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

    Bernie wins New York

    By PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 12:25am |

    As Bernie wins over 50 of New York's 62 counties, it becomes obvious that Bernie Sanders has charmed a good portion of the electorate yet again, and there remain fierce concerns and problems to be resolved for Democrats, not just Independents who couldn't vote, and Americans as a whole. 

    Not just the chaos and disruption of the Republicans, the rural vs urban and borough by borough split gives a view of a deeper divide that won't just be papered over by a convincing winner. It's likely that the contest will spill over into a more entrenched version of the unhappy left in union with an ever-growing marginalized economic class - to a large extent whites who haven't made it but other groups who are struggling or angry or simply looking for a place at the table.

    It would be a mistake to simply claim as a victory a rather solid indication of divide. Once again it's confirmed that there are 2 directions, and while a 15% lead is convincing, I'm not quite certain of what - a large portion of the populace remains in doubt, and the numbers game won't weed out the uncertainty - something's wrong upstate and in Gotham. Ignore it at our peril.

    Hillary blue, Bernie green

     

     

    Comments

    Updated with maps. (NYC preliminary - needed a non-interactive one)

    Even though Hillary won by 300,000 votes & almost 16% (over a million votes total), I was surprised by how much her wins were focused on 4 spots, NYC of course being the largest.

    Worth considering how it would have looked had this been an open primary with simpler registration laws.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 7:04am

    Sorry PP, I ignore it and I don't think there's any peril. We can create maps like this all over the US. We've got these low population states with large tracts of land with almost nobody living on it. Great blocks of red on the map with a smattering of people here and there. Why should I give a shit about that? A person gets one vote.They don't get a bonus if they own a thousand acres, or if they live near people with thousands of acres. Their vote counts the same as someone living in a 200 square foot apartment with 6 other people.

    Sanders lost NY and he lost it big. He may have won by the acre but land doesn't vote in America. He lost with the people.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 7:43am

    It's more city mouse vs. country mouse. I'm not concerned about land - I'm concerned about people's needs that aren't being addressed, and upstate New York isn't quite as sparse as rural Arizona or Montana, is it.

    Both Saratoga and Ulster Counties had twice as many votes as the Alaska, Hawaii or Wyoming caucuses.

    I don't think they're lining up to vote for single payer healthcare and obviously "superpredator" hasn't made much of a dent (except for liberal whites?), but I consider it a pretty strong sign of protest vote, 

    I don't figure typical folks in upstate New York are that concerned about wall-to-wall media smears on Benghazi or "trustworthy", or "Clinton Dynasty" either. Nor do I think the youth vote is oh so high in most of these spots.

    So my question remains, "what's eating Gilbert Grape?" Is it the lack of good jobs? the way monied interests (NYC?) cut to the front of the line? I'd doubt it's foreign policy, since we're a nation of non-passport holders.

    But I think it's worth knowing, both for November and for growing the party.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 8:04am

    May be worth knowing but I still don't see a problem. I'm not even sure it's a protest vote. What's happening in the democratic primary isn't the same as what's happening in the republican primary. The republican candidates factions mostly hate the other candidates. They may unite in the general, they may not. Most democrats are saying I'm ok with either. It's a preference vote. At the most nasty part of the primary, and it's really been none to nasty, 75% of Sanders supporters say they will easily vote for Hillary. I suspect when tempers cool that number will get higher.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 8:55am

    Hillary got over 1 million votes. The 3 GOP candidates got a little under 860K. The Democrats are OK in NY.

    Bernie can get a significant number of white votes, but unfortunately his base is not as diverse as Hillary's base. In the black community, Sanders' message is that Barack Obama is a failure and the CongressIonal, Black Caucus are Conservadems paid off by corporations and the Clintons. Sanders and his surrogates argue that something magical will happen when the competent Socialist comes in to correct the mistakes of the incompetent black guy. Sanders sealed his fate when he selected Cornel Westvas his first major surrogate. West criticizes the black community in hip pity-hop verbiage, that does not go over well with older black voters. Sanders made it virtually inevitable that Hillary would have the advantage among black voters.

