4:05pm Thursday With all precincts reporting, there were almost 297,000 votes in this year’s Democratic primary, up from just over 253,000 in 2016. So Democratic turnout in New Hampshire was well up on 2016, but this is partly explained by having an uncontested Republican race.
The final outcome is Sanders 25.7%, Buttigieg 24.4%, Klobuchar 19.8%, Warren 9.2% and Biden 8.4%.
8:18pm Conversation article up. I argue that Klobuchar has a good case for being electable. She won her three Minnesota Senate races by at least 20 points, far exceeding the presidential lean of Minnesota. She’s 59, so she doesn’t fall into the 70+ category.
Also, the FiveThirtyEight forecast has the chance that nobody wins a pledged delegate majority up to 33% (one in three). We could be heading for the first contested convention since 1952. The next two contests are the Feb 22 Nevada caucus and Feb 29 South Carolina primary. Then it’s Super Tuesday on March 3.
3:05pm Two US TV networks have CALLED the New Hampshire primary for Bernie Sanders.
2:50pm With 82% in, Sanders’ lead over Buttigieg down to 1.7%. The NY Times Needle gives him a 68% chance to win. Hardly a convincing victory in a state where he crushed Clinton 60-38 in 2016.
2:22pm Sanders’ lead over Buttigieg down to 2.1% with 69% in. The NY Times Needle gives Sanders a 59% chance to win.
2:07pm Took a break for lunch, but didn’t miss much. Sanders 2.5% ahead of Buttigieg with 64% in (26.4% to 23.9%). Klobuchar has 20.1%, and both Biden and Warren have less than 10%, and will both miss the 15% threshold to win any NH delegates.
1:02pm CNN has Sanders still ahead in NH by 4.4% over Buttigieg with 41% in.
1pm The NY Times needle is now giving Sanders just a 53% chance to win, with 33% for Buttigieg and 14% Klobuchar. However, Wasserman on Twitter is projecting Klobuchar will finish third.
12:47pm The NY Times needle is giving Sanders a 59% chance of winning, with Buttigieg a 33% chance and Klobuchar 8%. But for some reason, CNN’s results are more up to date than the NY Times.
12:37pm With 32% in in the Dem primary, 27.8% Sanders, 23.5% Buttigieg, 20.0% Klobuchar. Gap opening up between Buttigieg and Klobuchar for 2nd place. Warren and Biden still at less than 10%.
12:35pm In the Republican primary, Trump has 85%.
12:25pm Dave Wasserman on Twitter
The three major center/left candidates so far (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden): 53%
Sanders/Warren: 36%
But, the first group's failure to consolidate is the best thing going for Bernie Sanders.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 12, 2020
12:17pm 28% Sanders, 23% Buttigieg, 21% Klobuchar with 20% in on the CNN results.
12:12pm 28% Sanders, 22.5% Buttigieg, 20.5% Klobuchar, less than 10% for both Warren and Biden in CNN results with 17% in.
12:05pm CNN is back ahead of the NY Times, and has 28% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 20% Klobuchar, 9% Warren, 9% Biden with 14% in.
12pm With 7% in, 28% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 20% Klobuchar, 12% Warren, 7.5% Biden. US election analysts on Twitter are saying Sanders should win.
11:50am With 5% reporting, the NY Times has 30% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 18% Klobuchar, 12% Warren and just 7% Biden.
11:40am The CNN New Hampshire results give Sanders 27%, Klobuchar 22%, Buttigieg 21%, Warren just 11% and Biden 8%. That’s with an estimated 3% in. So Klobuchar has had a massive surge in New Hampshire.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
The final RealClearPolitics poll average for today’s New Hampshire Democratic primary gives Bernie Sanders 28.7%, Pete Buttigieg 21.3%, Amy Klobuchar 11.7%, and Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren both 11.0%. Most polls close at 11am AEDT, with some staying open until 12pm. Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire is a primary, not a caucus. Primaries are administered by the state’s election authorities, not by a party. Counting is slow in New Hampshire.
Sinn Féin comes first in Irish election
Irish politics has been dominated by two conservative parties: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. But at Saturday’s election, the far-left Sinn Féin upset this order by coming first on first preferences with 24.5% (up a massive 10.7% since the 2016 election). Fianna Fáil was second with 22.2% (down 2.1%) and the governing Fine Gael third with 20.9% (down 4.7%). The Greens won 7.1% (up 4.4%). Irish Labour has never been a strong party, and won just 4.4% (down 2.2%).
