Tom Rinaldo
Tom Rinaldo's JournalPercentage of Iowa young voters increased by 33% according to entrance polls
On election night I followed closely on MSNBC as Steve Kornacki gave periodic reports on the Iowa entrance polls. As he explained, those returns were coming in in waves. The first wave showed that those under 30 made up 18% of the Iowa caucus goers, I believe a 1% increase over 2016 caucus goers. Meanwhile participation from those over 65 was high, significantly higher than in 2016. But those numbers changed. By the time Kornacki was reporting the fourth wave of entrance poll returns those below the age of 30 made up 24% of those attending the Iowa caucuses. Meanwhile the percentage of those over 65 attending had dipped to slightly below those attending in 2016. While overall those over 65 remained a larger group than those below 30 (I believe making up 29% of those attending compared to 24% for those below 30) the trend line was unmistakable. Older attendance was flat or falling, youth attendance was rising.
I have looked online for detailed breakdowns of the entrance polling data but have come up empty. What I can find are some news analysis stories reporting specifically on one or another data point only. One report seemed to pull only from the first wave or entrance poll results, which is misleading in light of the further updates that came in later. If anyone can find the final raw data I would love to see it.
Live on cable, with nothing else to talk about since no returns were coming in, Steve Kornacki commented a lot on the age break downs and the significance of them. But subsequently I have not seen this looked at in depth by the news media. The next morning, on Morning Joe, Kornacki had collapsed the age groups from I believe five subsets into just two; those below 50 and those above 50. Subsets so large mask the differences in participation rates between young and old Iowa voters in 2020 compared to 2016.
But from this data it seems to me that the reason why Iowa caucus attendance was flat in 2020 compared to 2016 was not because younger voters failed to mobilize at an increasing rate. It is because older voters were not moved to participate in larger numbers. This refutes the implication that some in the media are spreading that the new voters that Sanders is counting on for victory are failing to materialize. Instead it implies that the tried and true voters that Democrats like Biden are counting on for victory are not responding with any more enthusiasm than they previously showed in 2016.
We all have some hard choices to make
I am currently identified here as a Sanders supporter, and I am. But this year I am far less adamant in my support of any one candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination than I have been in about 30years.
If Democratic voters in America showed a resolve to rally with enthusiasm behind Vice President Biden I too would have fallen in line. If People of Color were showing steadily increasing enthusiasm for Pete Buttigieg as they have gotten time to familiarize themselves with his candidacy, I could put aside my qualms about running someone as young as he with so little experience under his belt, and instead embrace his youth. If Elizabeth Warren had continued her upward trajectory in the polls that had been the case until last fall, I would have remained firmly behind her. If Amy Klobuchar had really surged rather than just ticking up in the polls, and come in a strong second in Iowa as the leading "moderate" candidate (which it doesn't look like she has from the scraps of evidence now available to us) I could see a path forward for her that might have me joining Amy on it if she started to catch fire. If Yang or Steyer did more than just exceed expectations, but showed signs that they could actually win an early contest, I could weigh supporting one of them more seriously.
In my view at least, none of the above have happened. Many here worry that Bernie Sanders is divisive within our broader Democratic coalition. Mike Bloomberg would be that on steroids. He might eventually win support from People of Color, but never significant enthusiasm, and the generational divides that play out in relative support for Biden and Sanders according to age, would further widen and even harden further.
Right now three candidates have demonstrated that they have the resources needed to continue a 50 state slog for the nomination; Bernie, Pete, and Mayor Bloomberg. If Biden really came in 4th or 5th in Iowa (and the outcome will be known well before NH votes), and if he trails at least three candidates by a significant margin, his fund raising ability will take a real hit, and it is already showing weakness. He is in a negative spiral and for someone with 100% voter recognition his lack of strength relative to other moderate candidates, let alone progressives, is ominous. Iowa is a state custom made for Pete Buttigieg, he is their neighbor, but if he gets blown out in South Carolina and other southern primaries does he really have a path to the nomination?
Elizabeth Warren may have done well enough in Iowa to remain faintly viable. But she has much less money than Bernie, and he almost certainly did better in Iowa than she did. She is clearly trailing behind in NH also, a state that knows her well from close proximity, and Sanders now shows greater support among African Americans than does Warren. Realistically, what is her chance of turning things around now? Women voters in Iowa did not rally to the women candidates, so she seems not even have that going for her. Warren could still emerge as a compromise candidate between the Sanders and moderate camps, but only if so called moderates start rallying to her now, both at the grassroots and established Democratic Party levels. That would mean, among other things, moderates backing away from Biden (and Klobuchar) now, and rallying to Warren while Elizabeth is still in play. There really isn't much time. Fundraising will otherwise start to dry up for Warren soon.