    Spike Lee and Danny Glover make great movies, but no one makes political decisions based on their appeals. Keith Ellison has no real national base. Nina Turner also has no national base in the black community and she lost her statewide race in Ohio. Hillary had icons like John Lewis and James Clyburn. She also had rising stars like Cory Booker. The mothers of teens slain by police and the Mayor of Flint were all on board with Hillary. When Sanders' surrogate suggested that every black person who did not Feel the Berne were Uncle Toms, the bulk of the black voting community stopped listening to his pie in the sky promises and his basic disrespect for President Obama.

    Democrats are in good position nationwide because Hillary brings a diverse base. The black community views Susan Sarandon as a film star who may have portrayed one revolutionary too many on screen. She was on Real Time last Friday and also had condescending remarks about President Obama. Black voters analyzed Sanders' message and made a conscious and wise decision to reject him as the best candidate for their issues.Sanders put the bitter taste in the mouths of black voters.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 8:16am

    I'm not concerned about Susan Sarandon or the Obama gripers. But outside NYC, Hillary won in only 3 places - by 300 votes in Buffalo (0.4%), 2600 in Rochester (3.6%), 2250 in Onondaga/Syracuse (6%).

    My guess is that it's the small town voter, especially whites, that aren't buying into her campaign as much as city voters, blacks, etc. Maybe it's backlash from Obama and her wrapping herself around him - she did well with white rural voters in 2008, but perhaps the financial meltdown shifted that to a degree. Maybe being Obama's shadow doesn't cut it for many after 7 1/4 years.

    Bill ran on "It's the Economy, Stupid". I've seen good proposals out of Hillary, but maybe as Flavius noted, it's not pointed enough to cut through for many. Perhaps black voters for one are more accepting of nuance, of tradeoffs. Maybe whites tend towards Bundys and just react. Maybe something completely different. Still think it's worth pondering seriously.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 8:41am

    I think it is curious. Sanders represents a state that is "rural", so maybe there is a sympathy factor with upstate New Yorkers. It could be environmental consciousness, Vermont being a leader in such.

    It could be that HRC is seen as a city slicker. (my mother, in rural Iowa, a life long Democrat, couldn't stand Bill Clinton and always referred to him as Slick Willy.)


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 11:20am

    Just thinking numbers.

    I'd like to see Hillary somehow get those under 30s into her tent. But if she fails they're going to just stay home.

    I'd like to see her get 45 year old hunters into her tent. More. If she fails they're going to vote for Trump.

    Speaking of hunters ,two guys are driving up the Taconic when they see a sign saying bear left.

    So they go  home..

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 10:46pm

    Ouch - jokes like that and millenials *will* stay home.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 12:43am

    In other words, Hillary only won the places where people live? Huh.

    You know that the NYC area has more people than the rest of the state does, right? And the remaining population is concentrated on those other three spots?

    Look at the New York Times map that lets you drill down: HRC wins Monroe County, the Rochester area 37,000 to 34,000. Bernie wins the next county over 877 to 650. I'm not so impressed.

    (Meanwhile, HRC racked up an 87,000 vote lead in Manhattan, a 58,000 vote lead in Brooklyn, 54,000 in the Bronx, and so on. Bernie could have taken 100% of the vote in a bunch of his counties and still lost.)

    I've got no problem with one person, one vote. Hillary is leading for a simple reason: millions more people across the country have voted for her.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 10:07am

    To bastardize a quote from Mittens, "Acres are people, my friend."


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 11:16am

    Well no, Bernie won places where people live, just fewer of them.

    Some of the counties are fairly insignificant, but certainly not 51 of them.

    Good to know everyone's incurious just as long as Hillary won.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 11:50am

    Guess Huffpost has a few ideas why:

    More than 6 in 10 New York Democratic voters said that Wall Street does more to hurt the economy than help, according to preliminary exit polling reported by CNN and The New York Times.