While Sinn Féin advocates a united Ireland, its success at this election appears to be the result of a campaign focused on homelessness and hospital waiting lists.
Despite winning the popular vote, Sinn Féin was second in lower house seats with 37 of the 160 (up 14). Fianna Fáil won 38 (down six), Fine Gael 35 (down 14), the Greens 12 (up ten), other left-wing parties 17 (up one) and independents 19 (steady). There were two more total seats than in 2016. A Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael grand coalition would have 73 seats, short of the 81 needed for a majority. Government formation is likely to be difficult.
In Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system, which is used in Ireland, leakage from within parties has occasionally cost seats. In Ireland, leakage is a bigger problem, as the ballot paper lists candidates alphabetically, not by party grouping (see Antony Green). To reduce leakage, Sinn Féin only nominated 42 candidates, and were unable to benefit as much as they should have from their late campaign surge.
Previous Irish elections have been held during the working week, but this one was on Saturday. Turnout was expected to increase, but it actually fell 2.2% to 62.9%.
Or, to put it more succintly, Bernie has a solid core base of voters that will always vote for him. Whereas each moderate candidate’s vote share consists of voters who drift from one to the other depending on which way they think the wind is blowing. Its possible that enough of them will hedge their bets correctly and gang up in sufficient numbers against Bernie – but IMO, far more likely is that they will simply flail around not knowing who the best bet is, and just keep the moderate vote hopelessly split. Meanwhile no one moderate candidate will dare drop out – because they are all getting a healthy share of the vote – though not nearly enough to defeat Bernie.
Hugoaugogo
CNN reported during the NH Primary coverage that the percentage of voters in the under 25 age group was small, unfortunately can’t remember the number but it was something like 12% but that is going off memory.
I’m beginning to think the last 2 candidates will be Sanders and Bloomberg, and Bloomberg will get the nomination – perhaps at a contested convention.
Bloomberg might just be able to beat Trump. He will get under Trump’s skin by calling out Trump’s lies about his wealth (His “Who is the other one?” reply to the question about whether he thought it was good for democracy to have two billionaires running was genius), and probably knows a few things about Trump (and Giuliani) from NY that he can throw him/them off kilter with.
Much as I’d love to see Sanders become POTUS, I don’t think he’d beat an incumbent Trump, and I don’t think he’d be good for the longer term progressive ‘project’ – the backlash against him would be huge. Bloomberg could be more of a national unity candidate and the US needs that – and he’d be great on climate change and innovation. He supports mega-wealth taxes. He’s far from perfect, but possibly is the best option for beating trump, and that is the main need.
Big A Adrian – I like your contributions, keep ‘em coming.
I don’t think it’s a sure bet that Sanders will “quietly keep winning”, and his biggest tests are yet to come. In 2016 he failed badly in States with big black populations, and I’ve not seen any conclusive evidence that he has turned that around (though I’m sure his campaign has been trying to reach out). Most of the South votes on Super Tuesday or a bit later in March, and I think we’ll have a much clearer idea of his eventual prospects then.
You are correct to say that the “moderate” wing of the Party is yet to fall in behind a single candidate, but that will probably start to happen over the next month or so. Klobuchar and Buttigieg seem best placed at the moment, but we’ll see how Biden and Bloomberg look after the next few states. And of course, Bernie can’t rely on Warren continuing to tank, even if it looks likely right now. She may well get a second wind and start to eat into his “Progressive” vote. In any event, even in states friendly to him, he’s only managed a quarter of the vote.
Of course, in the final wash-up, it’s not about votes so much as delegates, and the Democratic Party’s system of proportional representation suggests that Sanders will end up with, say, 30% of the delegates, while 2-3 moderates get something like 20-25% each. That of course means that no one will get anywhere near a majority, and it’s easy to see how, for example, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, or Biden and Bloomberg, or some other combination, come to some sort of arrangement and surf over the top of Sanders fairly easily. Given that, so far at least, a majority of voters seem to be backing moderate candidates, that would probably end up being a reasonably democratic outcome.
But of course, this is all conjecture at the moment. This race still has a long way to go, and there will be all sorts of twists and turns before the likely nominee becomes clearer by, say, the end of April.
If Sanders is elected he would still need to get legislation through Congress.
No certainty of that in many cases = much less scary for conservatives?
Mexicanbeemer @ #490 Friday, February 14th, 2020 – 5:28 am
What utter fucking bullshit.
EVERY SINGLE “TRADITIONALLY SAFE LABOUR SEAT” THAT WAS LOST TO THE TORIES VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR BREXIT.
