The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    All that glitters is not Silver

    By HSG on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 9:31am | Politics

    SandersNate Silver’s 538 deserves journalism’s worst timing award.  On August 11, 538’s Harry Enten all but crowned Hillary Democratic nominee claiming that the Bernie Sanders surge was “over“.  A few hours later, the first of two polls came out showing Sanders ahead by 7 in New Hampshire.

    Friday, this drivel comes out in which self-anointed seers proclaim that Hillary remains the prohibitive favorite regardless of whether Biden enters the race.  Saturday the Des Moines Register reported that Sanders had nearly eliminated Clinton’s formerly mammoth  advantage in Iowa. She’s below 40% matched against Biden and Sanders and at 43% with Biden out.  Among Iowa Democrats under 45 years old, Sanders thumps every other candidate.

    In late July, Bernie was within 5 of Hillary in Oregon.  I’m unaware of any more recent polling there but given the trajectory of the two candidates in other states and in national polls (each national pollster’s most recent poll shows a tighter race than its previous poll did), it’s a fair bet that they're dead even in the Beaver State.  Also Bernie does almost exactly as well as Hillary in polls measuring their support against the cons.  Biden does better than either.  So yeah 538, you’re right on top of this one, stick a fork in Bernie (and Biden and O’Malley and Chafee), he’s all done.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Hillary is going to focus on delegates and endorsements. She realizes that she lost the delegate battle in 2008. Hillary still has a commanding lead among non-white Democrats. Endorsements from Cornel West and Black Lives Matter may improve things, or may fall flat. Sanders met with Jesse Jackson recently. Bernie does well in heavily white States. Blacks are 2% in Oregon, 3.3% in Iowa, and 1.5% in New Hampshire.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:28am

    Hal, you're behind the curve - Harry Enten already answered this 10 days ago. Polling (multiple), endorsements, fundraising. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/ You're cherry picking again - Bernie is very likely done in terms of real, not hyped chances. Think Bernie can touch California, New York, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Texas? Gone, baby, gone. Only if Hillary's in trouble does Biden stand a chance, but he's a bad candidate as he's shown again and again. The guys at 538 are being kind to entertain a "How bernie can win thread" but he only has 4% of the black vote and Hillary leads by 10 miles among core Democrats. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-could-win/

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:54am

    Thanks PeraclesPlease.  You may well be right.  Still in the past month, 538 has called the race all but over twice and less than 24 hours later a poll has been released showing a very significant erosion in Clinton's support.  That's bad timing.

    As I suggested in a previous post, I believe that Sanders is poised to make significant inroads among Democrats of color.   Besides his superior grade at CampaignZero and the endorsement he received from Cornel West (which I believe, contrary to other bloggers here, will be a positive for Bernie), he has also received the endorsement of rapper Killer Mike which, according to columnist H.A. Goodman, spells trouble for Clinton.  For what it's worth, activist rapper Li'l B has also endorsed Bernie after previously saying he supports Hillary.

    As blogger Synchronicity implied right here at Dagblog, Clinton is receiving financial assistance from the private prison industry to which Campaign Zero and Black Lives Matter rightly attribute a portion of the blame for the obscenely high rate of incarceration of black men. 

    Latinos, too, are likely to look askance at this Clinton connection given that private prisons house a higher percentage of both African Americans and Hispanics than do government-operated facilities.  To the extent that this information becomes more widely disseminated - and you can bet Bernie's supporters and also many activists of color will sound the alarum - Clinton's support among blacks and Latinos may begin to wane quickly. 

    Lastly, if Biden does enter the race, he is much more likely to attract significant minority support from Clinton than from Sanders since he doesn't have much now anyway.


    by HSG on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 11:49am

    I don't see the lobbying numbers as relevant - only a quarter million bucks raised? Everyone working for same lobbyists? How then to paint 1 as guilty and in bed? It's already been published that Hillary is now begrudgingly going for larger donors post-Citizens - welcome to the new reality - money talks. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-r...