    Clinton won by almost 60 points among the 30 percent of voters who said Wall Street does more to help the economy.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 12:03pm

    From the WaPo

    According to the exit polls, Sanders won 67 percent of voters age 18 to 29. Clinton won all the others. Sanders eked out a 51 percent to 49 percent win over Clinton for the white vote. But Clinton won 75 percent of the African American vote and 63 percent of the Hispanic vote. 79 percent of Black woman supported Clinton. With the exception of the 50-50 split with Sanders of voters who have attended “some college,” Clinton won all education brackets. 

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/20/new-yor...

    Edit to add: 

    Hillary is winning the female vote. Women are a much more important part of the electorate than the Millennials.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/20/hillary-s-army-of-women...

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 3:37pm

    With all due respect rmrd, this sounds like a sexist statement.

    Now I am not going to accuse you of sexist statement.

    But damn, it sure sounds like a sexist statement.

    I like women sure.

    I even like nekked women even more?

    WHAT?

    I never felt the need to see Hillary nekked.

    I promise.

    WHAT THE HELL WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN?

    I mean I never felt the urge to see T-Rump nekked?

    And I do think that my grandchildren are millenials.

    After all, the three of them were certainly born in this new century.

    I get lost at times.

    hahhhahahah

    ​And I would demand all these grandchildren to vote for Hillary.

    the end

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 4:14pm

    Gee, I though I was being ageist.

    Drat

    Foiled again.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 4:55pm

    Wasn't it supposed to be "folders of women"?

    I don't think you're really being sexist or ageist here - I think you're being educatist. People with "some college" are people too. And you dismiss Millennials the way Sanders dismisses the South - at long last have you no shame, senator blogger?

    Personally, I wonder what i'm doing here - they've got ice cream over on the other thread, and here we're doing wonk stuff with numbers. 

    Maybe the consolation with Bernie fans is pot ice cream - America could indeed have some kind of revolution. Ali G's already been talking to Trump about it, even though he didn't quite come out and say it...


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 5:26pm

    More widely, I feel like there's a bit of blundering incuriosity - and downright bullheadedness - in HRC-land. 

    If you argue that she doesn't run well with certain groups, a lot of it gets written off to sexism, Trumpish stupidity, evil media, etc.

    And absolutely, those are all things, and all carry weight.

    But to win elections, you have to be critical as hell in thinking about your own candidates. And if you see a weakness with young people... and with those who are critical of Wall Street... then those are worth worrying about, it seems to me. I'd like the highly-energized young voters swinging my way come election season, thanks.

    Because if we're up against Trump, I want a motivated crowd on my side. And not just motivated by how scary the bastard is. But motivated because they like, nay, LOVE, our side. 

    The two Dem leaders who won the presidency in the last 40 or so years both happened to be people who appealed to the young, who had a chunk of charisma, and who got people motivated - Bill and then Obama. 

    HRC isn't giving me - or a chunk of other voters - much on that front right now. 

    And sure, I like Bernie and all. And the "Socialist" thing doesn't worry me much, right, being from Canada. But Bernie wouldn't make our Top 10 Socialist political candidates. He's fine, but he's not great.

    And yet his message - even coming from a 74 year old et  etc. - has some traction and excitement that HRC isn't generating. 

    And I'd really prefer it if her advisors started rethinking and retooling their messages and policies now, rather than after the primaries.

     


    by quinn esq on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 7:43pm

    Hillary's supporters do not come out in the tens of thousands to see her, they just show up at the polls. Sanders supporters have shown up at Clinton rallies to protest. To my knowledge, Clinton supporters do not show up at Sanders rallies. The Clinton supporters do not get angry at being labeled Conservadems, they simply vote.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/20/2016 - 11:29pm

    Sure, but the youth vote drives election enthusiasm even if they don't show up at the polls so much.

    And the disaffected white independents that Bernie's tapping into just may go to Trump or stay home if there's no evolving message that excites them other than "I know everybody in DC & Wall Street so can get stuff done". 