The “Elite” within the Labour Party would not allow Corbyn to go along with Brexit despite him believing in it.
The voters in those “traditionally safe Labor seats” voted for the only party that promised to get Brexit done. Which is what they wanted – overwhelmingly.
A Bloomberg/Klobuchar (or Bloomberg/Buttigieg) ticket would be pretty impressive – or alternatively, do Bloomberg and Warren get along?
Trump is already shitting himself over the prospect of facing bloomberg. I’m looking forward to Bloomberg comparing his origins (father was a clerk) and fortune to Trump’s – he’ll be able to reel off all of Trump’s poor investments and bankruptcies, and raise the issue of the russian loans and business dealings that have kept trump afloat. the question “How much of your fortune is from your father and how much is it from your russian financiers?” would be a great one to throw into a debate. Followed by “What did and do your russian backers want in return for bailing you out?” https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/
Danama Papers – it’s true Brexit was front and centre in those northern seats that went Tory in December, but I wouldn’t underestimate how toxic Corbyn was in most of those seats. He was hugely popular among the Labour activists, largely based in London and big cities, but he was profoundly unpopular among traditional working class Labour voters. The defeat in December wasn’t all his fault, of course, but he was the leader, and so he deserves his share of the blame.
Oh, and it wasn’t the “elite” in the Party that stopped him going along with Brexit, it was the fact the overwhelming majority of Labour members wanted to Remain. Corbyn himself may we’ll have been happy to leave, but he needed to try manage a giant split between party members who wanted to remain, and about 30-40% of Labour voters, who wanted to leave. Even a brilliantly skilled politicians would have struggled to square that circle, and Corbyn was a long way short of being considered a brilliant politician.
“EVERY SINGLE “TRADITIONALLY SAFE LABOUR SEAT” THAT WAS LOST TO THE TORIES VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR BREXIT.
The “Elite” within the Labour Party would not allow Corbyn to go along with Brexit despite him believing in it.
The voters in those “traditionally safe Labor seats” voted for the only party that promised to get Brexit done. Which is what they wanted – overwhelmingly.”
***
So true. Sitting on the fence on Brexit lost Labour the UK election, not left wing policies. It wasn’t a left vs right election. Anyone who was following it would know that.
sustainable future @ #507 Friday, February 14th, 2020 – 11:45 am
Oh goody, chequebooks at twenty paces. Can’t wait!
I’ll say this now too – there is a big difference between Sanders and Corbyn. Not so much in terms of substance but in terms of style and the ability to inspire. Bernie is a far more charismatic and inspirational figure. I do think Corbyn sometimes looked like he lacked enthusiasm this time around. He was far more energetic and inspirational in 2017. That’s probably because he wasn’t enthusiastic about the campaign he was being forced to run this time. He wanted to run on transforming the system like Bernie is, not on whether the UK should be in the EU.
Firefox – yes, I agree with much of this. Sanders is a much more charismatic and likeable politician than Corbyn (though that is a low bar!). It is unfortunate for UK Labour that when faced with the biggest question in British politics in 40 years they had a leader that wasn’t engaged in it. His plans of mass change had some merit, but with Brexit dominating everything, no one ended up listening, and Corbyn wasn’t able to pivot well enough to the big story.
Interesting prediction from Dublin.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0213/1115174-lowry-mcdonald/
The Dáil meets 10 days after an election and elects the Taoiseach, who must have an absolute majority but abstentions are allowed.
The prediction is FG and FF will abstain and Mary Lou McDonald will become the first SF head of government since Arthur Griffiths in 1922. She will come back to the Dáil with a government based on weak coalition which will immediately face no confidence. The President will refuse a dissolution and a FF/FG/Green grand coalition will reluctantly form.
The Civil War parties will remain in power but will look good because they gave SF a chance and it bombed (sorry) it
“Oh goody, chequebooks at twenty paces. Can’t wait!”
As it always is – the difference is that Bloomberg will be spending his own $$$ (& so not be beholden to benefactors) and could afford to outspend Trump by 10:1 . He is what Trump pretends to be, and he’ll call Trump out on it. Trump’s people would be mad to let Trump debate him.
Bloomberg is also likely to reform political donations to reduce the influence of corporate donations in the future.
His policies and track record look good to me, but most importantly HE CAN BEAT TRUMP and bring US politics back from the polarised left-right fury that seems to feed/strengthen the right and weaken/distract the left. He’s not a firebrand, but he’s obviously incredibly smart, level headed, rational and shrewd – the anti-Trump. I think he’s the best option to take trump down, and that’s reason enough to support him.