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 3:59pm

    Odd of you to link to that article, which Hal links to indirectly in this post. And regardless of the dollar amount, although 250 large is a big enough number for me to raise my eyebrows, the policies those contributions represent are disgusting.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 4:04pm

    Certainly paid prisons are not the only clients these guys represent, no?

    Cherry-picking info is rather dangerous unless you're just trying to tear someone down by whatever means. I imagine if I go through Bernie Sanders' donors and every small budget add-on to legislation he's voted for, I can make him look like Attila the Hun mixed with Simon LeGree. $250K is a pathetic amount in a primary campaign that will probably hit $100mill, a general campaign that will hit $1bill.

    In any case, Bernie's had his tiny safe house by the Canadian border through all of his career - no need to make so many distasteful decisions and compromises, far from the stink of real politics, far from the loonies who hold the keys to the coffers.  He hasn't even had to compromise with that stinkhouse of differing opinions called the Democratic Party.  Pretty boy has his patchoolie oil on - I'm going to guess he lasts 5 minutes when things get rough.

    Anyway, I keep waiting for a real scandal with Hillary, full-page photos, page boys on all-fours, SM whip & furs, $1000 bills in her teeth & a $10 million enemies list slushfund, something fun... Instead it's what, Benghazi, Sarajevo, email tightly parsed sentences and scrunched words and a bunch of mighta coulda shoulda with charity deals? If they're going to drag her down, can't they find some real hounds to do it - 25 years on her ass and all she gets are poodles and pomeranians? She deserves dobermanns with hakenkreuz. Enough "raised eyebrows" - I want to see the bodies and blood and sex tapes.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/31/2015 - 5:15am

    I couldn't care less about any of those so-called scandals. They're bullshit. You're absolutely right.

    As for the the $250,000 in question, you tell me: HC is unaware of it? There isn't an implicit understanding buried in there somewhere, especially when you consider her record on crime and punishment (hint: it sucks)?

    I get it, no candidate is perfect. There is always a bit of nose holding when we go to the ballot box. But the list of reasons to not support HC is way too long for me. Her vote to go to war with Iraq--and that's what it was, let's stop pretending--is a disqualifier for me. More importantly, Sanders is so right about so much. 

    Now, I'm happy to ignore all of the issues and policy positions so long as we're honest about it. I'm just not seeing the conversation taking on that quality. Instead, the ideas are that Sanders is from a backwater with no real experience at governing who is sure to wilt under the hot lights, while HC is the seasoned politician who can handle the "Big Chair," because, well, we just know it in our guts.

    So proceed. Tell us all again why the vote to authorize the Iraq war doesn't matter. Tell us how "safe legal and rare" isn't craven triangulation. Tell us about how unimportant Welfare Reform was. Etc., etc.   


    by kyle flynn on Tue, 09/01/2015 - 12:38pm

    Oh my, you leave me with two slowballs mid-plate. Hillary's vote to "authorize the Iraq War" was tied to pressuring Hussein on inspections, which actually worked, was a foregone conclusion as the Republicans had the majority + presidency so no veto, was the same position voted by most every major Democrat like Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle... along with the UN security Council a month later. With Hans Blix noting his skepticism turned positive only in January. And Emptywheel published today more proof that John Yoo's memo was used deliberately to fake the SOTU. Welfare inefficiency at the time was an albatross around everyone's neck - better to deal with it in a time of expanded growth. Look at job growth and actual poverty rates. It wasn't till Bush took over "managing" poverty while giving kickbacks to the rich instead of "social security lockbox" that Clinton's reforms became a problem - I.e. blame it on W

    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 09/01/2015 - 4:18pm

    Every major Democrat? Not even. More than half the Dems in the Senate and 60% in the House voted no. Sanders, of course, voted no. Hell, Lincoln Chafee voted no. And Obama, even in the face of how ambitious we now know he was, came out strongly and publicly against the resolution. Had HC found her way to the right side of the issue, she'd be president today. The irony in that, if I had to guess, is that she knew at the time she'd eventually run for president and she hedged. Shameful. Justify it all you want.

