UPDATE - Clinton 45- Sanders 42- O'Malley 3.

Trump 28, Cruz 23, Rubio 15, Carson 10.

6:45 pm Eastern time tonight, Ann Selzer drops her final Iowa poll. For those who don't know Selzer is the gold standard for Iowa - THE poll. So we'll know a bit better what to expect at the Iowa caucus then.

But here's what we've always known - the Iowa caucus on the Dem side is a travesty. There are many reasons why it should not go first - mostly because it is basically an all white state (like NH that follows it), thoroughly unrepresentative of the demographics of the Democratic Party.

But the actual Dem caucus process itself is ridiculously undemocratic. There is no secret ballot. There is no connecting statewide votes with actual delegates chosen. There is a 15% viability requirement PER PRECINCT! It is truly awful in every sense.

Ironically, it's possible Sanders will get more voters out Monday night and "lose" the caucuses. We'll never actually know as vote totals are not reported just delegate counts.

It's long past time to end the travesty known as the Iowa Caucus going first in Presidential primaries.

< eGhazi: Same BS IC story: different day | Saturday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seltzer out (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    Clinton 45 Sanders 42

    Too close to call, then (none / 0) (#19)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:33:38 PM EST
    with the craziness of the caucus process.

    But per 538, the last several polls have been going Clinton's way, so it is a trend on the eve of the caucuses.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    the trend is her friend.

    Question about projected turnout (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:09:01 PM EST
    I've followed the Selzer polls this time and in the past. As she said in the narrative this pm: A number of factors such as enthusiasm, certainty of supporters favor HRC in addition to the 3 pt. poll margin. My query: Since there has been an assumption bandied about in recent weeks that a larger turnout would favor challenger Sanders while a more traditional turnout could be expected to favor HRC, how has Selzer addressed the turnout model? Did you happen to see what numbers of attendees she used to derive her projections?

    FlJoe: one question (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 04:23:04 PM EST
    What projected turn-out did Selzer use for her Democratic model?  I've looked around, but cannot find it ....

    It (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    doesn't work that way. The pollsters do not try to estimate total turnout and then work backwards. Their models do create an inherent predicted turnout but it's from a small sample upwards and all about percentages rather than actual total number. If a model verifies than the numbers will fall where they will so to speak.

    For examle (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    the Seltzer poll has shown a steady rise in first time Caucus goers with an 8% jump to 34% over the last cycle. That indicates that the model is seeing a larger turnout.

    So...does that mean IF we see (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 07:29:16 PM EST
    a fairly large turnout, it wouldn't be anything different (maybe) than what is inherent in Selzer's poll?

    I know that you understand polling intricacies ... and, of course, what I've been angling for is whether you can tell whether Selzer's inherent polling assumption or whatever it is might be based upon the higher 100s or even 200,000. Etc.  Axelrod and others have noted that the breakpoint of about 200,000 would make for a better night for Sanders.  But, if Selzer has indirectly built in a higher turnout verging on that, it might be a wash?  


    I just caught (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:05:25 AM EST
    the tail end of a conversation on CNN, where a journalist from the DM seemed to indicate that their model was predicting a large but not phenomenal turnout(no particular numbers). If you take 2004 @ 124k as normal and 2008 @ 239k as phenomenal and split the difference you get about 182k add in a few k for population growth and maybe a few k for across the board enthusiasm and a 190k ballpark seems like a reasonable ballpark figure. All WA guessing of course, but that does line up with what most of the pundits are saying.

    Thank you lots for the explanation. (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    They are moving the snow storm up and up (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    That could really effect turnout.   They are saying now there could be a couple of inches in western Iowa by 6 pm.

    Which (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    By all accounts would be very good news for Hillary.

    I can honestly say (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    between  this thread and the last open thread I learned more today about the Iowa caucus than I ever cared to know. Suffice to say it's more horrible than imagined. The time is past due to dump the caucus approach.

