists, who are attracted to his uncouth behavior, as well as liberals who see him as an unsavory person perfectly fitting into their unending racial profiling and paranoia.
Jan:
I’m not talking about Trump. Trump has no beliefs. I’m talking about his voters. Trump will do whatever increases his power and draws focus. There’s a reason I use Mussolini as the better analogy: Mussolini started as a lefty extremist, ended up a rightie extremist. Mussolini’s only core belief was in Mussolini. Ditto Trump.
By the power of association, highlighting racist organizations’ support for trump, the insinuation of Trump being a “racist” was planted. It’s a successful smear technique that seems to float above similarly identified organizations who promote leftist activities — such as the communist party etc. It seems in this country “racist” finger pointing raises more eyebrows and guilty indignation than does any counterpart socialist/communist accusations. A current example was the Chicago fracas, where much of the violence erupting was generated by move-on, Black Lives Matter and other similar groups. However, most of the news was focused on whose rally it was, including questions that even choosing a university site was suspect. Even the sucker punch incident played into the growing descriptions of Trump=violent behavior, by looping it continuously over and over again..
As for any comparisons of Trump to Mussolini, why not go for Attila the Hun? Basically Trump is not a cuddly guy trying to make nice with either the elites or those who have been enabled by social progressive policies/propaganda, often times protracting problems rather than judiciously solving them. He is simply an in-your-face businessman, who possesses a community activist skills incorporating grievances simmering in the middle class and those feeling dispossessed by the government. He’s more like a right-wing Obama in his shtick. And, IMO, would probably have the same dismal results as Obama has had should he become POTUS.