    As for Welfare Reform, HC has a clear record. Christopher Massie describes it here. The law has a clear history, too. More than 80% of Democrats in the House and half of them in the Senate voted against it. Of course, Sanders voted no. I honestly can't figure out how this stuff is so easily forgotten.


    by kyle flynn on Tue, 09/01/2015 - 8:34pm

    I specifically said "most every major". And don't give me the state senator Oama tripe - we know his war record now. The resolution was part of getting inspections - the Democrats weren't given a passable second option. And it didn't matter - the resolution was going to pass. Hanging it all around Hillary's neck is simply dumb or disingenuous. Regarding welfare reform, it worked, then Bush screwed it up. Not sure what you expect the article yo prove - liberals still can't stand the trashing of shitty welfare programs leading to shitty slum houses because it smears their great society legacy or something. The problem was huge - Clinton and Gore did something about it. Move on. Of course putting in Bush over Gore was guaranteed to wreck much of Clinton's legacy - like duh.

    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 12:25am

    Specifically most every. Hilarious.

    We disagree. The passable alternative was to vote no, to fight against what was wrong.156 members of in the House and Senate found their way to oppose. I hold HC responsible for not doing that. I've never suggested "hanging it all" on her. She's got company. Thing is, it's a piss-poor excuse. Besides, they aren't running for president.  (FWIW, and I doubt it's much, quite a bit of Obama's foreign policy bothers me.)

    Not sure what it is you think worked so well because of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Makes me wonder if maybe you wouldn't feel more at home supporting John Kasich. He's running. Sanders voted against it. Here is how he describes the legislation in 1997. Give it a look.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 2:25am

    "The passable alternative was to vote no, to fight against what was wrong." - Hans Blix among many others thought in Oct 2002 that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program. What specifically do you find "passable" post-9/11 about not verifying that suspicion?

    "156 members of in the House and Senate found their way to oppose." - congratulations - if they just opposed, I don't really care. If they opposed with a decent reason, I applaud. Also I applaud those who voted for the AUMF with a decent reason. It's not easy when you have a conniving moron as President but have a conniving vindictive asshole as a foreign adversary. The pressure to get Hussein to allow inspections was most useful - historically we now know that Bush lied - otherwise we would continue just guessing whether Bush lied his way to war & whether Hussein was as much of a danger as suspected in Oct 2002 (ignoring the uranium/nuclear weapon bullshit).

    "I hold HC responsible for not doing that.... Besides, they aren't running for president." - lessee, Biden's being pitched as dark horse for president, Kerry ran for president, Edwards ran for president, Obama ran for president (and it was obvious he was pro-war in the Mideast despite that little speech)...


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 5:34am

     

    I get it. You support HC. Her support of the invasion isn't a problem for you. I don't share your enthusiasm for the war against Iraq and Hussein. Fair enough. As for Biden, if he runs I won't support him, either. I didn't support Kerry or Edwards in the 2004 primary nor did I support Edwards in 2008. While we're on the subject, I welcome any strong primary challenge against Maria Cantwell here in Washington State. I generally support Patty Murray and think she should be the Democratic leader in the Senate. Schumer's opposition to the Iran deal should disqualify him. (Seeing a pattern here?) And HC's vote to authorize is just one of many reasons I'm not interested in seeing her become the Democratic nominee. Or president for that matter. When the general election rolls around, we'll see. (And Obama was pro-war? Give me a break.) 