"The Prevent Defense" is often not "the safe bet" that people make it out to be
And there is real risk present when a political party enshrines caution and throws boldness to the winds.
The voting will soon begin. I pledge to keep it positive.
I don't care if there is reporting from someone somewhere in the country about who says or does something unkind, or unfair. Not any more. There is too much at stake now to feed into a negative spiral. Maybe I will try to rebut something I read about that seems to me inaccurate, but I will pass on the aggrieved emotions .
It is obvious to me how bitterness festers and amplifies upon itself. Way way back, a long time ago, I learned about legendary feuds, stuff like the Hatfields and the McCoys. It didn't make sense to me then how feuds like that spiral out of control, with each new round of hatred justified by the one before it, but I get it now. There will ALWAYS be something to be outraged by; and outrage begets outrage, and lashing out begets lashing out.
I am going to fall in strongly behind whichever Democratic candidate the voters fall in strongly behind. Period. End of story. It may take a few weeks or a few months for that to sort itself out, but while I wait for that resolution I am making one myself. I will not feed the trolls. I will not amplify the bots. I know that some grievances are legitimate. Frankly, I don't give a damn. Further pursuing them now is not worth the cost to the collective resistance to Trump when we must be united soon heading toward November.
Very few voters enter the primaries consumed by disgust with this or that negative portrayal of this or that candidate by that or this supporter of this or that candidate. They vote for who they want to have lead us into Novembers election. That is what I will listen to and respond to now.
If the framers only wanted violations of criminal statutes to be grounds for impeachment
it could have been so defined. It wasn't. If the framers wanted that type of limit placed on the allowable grounds to impeach a president, they easily could have so specified in the constitution. They didn't. Why didn't they? I will venture to say they didn't because there was no consensus that the grounds for impeachment should be so tightly restricted that a President could spend every hour of every day on a golf course for four years and not be subject to impeachment; because no specific statute was broken.
Opinions differed back then on what should be impeachable. They also differed in the 1860's, and in the 1970's, and in the 1990's, but Abuse of Power has always been considered constitutional grounds for impeachment by the House of Representatives.
If the framers were so worried that a partisan congress might move to remove an elected President from office, over an "overly vague" charge such as "Abuse of Power", they could have built in a safeguard to prevent that. Instead of allowing a partisan simple majority to kick a President out of office, they could have raised that bar to require an overwhelming majority to do so, something along the lines of a two thirds vote of Congress... Wait a minute. It turns out that is exactly what they did, and a bar set that high has historically fulfilled it's function. Even Andrew Johnson got to serve out his term of office.
So all of the Republican arguments over eligible grounds for impeachment fail on every count. No President has ever been impeached for abusing his power to proclaim national holidays, or abusing his power to lower flags to half mast, or for abusing his ability to give his friends a ride on Air Force One. The Abuse of Power that Trump is accused of is as serious as a heart attack. The Republican Senate is acting like a hospital emergency room that refuses to examine a patient with severe chest pains because he isn't carrying a prescription for that treatment upon entry.
Are those upset about Sanders lack of "Democratic loyalty" similarly upset about Bloomberg?
"Weighing 2020 Bid, Michael Bloomberg Registers as a Democrat"
By Mark Niquette
October 10, 2018, 5:52 AM EDT
"Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he is formally changing his voter registration to Democrat, a possible step toward running for president in 2020. Bloomberg, 76, has been a political independent since abandoning his Republican Party registration in 2007... "
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/michael-bloomberg-registering-as-democrat-as-he-weighs-2020-bid-jn2z6gyr
Please note that the source for this is Bloomberg News. And that Bloomberg first held elective office as a Republican, winning the office of NYC Mayor on the Republican line in 2001 and in 2005 before winning it for a third time as an Independent.
Personally I am not bent out of shape by the above, being a little bit familiar with NYC politics. Of far more concern to me about Bloomberg though is who he has been willing to endorse in other important political races, which included some Republicans.