DP
I’m aware of the Brexit factor and lets not pretend those northern areas suddenly discovered a disliking of the EU in the last few years because the Euro skeptics were around in the 1980s and 1990s yet labour didn’t go close to losing a string of heartland electorates. I watched Corbyn in the Commons debate and his delivery was shockingly bad.
Firefox
Agree Bernie is a far better communicator than Corbyn.
Danama Papers @ #255 Friday, February 14th, 2020 – 10:39 am
And they were right, too. But wrong to let him (and the party) straddle the fence on the issue. That only ensured that in addition to losing the Labour+Brexit faction they’d pick up no votes from the Other+Remain cohort and also lose votes from the Labour+Remain faction at the same time.
Perfect strategy, if you intend to lose. You can’t win politics from atop the fence; you have to advocate a side.
a r – broadly I agree with you, though it is worth noting that Labour’s middle way approach to Brexit worked for them for a while, evidenced by their spectacular result in the 2017 election. But Labour had to manage their inherent internal conflict of a strongly Remain membership, and a sizeable minority of Leave voters. And for as long as the Tories remained divided by how to proceed with Brexit, Labour was doing ok, and it made some sense to try and avoid pissing off whichever half of the Party would be disappointed with a position one way or the other. But once the Tories got their act together under Johnson, Labour was doomed, especially since Corbyn did not have anywhere near the political dexterity required to pull off a move to a definite position.
Big A Adrian:
Bernie’s certainly the favourite at the moment, but I do not think there is currently an odds on favourite, which has a specific meaning (better than 50%). Probably there will be one after Super Tuesday, though.
Re: Labour and Brexit – who was it who said that “When you try to straddle a barbed wire fence it is hard to keep your ear to the ground”?
Boris (as did Morrison v Shorten) shows the power of incumbency, campaign $$, establishment media and a fear campaign. Trump v Sanders would follow the same script, I fear.
sustainable future @ #520 Friday, February 14th, 2020 – 1:05 pm
Barnaby Joyce?
Hey Andrew_Earlwood, did you know Betfair are offering 150:1 on Michelle Obama and 840:1 on Oprah Winfrey. Pretty attractive odds!
Bellweather – I think Barnaby’s quote was “It’s hard to straddle a sheep (or it could have been ”communications staffer”) and keep both arse-cheeks in the leaders chair”.
Sanders builds double-digit national lead: poll
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has opened up a double-digit lead over his next closest rivals in a new national survey.
The latest Morning Consult poll finds Sanders at 29 percent support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19 percent and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 18 percent. Sanders gained 3 points in the poll after winning the New Hampshire primary this week, while Biden lost 3 points after a disastrous fifth-place showing.
The latest poll confirms Sanders’s status as the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination. In addition to winning New Hampshire, Sanders pulled more votes than anyone else at the Iowa caucuses, although it appears that former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg will narrowly win the delegates edge in the Hawkeye State.
Buttigieg finished a close second in New Hampshire and held steady in the Morning Consult survey at 11 percent support. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who finished a distant fourth place in New Hampshire, came in at 10 percent in the new poll.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), whose surprise third-place finish in New Hampshire launched her into the thick of the race, is at 5 percent support, picking up 2 points from the prior survey.
Electability is the top issue on voters’ minds and Sanders is now viewed as the best positioned to defeat President Trump, with 29 percent saying he’s most electable, followed by Bloomberg at 25.
Biden’s electability case has taken a severe hit after fourth- and fifth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, dropping from 29 percent earlier this month to 17 percent in the latest poll.
Biden is hoping that the black voters who have been the backbone of his support stick with him as the contests turn to the more diverse states of Nevada and South Carolina.
But the Morning Consult survey found a 10-point drop among black voters in their confidence that Biden has the best shot of defeating Trump. Thirty-two percent of black voters said Sanders has the best chance of defeating Trump, followed by Biden and Bloomberg at 21.
Forty-six percent of Democratic primary voters said Biden’s showing in New Hampshire makes it less likely they’ll vote for him.
The Morning Consult poll of 2,639 registered Democrats was conducted on Feb. 12 and has a 2-point margin of error.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482969-sanders-builds-double-digit-national-lead-poll
Excellent national poll results. But Bloomberg is on the move, and I suspect it won’t be long before the Democratic establishment throw their weight behind the not so long ago Republican. I see no evidence that Bloomberg scares Trump in the slightest, and I think Trump would win easily against him in November. I sure can’t see a winning coalition turning out for Mr stop and frisk.