    The Colorado caucus is quite similar (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    While Gary Hart & others originally pushed, promoted the Iowa caucus (McGovern) for a good purpose--imo--the side effect is that a caucus can be stacked rather easily.  A lot of work; but, the numbers process can be used to produce a somewhat undemocratic result (heck, I've participated myself in such maneuver ... & I've also been on the losing side of a caucus takeover when we underestimated the numbers based upon previous years.)  The horse-trading cuts lots of different ways, especially when dealing with 15% viability levels, etc.

    After being a one-time proponent for the give & take and potential discussion of a caucus, I think my attitude has finally shifted to the primary approach.  While a primary does not have the community aspect to it that the caucus evening gathering can have, the primary does expand the numbers of participants in the candidate selection process ... by a lot.


    It's a helluva lot of work to conduct, and I don't care for it. I'd much rather that we switch to a presidential primary election, rather than continue with a "preference poll" as it's called in Hawaii. But old timers in both parties prefer it just the way it is, so it likely won't change until a few more of them pass from the scene.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:46:48 PM EST
    thing from the Selzer Poll I have read is that
    83% of Hillary's support is locked in while Sander's support is locked in at 69%.

    Hear, Hear (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by me only on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    Let's make PA go first.

    So what margin of victory does Clinton need... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by magster on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    to land an early knockout against Sanders? Greater than 5 % margin?

    50/50 shot of that happening. The concentration of the vote issue that Sanders has seems like a real concern for him.

    It won't (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    matter because The Narrative. It'll be well, eons ago she was 40 points ahead.

    Disagree, only because Bernie closed so fast... (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    ... only to kind of stall or even fall one step back. A greater than 5 point margin for Clinton will look like she has momentum, IMO.

    Bernie just released some eye-popping fundraising numbers, so he'll be around for awhile.


    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    I expect he will be around for a while. However I hope you are right about The Narrative.

    They just scheduled (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    Debates through May so......

    I agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    That margins are going to important.  In both parties.

    Lot of talk about (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    Sanders plan to bus his kids home to caucus in their hometowns to spread the Bern around.   Lot of questions about how and how well that could work.  Lot of acknowledgment today that, as you say, he could run up huge margins in a few areas and it would mean pretty much nothing as far as delegates.

    Might be an issue (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    With the blizzard coming in

    It may not affect the voting, but if that's his plan, it may strand students at home with no way back to class.


    Every time you say that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    you send me to the best Midwestern weather forecasts, which still tell me that the storm does not hit even westernmost Iowa until Tuesday.

    And then, it hits us.


    Not what (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    Th weatherman on the link said.  Westernmost Iowa by Monday night.

    The snow moving east hit Denver (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:25:45 PM EST
    earlier than expected this evening ... but, that is only part one of a bigger snow expected early tomorrow evening.  How long does it take a snowstorm to go from the Denver area to western Iowa is the question?

    I could see a lot of snuggling going on (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    All of the talk in the last week or so (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:33:31 PM EST
    has given me a renewed faith in college students...that the only possible way they can be persuaded to skip class is to be transported home to vote for a progressive Democrat. Reassuring on many levels!

    I don't (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    understand how the logistics of busing people in from all over the country would work. However apparently people in Iowa are prepared for this possibility and there are going to be a lot of people watching for any shenanigans.

    They did it in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    and from out of state, too.  Nieces and nephews at Wisconsin and Illinois campuses were asked to sign up to get on the buses to go to Iowa.  They didn't do so, but many friends did.

    And the niece at a campus in Iowa, not a resident, participated in the caucuses.  She said that she was not asked how long she had been a student there (only a matter of weeks).  All she had to state was that she intended to reside in Iowa . . . someday, apparently.  (I recall that the Des Moines Register blogs were filled with similar reports and worse.)