A plausible hypothetical regarding Sanders and Bloomberg
For the sake of discussion, what if Sanders won Iowa, NH, and Nevada and came in a competitive second in SC. There are certainly reasons to think this won't happen but also reasons to think this will. If Biden emerges in relatively good shape from the first three contests the nomination most likely will be his, and that may well happen. This speculative scenario however is one in which Biden disappoints, and perhaps disappoints significantly in the first three contests and then under performs expectations in SC.
At that point should most Democratic activists close ranks behind Sanders? This is a corollary question to whether most Democratic activists should close ranks behind Biden if he wins, say, three of the first four contests. I would be inclined to start unifying behind Biden in the second scenario (though I would look closely at the specific results before fully commuting myself to that in advance). Admittedly other scenarios, with other candidates remaining competitive, remain plausible also. This question obviously doesn't address those scenarios.
If Biden is seen to be losing steam after the first four contests, with Super Tuesday looming, who would be supportive of a potentially Bloomberg led "Stop Bernie" movement if Sanders does exceptionally well in the first four contests? Or would you think it wiser to start closing ranks behind Sanders at that point (in that scenario). I am inclined to the "close ranks" option behind any candidate who wins 3 out of 4 of the early contests who was at least competitive in the fourth contest also. That does not mean that I think all other candidates need to drop out at that point, simply that their own campaigns should accent their candidate's positives and then avoid negative attacks that could damage our likely nominee
Hope to God(dess) Democrats don't drift toward becoming a "Don't walk on my lawn" Party
I remember something about generational divides. I once was embroiled in one myself back in my college years, which was way back in a former century. I still can remember the me that I was during my youth, and even now, looking back, I can honestly say that I was right more often than I was wrong. My analysis of the world was sometimes too bold in vivid contrasts and lacking in some shades of grey, but it wasn't dulled by a grudging acceptance that things are and always will be the way that they are, or at the least that they will likely be destined to remain something closely resembling the way that they were then. One special quality about youth, having been freshly shot out of a cannon, is their ability to soar and for a while at least defy the gravity of conventional wisdom that keeps so many human endeavors from ever getting off the ground.
I could have benefited from some well timed seasoned mentoring at points along my then radical path, but what I did not need was for people to tell me I was simply wrong, or that "it just isn't done that way." Fundamental change rarely comes about by continuing to do things the way they have always been done. And some times just cry out for fundamental change. It was true in my youth, and it is true today.
I don't remember a time in Democratic politics when so much of a generation was called out for being wrong, for transgressing norms, for being unrealistic, and/or for doing harm to their own cause in the political arena than I see now, except perhaps for when the same thing happened during my own youth to my own generation. I can't remember a time, since my own youth, when those who identified with a political candidate became as much the focus of political attack or scorn as was the literal candidate.
It is not just statistical noise that Bernie Sanders is so much more popular among those under 40, of every race, than he is among those over 60, of every race. It is politically profound. The implications may be messy and difficult to sort out, but this divide should not simply be glossed over or dismissed. And it sure as hell shouldn't be reduced to and belittled as representing the naivety of youth vs the wisdom of age.
We can't have it both ways about Green Party voters
We can't raise holy hell about how those who were willing to vote Green in 2016 helped elect Trump and then be dismissive as all hell every time someone who did vote Green in 2016 expresses enthusiasm about voting for someone who is running for president as a Democrat in 2020. If a 2016 Green Party voter now backs someone running for the Democratic nomination for president,no way that can be spun as a bad thing, not when so many here think that the lure voting Green had in 2016 cost Democrats the presidency.
I get why so many here lack all respect for anyone who voted for Stein in 2016. It's a free country and all of that, but in virtually all of our opinions here that was clearly the wrong thing to do. It certainly doesn't make them some kind of hero now when a former Green voter today expresses support for someone running for the Democratic nomination. If they fail to ultimately support whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, they become fair game to the same line of attack this time around as the last time around.
It is a favorable thing if a Democratic Party candidate can win over the support in 2020 of a million or more people who voted for Stein in 2016. It is a plus in the equation for retaking the White House in 2020. If someone wants to make the case that the cost of winning over that million votes is the loss of more votes elsewhere, OK, that is a legitimate debate. But it is asinine to mock everyone who once voted Green but who now want to support a Democratic candidate. We are angry at them for not having voted Democratic before, it flies in the face of all logic to mock them for expressing openness to voting for a Democratic candidate now.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PMNumber of posts: 22,912