It seems that Sanders is running into problems with the unions, with the Nevada Cullinary Union coming out against the Medicare-for-all policy. The Union claims to have built up a decent health care plan for its members, and isn’t taking kindly to suggestions that it might be abolished if Sanders wins. Of course, their members would probably be better off with M4A in the long run, but the Union is understandably reluctant to throw out an effective and popular health plan for something that might or might not happen. I guess we’ll find out soon enough if this has any effect in the Nevada caucuses next week.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-nevada-culinary-union-114687
It seems that Sanders is now leading, and surging, in Texas. Despite how some in the media spin it he is presently the undoubted front-runner in the race (if the term front-runner is going to continue to have any relevance whatsoever). It has to be said that there is now a very significant number of Americans who think that his message of equality and fairness is totally on point and his mistrust of the establishment and the 1% is resonating with ordinary people. It’s also true that it’s a very long haul until November, for any candidate.
If Sanders can win in both Texas and California (where he also seems to be ahead), he’ll scoop up a shed-load of delegates. Texas has 149 elected delegates, and California has 272, compared to the 27 in Iowa and the 16 in NH (I think all states also have a proportional amount of super-delegates, but they can’t vote until the second ballot at the Convention). That said, he’s only polling his standard 25% in California (I haven’t seen any Texas polling, and it’s not on Real Clear Politics), so that would probably net him about 70 delegates, depending on how many other candidates meet the 15% threshold (only Biden and Warren on current polling). Biden is ahead on the average polling in Nevada and a long way up in South Carolina, though there’s been no polling in either state for a few weeks; that might change the next few days, you’d expect.). Biden is also still miles in front in Georgia (they vote on 24 March), according to a poll out yesterday, so maybe there’s still life in the old dog yet.
Bloomberg has almost drawn level with Bernie in the betting markets (2.80 vs 2.50)
Bloomberg is certainly sucking away all the oxygen and momentum from the other establishment candidates, that’s for sure. Even though I don’t think they should be the nominees, I feel sorry for Buttigeig and Klobuchar especially as they weren’t big names before this and have been out there doing the hard work to earn that exposure and momentum that they had built. Hell even Tom Steyer, who is the other billionaire in the race, has been out there backing up his big spend by being on the ground and arguing his case. Hasn’t worked very well for him but I do give him credit for turning up and trying. Apparently Steyer has put a tonne of cash into California though so we might have to wait and see what happens there.
Bloomberg is running into big problems with African Americans over “stop and frisk” though. Just think about how a super rich and powerful white man encouraging police aggression is going to go down in the black community. Not good, especially at the height of the Black Lives Matter movement. He’s trying to get out in front of it now before any of his opponents target him over it but I don’t think he’ll be let off the hook that easily.
https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/
some breakdowns on the last month’s polling. However Bloomberg doesnt seem to add up (current overall 18% but under race he doesnt get above 10% for any race). Perhaps someone can explain that.
Biden dominates the black vote while Bernie dominates the hispanic vote. Both klobuchar and butigieg mostly relying on white votes.
Finally a Nevada poll! With the caveat that it’s notoriously hard to accurately poll caucus states, the poll has Sanders on 25%, Biden on 18%, Warren on 13%, Steyer on 11%, and Buttigieg and Klobuchar on 10% each. If this pans out like this on caucus night, it would cement Sanders’ front-runner status, and would be a life-line to Biden, Warren, and possibly Steyer. Interesting to note that Klobuchar has greatly improved her polling, on the back of her good night in NH. It’s also worth noting that Nevada is another caucus state, and these tend to benefit well-organised candidates (such as Sanders and Buttigieg) and are less helpful for candidates whose support skews old (Biden, Klobuchar).
Firefox @ #530 Saturday, February 15th, 2020 – 8:04 am
Bloomberg also has problems with his past attitudes to redlining and over-the-top attempts to prevent a small group of manual workers from getting paid $10 an hour. You could be forgiven for thinking he’s a Republican trojan horse.
Not reading much into that one.
Big A Adrian @ #280 Saturday, February 15th, 2020 – 7:29 am
When a billionaire wants to pay you to push a narrative, you push the narrative. Facts and evidence be damned.