    It's corrupt, but it's cheap for states that don't want to pay for elections.  So voting laws do not apply.  Parties run caucuses and set the rules . . . and aren't staffed to enforce any party rules, anyway, even if they cared to do so.    


    what about your privacy, (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:35:20 PM EST
    you know, secret ballot, anonymity, and all that old corny stuff?

    I don't mind someone talking to me, trying to convince me, but, my vote is my business, and, something about being all alone, nice & quiet, in a voting booth......peacefully alone, and exercising my "Democracy" the way I like it.

    Just an old Immigrant spilling my guts.


    Agreed, another aspect (none / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:33:45 PM EST
    that would make me a cranky caucuser (caucusite? caucusist?).  

    Yeh, I know, it's a blast from the hallowed past of ye olde Newe Englande town hall meeting blah blah blah.  But I probably would have been cranky there, too, grumbling about the lack of a secret ballot -- and would have been burned as a witch for it.


    Caucusoid perhaps? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 05:15:32 PM EST
    Or caucusian (so white)?

    I prefer the term ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 07:52:45 PM EST
    ... "caucusista" (so partisan).

    And then there's the ADA. . . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:36:59 PM EST
    I read, in the Des Moines Register reports and more, about the caucuses held in basement rec rooms and other sites that could not be accessed by some people with disabilities, who could not participate.

    That's also what comes with caucuses, not bound by -- okay, let's say it: circumventing -- voting laws.


    I've read that b/c of the ADA, (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    Iowa caucuses are no longer held in private homes.  Now they are held in rented public facilities such as schools.

    The ADA and the caucus (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    Colorado Democratic Caucuses are now held in ADA-compliant buildings. Schools & other larger meeting areas--where, btw, several precincts can be separately accommodated.  

    An aside: Our neighborhood has a beautiful high-rise all senior stages ... in addition to all the amenities that beautiful buildings have, there are a few meeting rooms & an auditorium-like room ... many of the residents on the Dem polling lists are dependable active voters ... our present precinct caucus location is almost 2 miles away in a drafty school building ... although the seniors wouldn't have to leave the building to participate at night in late winter, somehow our party officials still haven't acknowledged that the senior high-rise would meet ADA standards ... so, the best some of us can do is offer a ride in the cold night to a 90yr old so she/he can remain politically active.  Bureaucracy, huh?  At least, the polling place for a few of the precincts on election-day is located in the accessible high-rise.


    Just a reminder that a Party candidate selection (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:40:28 AM EST
    process is not an election.

    Should we drink beer (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    eat pizza and watch highlights as we count down to the release of the Selzer numbers as if we were at a countdown party before the start of a really big football game?

    Armando, what are the odds? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    No over/under?  Take Bernie and the points?

    Money line (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    Clinton is 1-2.25 in Iowa.

    Sanders 1.75-1.

    Don;t like either side.

    If I knew what Selzer was going to do tho . . .


    ha, I knew you were good for this (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    Don't rule out (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:16:35 PM EST
    an Iowa suprise

    J. Ann Selzer, who has conducted polling on the Iowa caucuses since 1988, says the contests almost always yield surprises. With each election, it increasingly becomes more difficult to reliably predict the outcome, and this year is the toughest yet.

    Pollster.com lists 20 Iowa Republican caucus polls for January alone. Nate Silver's blog, FiveThirtyEight, bases its Iowa predictions on a weighted average of 19 polls. According to Selzer, who has done polls for Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register, the large number of surveys makes it more difficult to get reliable results: "With low incidence populations like the caucuses, I'm worried about polling fatigue."

    That's because pretty much all the polls rely on the same base: the list of Iowa's registered voters, one of the most extensive of any state. Iowa has about 2.5 million people who are eligible to vote, and about 2 million of those are on that list. But most people who are called by pollsters don't want to participate. In the run-up to the first-in-the-nation nominating contest, Iowans are inundated with calls from candidates' campaigns and subjected to a barrage of political advertising. I've only been here a week, and I have a headache from the drumbeat. Only the nicest people on earth can live through this and not hang up on pollsters.