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 11:33am

    No, you don't quite get it - Hillary was junior senator less than 2 years in on the opposition side of the aisle at a time when Dems had no credible security response beyond "runbthings through Interpol" and no-fly zones. Whilebthose no-fly zones worked really well for 10 years, post-9/11 it wasn't a palatable or sensible choice to just assume Hussein with billions of dollars set aside for whatever including possible secret weapons programs would stay contained forever with a few jets overhead. Would Hussein have let in inspectors and cooperated without serious military threat? Certainly not. If we had done inspections to assure compliance and stopped when assured, we would've taken a major worry and security concern off the table. Did the Russians, Chinese and British sign on thinking we'd just fake the evidence and go in solo anyway? Well, maybe the thoroughly tarnished Tony Blair did. But Hillary didn't drive or play a part in the war machine aside from making some thoroughly reasonable comments at the time. (comparatively, Obama's assurance that Hussein posed no danger to his neighbors was vacuous and based on no intelligence, only a hope and prayer). The left will never forgive people for being sensible, even while the media will never stop inviting on the real warmongers with their exaggerated claims and visions of easy helpful regime change.

    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 12:08pm

    Your unbending support for HC is weirdly admirable. I've never heard even Lanny Davis defend her war vote as rigorously as you do. I think HC is a hawk who never met a regime change she didn't like, especially when she can imagine a political upside that feeds her ambition. You don't. It seems we're never going to see eye to eye on these matters. We'll live, at least.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 1:42pm

    No, I'm a realist who as an expat got to explain the US' foreign policy situation a lot to befuddled Europeans who were used to a safe-European-home scenario & unfamiliar with the enough's-enough situation we had after 6 years of OBL picking more & more obnoxious targets.

    This sea-change was huge enough that both Qaddafi and Sinn Fein did 180 degrees reversal on their previous stances & tactics - they got a glimpse of the new world order even if you didn't.

    And as I think I noted re: regime change, I thought our overthrow in Libya was counterproductive, as was Syria, as was the overthrow of Hussein once we knew he wasn't holding WMDs or any major threat to us or regional stability. Even with Afghanistan, I thought it was a waste to stay there longer than 1 or 2 months to ensure they got the clue. Why you take all this as "unbending support for HC" is weirdly laughable - I've criticized her on Libya, likely deserves it on arming "moderates" in Syria, and I didn't much like her dissing Eric Snowden for the good he's done to US transparency. But enough digital ink - you'll believe what you want.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 4:50pm

    You get the last word.


    by kyle flynn on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 6:22pm

    Feel better now Hal?

    Harry Enten

    We Got Berned - Aug 31, 2015

    At least they admit when they might have made a mistake.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Tue, 09/01/2015 - 2:19am

    Actually he didn't admit any mistake. He just said Bernie continues Big Mo in New Hampshire, unsurprisingly, and his numbers are flat in Iowa's but Hillary's are sinking slightly, but in the real world and most state contests,Bernie is cooked.

    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 09/01/2015 - 3:21am

    In defending 538 against recent criticism (like mine), Harry Enten tosses off this howler:  "But Sanders’s numbers in Iowa, even in the Des Moines Register survey, have remained relatively consistent."  In the penultimate DMR poll, Sanders was at 16%, in the just-released one, he's at 30% with Biden in the race 35% without him.  Yeah that's consistency.


    by HSG on Tue, 09/01/2015 - 8:49am

    Ah well, enjoy the howler. 5 months to see if it matters.

    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 12:33am

    The "penultimate" DMR poll was taken in May, shortly after Sanders announced. It's a noteworthy increase to be sure, but if he hadn't polled at least that well by August there would be no conversation. And speaking of Biden, he pulled votes away from Sanders and Clinton almost equally, which is interesting.

    by barefooted on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 12:48am

    Ah, more cherry picking - good catch.

    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/02/2015 - 12:58am

    I'm beginning to wonder what Bernie's cult followers will do when they realize that their White Moses will not lead them to the Promised Land. It could get ugly with thousands of hysterical Bern refugees fleeing oppression and storming the Canadian border.

    Scott Walker is promoting a Canadian border wall supposedly for security reasons but it could be for interdicting these refugees and herding these poor souls back into the FEMA operated Trump Apprentice Camps where they can be reeducated and put on the path to productive citizenship or at least jobs replacing the Illegal immigrants that maintain Trump's hotel empire.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 12:21pm

    I think folks are wrong to be so confident about Clinton's inevitability, but as the Zen story goes, we'll see.