    They seem to not be happy about what "stuff" gets done.

    Trump says he can get other "stuff" done - and he's drawing huge crowds. Obama beat Romney by only 4 points in an unexciting election, only 7 points against a moribund irascible McCain and a loony Palin. Bill Clinton would have gotten trounced if Ross Perot hadn't siphoned off the angry independent vote.

    Yes, Hillary has the nomination wrapped up now. And there are months to build some excitement into the campaign, even it's not her strong suit. I don't think she needs to pivot to the center too much at this point, so she can use the time to improve on making a hardcore bloc of Democratic voters.

    Besides, how do we implement a successful 50-state push to take back legislatures without addressing who these reluctant people are and getting them into the Democratic fold? There's a 20%+ swing between liberal and conservative states, and it's tough to keep them all happy, but it has to be tried.

    If Hillary can inherit Bernie's "Revolution", she'll have double the strength. Without, it'll be a nail biter and a long 4 or 8 years of lowered expectations. A buffoon like Trump or a hateable ferret like Cruz on the other ticket is a golden opportunity (ticket?) for a rout if played right, but then again, the Republicans seem to rise to the support of their clowns. The non-Tea Party independents may be the secret.

    Anyway, will need an updated message for November - might as well make it a more inclusive one and build on success.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 12:41am

    Seems there's different people with different philosophies and  who want different things.I'm just looking to hire  someone to do a job.  I've been hired many times for many jobs. I just did a resume, showed them my degree, and did the interview. No one was there screaming "OceanKat! OceanKat! Oceankat's gonna be the daddy to your motherboard." I've hired people. I didn't start weeping when they did a good job with the paint brush cutting in the window.

    I supported Hillary in 08 but I liked Obama just fine. One thing though. What worried me was the way people were weeping and fainting and shouting out, "I love you." No one told me they loved me when I got the job. I never told anyone I hired I loved them. I'm not looking for some Supreme Leader. I'm not looking for some Che Guevara to put on my T shirt. I'm looking to hire the most competent employee that will do the job of president or senator, or governor generally the way I want it done. I'm not looking to fall in love and when people start falling in love with one of my candidates it doesn't make me happy. It makes me suspicious.

    I don't recall you writing stuff like this in 08 over at TPM. Because, you know, Hillary is beating Sanders much more clearly than Obama beat Hillary. I don't recall you questioning Obama about why he can't seem to beat Hillary, why she fought him to a virtual dead heat, what does that say about him.

    I know you don't like Hillary and that's ok. I get you want to be inspired by a speech and that's cool too. But I don't think you get Hillary supporters. We may not go to the pep rally but we go to the polls when it counts. I don't think turnout is down because we're unenthusiastic. It's down because we're winning. Hillary has been clearly winning from the beginning. Many people don't vote if their candidate is winning without them.  If Sanders had truly been competitive Hillary supporters would have looked up and said whoa. If Sanders had truly been competitive we'd have seen record breaking voters in the primary just as we did in 08 imo.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 2:09am

    I don't think Quinn's thinking of this personally. He's been directly involved in campaigns in UK & Canada, successfully and unsuccessfully. There always has to be constant self-evaluation even if no changes are made. If you don't score a demographic, you ask why and then see if anything can be done about it. And if you want to ignite a bunch of coattails to sweep a whole party into power, not just win a particular "job", the evaluation gets more complex, wading between various groups and issues nationwide.

    It's over when Hillary steps in the Oval Office, and even then it's just begun. Self-critique, messaging, execution. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.

    It was easier in 2008 because Hillary & Bill are team players. Bernie's not, and his followers are largely renegades, either the left wing of the party or not even, independents. By a fluke, Obama was able to corral them along with more conservative voters, as he seemed to be all things to all people. To some extent, Hillary's the opposite - they can take a liberal record and see "neoliberal" or "GOP lite".

    Additionally, Obama had several nationwide grassroot orgs pulling for him in 2008 - and largely after election he rolled them into his own group and they largely disappeared. So there's quite a challenge for November.