    As a result of this self-winnowing, many polls wind up with a sample of "likely caucus-goers" of around 600 respondents. And the outcomes end up pretty close: This year, victory to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz on the Republican side, or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders for Democrats, with most variation within the margin of error. But those predictions are subject to caution because the final outcome depends on a key, intangible factor: The turnout on Feb. 1 of first-time caucus-goers.

    A share of this group isn't reflected in the polling  because they are among the 500,000 Iowans who aren't on the registered voter list, but are eligible to take part in the caucuses.

    Switch to more diverse state I guess (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kmkmiller on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:35:04 PM EST
    It goes without saying that if all states voted at once there would be less incentive to get out in front of voters and make case strictly through media...

    And insurgent candidates would never have a chance.

    I don't like it cause given where I live my vote counts so very little and first states count so much (hardly democracy) but ...

    Anyway media loves the drawn out circus.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    There are many reasons why it should not go first - mostly because it is basically an all white state (like NH that follows it),

    We can'( have them white states decidin' nothing.
    Bunch o' crackers.

    Repubs (none / 0) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    Trump 28% Cruz23% Rubio 15%

    No (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    surprises here.

    From the most recent data, (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    No, it's not a surprise. But, for the longest time Cruz was leading. Iowa was his backstop, his firewall. He sunk tons of money in there, thousands of highly trained volunteers, and, generally considered to have the best ground game of all the candidates. In my opinion (o.k. in a lot of opinions) Cruz is more than likely finished. Then, the game will be, how his supporters are distributed. BTW, Rubio is getting a lot of positive press recently.

    But, like all the greatest football quarterbacks, basketball shooters, and/or baseball pitchers, privately acknowledge; when you're hot, you're hot, and, when you're in that groove, you are, literally, unbeatable.

    And, we know whose "in that groove" now.


    Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    was supposed to be Cruz's launching pad but it appears to be fizzling, although there is still a slim chance he can pull off enough of a ground game miracle.

    I have noticed the press fluffing Rubio as they have done before but he shows nothing in the polls, Cruz may be struggling but Rubio is not exactly surging either. He is still on track for a ho hum third in Ia and struggling in NH.

    Yeah we all know who is in the 30% groove, not exactly hall of fame material, but his knuckle ball is sure baffling the "deep bench" the Republicans have trotted out this season.


    At the very least (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:46:03 PM EST
    A strong 4th for Marco.

    Yeah, all these polls, and (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:55:35 PM EST
    primary elections have to be scored vs different handicaps. It all depends on what the experts perceive the expectations to be, and, what the game plans, and the expectations the Candidates laid out for themselves vs. their actual results.

    I remember Bill Clinton (after one of his scandals) came in third somewhere up North, and, he ran around the country the next day knowing he'd be the next President.


    With the non stop Trump frenzy for the last (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    f w ,on the, I'd feel,pretty good about that result if I were Ted Cruz. I think we are at Peak Trump.

    *few months (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    really bad iPad typing

    Here are some photos (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    of the Iowa caucus I attended in 2007. It was actually a pretty diverse group, not all white, as you can see here.

    I live blogged it here and described what happened at the caucus I attended.

    I would never cover anything in Iowa again. It was the coldest place I have ever been.  

    Des Moines is Iowa urban (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    with campuses and college students from elsewhere (one of my niece was one) there.    

    And cold?  Ha.  To us, Iowa is the southland.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:30:08 AM EST
    You really have no idea about Iowa aside from your disdain for it.

    The large state universities are in Ames and Iowa City.  Des Moines has Drake, which as an expensive, private school, has about the same enrollment as my high school did.  

    Never heard of a four year college that didn't have students from "elsewhere".


    Yes, but those are college towns (none / 0) (#73)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    and not urban, at least not to me.  

    Iowa City is only the fifth-largest city in Iowa, and more than half of its 70,000 (that is barely a city) population is students.

    And Ames is only the eighth-largest city in Iowa, and even more disproportionately students.