    So what happens when the beginning of October rolls around and Sanders' numbers nationally have improved, he's still leading in New Hampshire and is polling statistically even or ahead in Iowa? It's gonna happen. Right around then more that 100,000 Sanders supporters will be gathering on the Mall in D.C. Meanwhile, Clinton will be fielding political questions from a mob in Congress. Say what you will about the non-scandal, it ain't a non-story. Oh, and the debates, don't forget about those.

    Finally, no one with sense can ignore Clinton's strong support among super delegates and the rest of the Democratic Machine. But it's an open question whether there is passionate support across the board for the candidate or the fear of being on the wrong side of a Clinton victory. Ambitious politicians don't want any piece of that loyalty litmus test.

    We'll see. 


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 4:41pm

    I agree that Nate Silver is off his game.  However, I also realize that this election can not be measured in quite the same ways as the past.  This election is becoming more about The People Vs. Oligarchy than Dem Vs. Republican.  The democrat party has made it so in my view by the DNC and establishment dems expressed bias and breaking of rules and fairness to promote Hillary Clinton as a candidate we 'must' accept.  That is the bottom line.

    I recall commenting on Nate's site a couple of months ago and bringing up the fact that Bernie Sanders is attracting people across party lines.  That idea was rejected by many at the time.  I think people are beginning to see the reality of it.   I had a lifelong republican at my organizing meeting last weekend and he informed me that he had changed his registration to Democrat so that he could vote for Bernie Sanders. Of course many independents are doing the same.  Instead of capitalizing on this and gaining ground the Democrat establishment seem to be assuring that they won't hold on to these new converts.

    I'd say something must be lacking in your politics if you feel the need to call real support for Bernie Sanders 'cult followers'.  What is going on in our government today truly is unsustainable and don't imagine that this is all about Bernie because it's not.  It's about the people basically losing almost all power.  This is a fight to see if we still have a chance to assert power politically and put some balance back into our system of government.  People are waking up to the reality that Corporations & Billionaires are blatantly buying our so-called representatives & writing our laws and leaving us with very little power in a system that in theory was meant to represent 'the people'.  And with this control they are turning the people into economic slaves.  Many don't seem to get what is really going on... they prefer to pretend that this election can be more of the status quo of the past.  Look at Donald Trump, he may be a buffoon but clearly people across the spectrum are supporting changing up the status quo.  

    Fortunately Bernie Sanders can easily beat Trump in the general.  I am looking forward to some serious change and a political revolution that stays strong 'after' we elect Bernie Sanders to fight for the changes that can restore economic fairness and quality of life for ALL Americans.  


    by synchronicity on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 1:15pm

    Trump appeals "across the spectrum"? Think not. Why should I be happy if Bernie appeals to Republicans? What's he doing wrong? Don't think 538 will adjust their methods for some perceived shift in the landscape - they survived the teabagger explosion just fine.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 3:56pm

    It is still to early to predict what the final out come of this election will be.  What we are seeing is a strong push back on the ruling class in both parties. Jack Germond always said that poling this early only showed momentum and little else.  

    Bernie Sanders has reintroduced a style of campaigning that we have not seen since Robert Kennedy. The Lee Atwater and Jody Powell consultant era is almost over. 

    Sanders is working hard at getting his message out.  He knew that it would be a slog before he started the campaign. He has also made this a people's campaign. People are responding to it and actively participating in it. This is the continuation of Occupy Wall St. The majority of people will not participate in a sit in but will attend rallies and donate their spare change to help move the country in a better direction.  Voters have been systematically been left out of government over the last 40 years.  This is a new demand and direction for voters. It won't be going away after this election whether Sanders wins or not. 

    That is something that those with their crystal balls are not calibrated to include in the prediction mix. When the election is over Silver may have to rewrite his recipe for his special sauce. 


    by trkingmomoe on Sun, 08/30/2015 - 5:11pm