Sometimes, I read something from Scalzi and it is so horrifying that it is probably true.
He's suggesting that BernieBros will vote for Trump over Clinton, in rage and misogyny.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/03/04/a-political-disclaimer-2016-im-sometimes-wrong/
I think he may be altogether too correct.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/03/04/a-political-disclaimer-2016-im-sometimes-wrong
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not if Bernie is her running mate, which would be the smart thing to do to consolidate support.
ReplyDeleteNo way, or not in significant enough numbers to make a difference. Hillary is popular among Democratic voters, certainly way more than any Republican candidate is among their own.
ReplyDeletePeople need clickbait I guess.
I dunno, there are also a lot of people who hate Clinton and would vote for the other "outsider". I work with one. When I expressed my flabbergastness at it he explained that "Ah he's not actually dangerous. Trumps just a windbag saying what people want to hear. He doesn't really believe that stuff, and it's not like he'd be able to do it with congress anyway." I can't even.
ReplyDeleteMatt Johnson - The numbers aren't with Trump. They're with Clinton. Yes, you can find individuals that fit any pattern you care to name. But the polling and politics at this stage is severely against Trump's favor, or any Republican's, and in favor Hillary's chances, or to a lesser extent, any Democrat.
ReplyDeleteGiven the demographics of who is available to vote this time, the only chance Republicans had was to reject racism and nominate someone really charismatic. Given their options, unless they come up with a miracle candidate during a contested convention, they don't have an anti-racist, really charismatic candidate. Every one of their options is deeply entranced in the politics of Republican racism (anti-Latino, anti-Middle-Easterner, anti-black) and is also either utterly stupid or utterly hateable by the vast majority of the electorate, who in this year is way browner than ever before.
Black people are more behind Clinton than they were Obama. And they're huge in presidential elections. As is every minority group, all of whom go in landslides for Democrats generally, and especially against the available Republicans.
Now let's talk about Clinton. Yes, there are some people who aren't died-in-the-wool Republicans anyway who really care about Nineties politics and have a problem with Clinton. Most people only have the whiff of stink left on her from 20+ years of Republican spending and propaganda. It's why her negatives are so high (at this stage; wait until she's against 1 or 2 specific right-wingers). But she does well with these important demographic groups, who will all be driven especially to the polls if Trump is the nominee, and she'll also get basically all of the Democratic vote. The data shows Democrats like her, despite what your angry cousin (the liberal version of the angry uncle conservative) thinks. He is an outlier.
To make a long screed longer: The Republicans already had a tiny sliver of a shot, and now they have giant piles of turds to choose from. And whatever the nomination winds up being, Trump will be running. And if Trump wins the nomination, there's a good chance another right-winger will run to represent True and Holy Conservatism. In other words, right-wing split. Right wing disaster. They face a unified left, who are driven out to the polls to defeat the racist Drumpf.
They're fucking cooked.
I think Scalzi has the pulse of the "BernieBros" better than most of us. They're basically GamerGaters who are still fooling themselves into thinking they're liberal. Some of the things I've read from them are revolting and hateful. Tactics and goal are the same-- harass women to silence their voices.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they aren't a large enough bloc to swing the vote, though. Especially after Sanders denounced them publicly.
You know, now looking at it somehow my brain skipped over "enough numbers to make a difference" when I was writing my post. I think there are more than a few that will go to Trump if Clinton gets the nomination, but yes I'd hesitate to say they are a significant number. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteYeah. I have no idea how many these are. I'd bet that their voice var exceeds their numbers, and each of them only gets one vote. They'd need to represent a pretty sizeable chunk of the democratic party to really matter. And, well, do they?
ReplyDeleteTo find an upper end on their numbers, we can estimate the following:
U: The universe of discourse, in this case likely democratic voters.
B: The percent of U who are likely to vote for Bernie. Upper bound? 50%.
B(M): the percent of B who are male. Again, likely upper bound? 50%.
T: the percent of B(M) whose misogynist would likely make them vote T over C. I am uncertain as to what this percent is. It is certainly not 100%, nor is it as low as 1%. I would be surprised (very!) if it was more than 10%, so let's go with that.
Then, the maximum likely impact is: 50% * 50% * 10% = 2.5%.
Ignoring states and how it might impact, say, Florida. In 2012, the election results were:
Obama: 51.1%
Romney: 47.2%
If 2.5% of the population shifted from O to R, would R have won the popular vote?
O: 48.6%
R: 49.7%
In other words, yes. This could be problematic. There was a 3.9% margin between O and R, so we need the maximum likely impact to be under 1.95%. Call it 2%. If T is lower, then this becomes a non-issue.
Some thoughts on these numbers:
B: He's not ahead, so 50% is generous.
B(M): Sure, this may skew higher. Except more women vote democrat anyway, and more women vote now than men. So, rough estimate of 50%.
T: This seems much higher than I would expect. As such, it is good for a high end estimate.
This is estimate only, and is intentionally a sort of gutcheck estimate: does this possibly matter? This is not a "_will_ this matter?" sort of estimate.
I think the likely upper bound of B(M) is substantially higher than 50%.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree with your ballparking, more or less: I think that passive/structural misogyny is much more a factor (statistically! Not accusing anyone!) than active. I particularly liked this article on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/
Tony Lower-Basch It may be!
ReplyDeleteAnd the great thing about this sort of estimation -- as you know -- is you can tease out the relevant details and try to figure out possibilities for them. The unfortunate part is the real answers still turns on the unknowable percent T. The closest proxy for this might be the percent of white democrats who voted republican in 2008 or 2012.
Robert Bohl I think the window may be closing for any third-party runs. The TrueCon candidate (or the spurned grumpyTrump) would need a very hasty petition drive in some states .. Texas is the one I know about, but I believe there are others. At this point, the TrueCon candidate has yet to be even identified and I believe they must be named on the petition.
ReplyDeleteI'd love him to be wrong, but there are going to be some, judging by the hateful rhetoric I've seen.
ReplyDeleteI feel like, win or lose, Sanders has been great for this race and for making socialism less of a dirty word in the US. I'm glad that he's disavowing his hateful fans. I think he's gotten Clinton to declare herself in ways that make her a better candidate for me, and to address issues she ignored in 2008. He's not the only factor, but he's a big part of it for me. And, similarly, I'm also willing to overlook those who order me to vote for Clinton because I'm a woman. I think both the candidates themselves understand that they earn votes and are not owed any, even if some of their followers don't have a firm grasp on that.
And then add in this rumor thing... I say rumor because I've not done much looking in to it yet.
ReplyDeleteBefore Loudly Denouncing Trump, Romney Quietly Reactivated Campaign Committees
http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/romney-reactivates-presidential-campaign-committees/
Gretchen S. Agreed.
ReplyDeleteMatt Johnson Hah! That'd be hilarious.
ReplyDeleteBrian Whitehead see my post beginning " Yeah. I have no idea how many these are." for a logic breakdown on the relevant unimportance of Bernie Bros.
ReplyDelete