    I've been to all of the above, and Dubuque (I like it a lot) and Cedar Rapids and more, but -- the only city in Iowa that feels at all urban is Des Moines.

    And the "elsewhere," I may not have made clear, but . . . it's not worth the cyberspace.  You think Ames and Iowa City are urban, so there really is no possibility of understanding on this.  


    I was addressing... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    "with campuses and college students from elsewhere", but you knew that and chose to move the goal posts in typical Cream City style.  

    I could give a crap what you feel qualifies as urban or not. It seems that you think only Des Moines, being "urban" would have non-whites attending a caucus.  



    "Urban" in IA is relative! (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    Burlington (c. 30,000 pop.) lost its ranking of fifth largest city in the state of Iowa.

    Don't 'ya know... (none / 0) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    there are no minorities outside of Des Moines and even then they have to ship them in from elsewhere.

    There is some truth to the (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    "shipping in" part, at least as to those chicken processing plants.

    Shoe phone, perhaps you (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    are not aware of the labor pool filling these jobs. Immigrants and prisoners. Horrific jobs at $11/hr.

    That is true. (none / 0) (#79)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:20:17 AM EST
    Republicans who are publicly dead-set against any form of immigration but in private won't lift a finger to do anything about it as to not disrupt the cheap labor.  

    Side note - my Dad worked in one of the large packing plants in Des Moines as youngster.  Back then the pay was pretty good.


    Are you as surprised as I am that Cruz (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    won in IA despite his anti-ethanol position?

    A little bit. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:46:38 AM EST
    Although, outside of those getting the subsidies, I don't think most people really don't care about it. I get the impression that water quality is a much bigger issue right now.

    It was interesting that Branstad and son's denouncement of Cruz on his anti-ethanol stance didn't seem to make a bit of difference in the outcome.


    I think (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    Some of Cruz's votes were people just voting against Trump.  Just MO.

    And where (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    The Brooklyn hipsters are moving to

    That's saying a lot for a NY (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    transplant to CO.

    Oculus....you know Midwestern cold is the worst! (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    And that's why I live out here. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    Only place I've ever lived where it snowed was Seattle when I was in college. Even then, it only snowed a few times. But one snowstorm was truly memorable because it happened during finals week in early December and the entire city was paralyzed for nearly a week. Finals had to be rescheduled, and they bumped up on Christmas Eve. I don't mind visiting the snow, but I don't want to live ewith it.

    Lived in Sioux City for 8 years... (none / 0) (#52)
    by magster on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    That place was the tundra.

    Why did you subject yourself to that? (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    There's a reason we call it Sewer City.

    15% viability per precinct (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:17:19 PM EST
    is true in Colorado as well, but caucuses happen too late in the game to make a difference.

    Heh, we go last but we get (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:28:53 PM EST
    to vote for all kinds of initiatives and our jungle primary allows the top two vote finishers to advance regardless of party.

    But no real drama here.  Even in the General.  That outcome was decided by Pete Wilson in 1994.


    When Gov. Wilson foisted Prop. 187 ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    ... upon California's electorate in 1994, in what was initially a successful effort to gin up the angry white vote and win his re-election bid against the current governor's sister Kathleen Brown, he actually sowed the seeds for the state GOP's eventual political marginalization.

    While he began his career as a moderate state legislator and an eminently reasonable and effective mayor of San Diego, Wilson's naked and blind ambition drove him ever rightward to become a truly malevolent and regressive force in California politics, and one which spanned an entire generation.

    Granted, the state GOP won what at first appeared to be a series of spectacular electoral victories under Wilson's leadership, which likely culminated in the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger's simultaneous election to that office.

    But those victories ultimately proved to be quite Pyrrhic and toxic in their cumulative effect. For in the process of engineering each of those triumphs, Wilson and the Republicans had successively managed to first anger California's minority communities, and then alienate and repulse many of its moderate white voters.