    It may not be a problem, but with a 3.9% margin last presidential election, I'd rather prepare than not, and assuredly Hillary is a master at over-preparedness.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 2:46am

    Hillary will beat either Trump or Cruz. The ads will be video of the actual statements made by Trump and Cruz. Some polling suggests Kasich could beat Hillary, but this is only because Kasich has not been vetted.When video of his crazed statements become public, Hillary will win the head to head competition.

    I think Bernie has energized many older voters. Sanders attacks on the Democratic Party, the Congressional Black Caucus, and President Obama told older voters that they were dupes. The more he spoke, the angrier older voters became. The energized electorate is in place.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 8:11am

    McCain wins presidential election. Defeats Obama in vast majority of counties.

     


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 5:22pm

    Yes, exactly. Anyone who takes Obama's 7% win as a sign of easy sailing would be sobered by this map.Probably the one from 2012 indicates even a worse time for the last 4 years.

    Of course the problems this forebodes is not with election - Obama won - but with the opposition once he'd won. And losing to a fairly like-minded set (such as the crew in 1992) isn't quite the same as a crew that sees your candidate as Lucrezia Borgia.

    Thanks for helping make my point - a lot of dissension out there to contemplate in victory.

    (in any case, I indicated that upstate New York outside 3 cities is hardly as barren as the Grand Tetons or Death Valley - amirite? Note I didn't bring up the same issue re: Nevada, for several reasons.)


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/21/2016 - 11:50pm

    Wow, it's like even after measuring the length of the lines you still persist in believing the optical illusion. That big red splotch we call Wyoming has half the population as that tiny blue dot we call Rhode Island. That optical illusion makes it appear as though there's a lot of dissension but there's only a lot of acres. A 7% win is what it is even though the map looks like it's 90% red. As in your NY map it appears as though the loser won. Here's a map with the size of the win based on popular vote rather than acres of land.

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/22/2016 - 1:08am

    Look, you're the one who brought in the west.

    New York counties have reasonable population - plus they form the basis of choosing the state legislature. Bernie winning 51 of these may not be a big issue come November, but it may signal a problem and may be a source of opportunity - how to beat Republicans better, not just for president, but for state legislature.

    Republicans hold control of all 3 branches in 23 states; Democrats only 7.

    Republicans hold over 55% of state representatives, senators, and governorships.

    So yes, I'm interested in the places "nobody lives" as Doc CLeveland puts it, since those nobodys in nowhere land are still stocking the state houses and pushing through shit legislation nationwide.

    So if we can message for small town voters, we can improve our power.

    That's it, have last word if you want - I'm sure you understand the concept well enough.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/22/2016 - 3:04am

    I'm not worried that democrats in a democratic primary are going to vote for republican senators and legislatures in the general.

    I'm not interested in seeing the democratic party shift to the right to win more republican voters. I'm not interested in changing the democratic party into a moderate republican party to counter balance the far right. We've been forced to do that for far too long so I'm more interested in taking the chance with the democrats current movement to the left. What is it you're suggesting? should we stop fighting in the face of continued assaults on women's right to chose or stop fighting for lgbt rights? Call for tax cuts and supply side economics? Support voting restrictions, open carry, a border wall? One can only hope that eventually republican failures in states like Kansas and changing demographics will eventually flip some states blue.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 04/22/2016 - 3:33am

    And you think making the effort to better accommodate some of the people supporting Bernie is "shifting to the right"? I thought they were asking for more assurances on jobs, wage growth, trade deals that help everyone rather than the few, etc. I'm not talking about appeasing tea partiers - I'm talking about exciting certain classes of similar-like voters somewhere in the spectrum of Democratic left-leaning ideals so they don't sit home.

    While we're largely supporting Hillary's always incremental approach, there may be some places where she can break out of her safe comfort zone and move faster - obviously only if they're areas that don't require Congressional approval at this point.

    Ok, truly finished now.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/22/2016 - 7:37am