    Thus, the short-term expediency which always underscored Wilson's political decision making was really quite detrimental to his party's long-term prospects, because his thinly-veiled appeals to white solidarity in the face of California's rapidly changing demographics eventually served to undermine the GOP's competitive viability as a statewide organization.

    In 1995, 40% of state voters were registered Republicans, and the GOP not only held seven of California's eight statewide elected offices but also (briefly) controlled the state legislature. That share of the state electorate has since fallen off sharply to a paltry 21%, and the California GOP today holds no statewide offices, and further only 42 of 120 state legislators are Republican.

    The polarizing divisions and noxious atmosphere left in Pete Wilson's wake will likely stand as his historical legacy in California, and when he finally passes from the scene, his political obituary will read as the cynical triumph of a hollow man.



    Every presidential election.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    The Dems get spotted 2 of the biggest EV prizes available -- CA and NY

    The GOP gets TX, but by 2024, I bet TX is a swing state because of what you just described and the demographic changes that are going on.


    ... California was not only a once-reliable GOP-leaning state that produced both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, but has also long been something of a political bellwether.

    The GOP's eventual fate, not only in Texas but also nationally as well, has been foretold by that party's precipitous decline all along the west coast over the last 25 years. And in major urban areas throughout the country, Republicans are hardly even competitive any more.

    San Francisco, believe it or not, once had an active and robust GOP presence as recently as the late 1970s. But Republicans' self-destructive penchant for white-identity politics -- which culminated in the politically motivated Nov. 1978 assassinations of Democratic Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by former GOP Supervisor Dan White -- has since marginalized and discredited the GOP so thoroughly in that city, the party no longer even maintains an office there, just a P.O. Box.

    But rather than reject white-identity politics for the one-way road to eventual electoral oblivion that it is, and make the necessary course correction in order to appeal to a wider cross-section of the country's electorate, Republicans are instead doubling down on stupid and letting that bet ride.

    I don't get it, but so be it.


    Not too late this year (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    March 1 (aka Super Tuesday.)

    BTW, both Clinton and Sanders will be attending the annual Democratic dinner in Denver on Saturday, February 13 (in between the NH and Nevada contests, I believe.)


    From the NYT endorsement of (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    Kasich: The only plausible choice for Republicans tired of extremism and inexperience on display. And, Kasich is no moderate. He has gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights  and opposed same sex marriage.

    On the runners-up: Trump and Cruz are equally objectionable. Trump has neither the interest nor interest  in learning about national security, defense or global trade.  Even unemployment figures ,which he pegged at 23 or 42 percent, (try 5 percent) don't merit his attention.  

    On the "wall" Trump told the NYT editorial board, "You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, "We will build the wall! and they go nuts." A good applause line.

    Cruz will say anything to win, and the greater worry is that he'd follow words with action--like carpet bombing Syrian villages.

    Jeb has failed to ignite much support, but at least he has criticized the bigotry of Trump and the warmongering of Cruz.

    Rubio is embracing the alarmist views of the front runners. The terrorist attacks on Paris and San Bernardino exposed Ben Carson's inability to grasp the world. Christie has said he would shoot down Russian planes, engage with the dead King of Jordan and bar refugees, including orphaned Syrian toddlers.

    Kasich (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    Without question would be the most serious general election candidate.

    Fortunately for us IMO he has the about the same chances as I do of actually being the nominee.


    Yes, Kasich (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    has as much a chance as Christie's favorite King. But, the NYT endorsement does reinforce by thinking that Trump may pick him as his running mate. Or, at least be a major contender for that job.  Would give the Republican establishment some cover for the inevitable turn-around to support the ticket; Trump is awful, but that Kasich guy is great.  And, there is the Ohio electoral count.  Although, Trump may go for someone like Kim Kardasian.  

    No (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:17:09 PM EST
    I think he would be very smart about it.  He would run hard to the center.   Wonder if Kasich would do it?  Probably.   If not someone else would.