Bloomberg is running into big problems with African Americans over “stop and frisk” though.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/13/houston-mayor-sylvester-turner-endorses-michael-bloomberg-president/
Take it from an activist who was there: Stop and frisk cost New Yorkers their lives
“Throw them up against a wall and frisk ‘em.” —Mike Bloomberg
Some people were shocked to hear those comments, which went viral this week, made by the former mayor about how police should treat Black and Brown communities in New York City. But if you were one of the people victimized by the more than 5 million NYPD stops during his time as mayor, you are probably more shocked that Bloomberg is even being considered a contender for president.
Since announcing his presidential run in November, the billionaire has outspent every candidate — $200 million in the first quarter of his campaign — and has peaked as high as fourth in national polling averages. Many outside of New York City who are not familiar with the former mayor might be dazzled with his polished “I can beat Trump” message, in which only another billionaire is enough of a heavyweight to go toe-to-toe with the president. But while his campaign is hoping to drown out the truth about his record and policies with money and ads, the truth keeps coming out anyway.
On Monday, podcaster Benjamin Dixon recirculated a 2015 speech by Bloomberg that was impossible to misinterpret. “Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said.
For those of us who suffered this profiling, who watched our family and community members fall victim to relentless harassment — and folks like me who, as a member of the Communities United for Police Reform, have been fighting on the front lines for justice for more than a decade — the audio was a clear reminder of the racism of the Bloomberg administration. And it was a sign that we need to sound the alarm for the rest of the county. We are the canaries in the coal mine, and Bloomberg’s toxic policies must be contained and dismantled.
In New York City, stop, question, and frisk, or “stop and frisk,” is the police practice of detaining, questioning, and searching people throughout the city. According to Bloomberg, the purpose of these stops were to keep communities safe and free from weapons and contraband. However, according to data collected by the New York attorney general, less than 0.1 percent of stops lead to weapons possession, and less than 0.1 percent resulted in a violent crime conviction. During one year of his administration, nearly 700,000 people were stopped by police — with Black and Brown New Yorkers nine times more likely to be stopped than whites. In 2011, there were more stops of Black men 14 to 24 years old than the number of young Black men who lived in New York City, according to census data.
Stop and frisk exploded under Bloomberg, increasing by 600 percent from his first year in office, in 2002, to 2012. As activists and Black people, we knew from experience that police stops were not only a form of racial profiling that cause emotional and psychological trauma, missed school days, and lost jobs — they could also be deadly. Studies show that increased police interaction for Black people means an increased risk of injury or death. The case of Sean Bell, a young man killed by police in a hail of 50 bullets a year into Bloomberg’s second term, remains fresh in our memories.
For a dozen years, no one in the Black community went untouched by Bloomberg’s stop and frisk — there was anxiety, fear, the hyperpolicing of young Black men and women, and the destabilizing disruption of daily life. So, true to our city’s culture, we took action. Activists from more than 60 organizations throughout the city came together as part of Communities United for Police Reform to figure out how to keep our communities healthy and safe. Through a multi-pronged campaign of community organizing, litigation, and legislation, we addressed Bloomberg’s cornerstone policing policy head-on.
Our organizations, which grew to more than 100 at our campaign’s height, were Black, Latinx, Queer, Asian, and Muslim. We were homeless organizations, labor unions, litigation and policy shops. We collected footage, stories, and data to surface the strangling realities of daily life under never-ending police stops. Videos, articles, and murals told our truth. CopWatch patrols and Know Your Rights workshops emerged in neighborhoods all over the city. We came together to win justice for our communities and to end Bloomberg’s racist policing policies and practices.
Yet Boomberg continued to fight us. So we filed a federal class-action lawsuit, Floyd v. the City of New York, to expose stop and frisk as racial profiling and challenge the city’s practices as unconstitutional. For nine weeks, our coalition packed the courtroom. The plaintiffs in Floyd were our friends, family, and fellow organizers, and their experiences represented the realities of millions of New Yorkers. Black and Brown people had disproportionate encounters with the police because of our race. Full stop. The data proved it, and in 2013, a federal judge agreed, ruling stop and frisk unconstitutional.
Still, Bloomberg did not listen. He immediately filed an unsuccessful appeal that delayed progress for more than a year.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/2/14/21136892/stop-and-frisk-bloomberg-activist
Winning over the establishment will be easy for Bloomberg, Cat. Winning over the victims of his racist policies may be a little more difficult.
Bloomberg is now second favourite to be president after Trump, ahead of Sanders.
Not a fan myself, but I think it’s a little premature to write-off Biden quite yet. I suspect it may come down to a contest between Bloomberg, Biden and Sanders in the end.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/
Firefox
No one winning is very high at 37%. Might be a negotiated convention. Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg. Each able to let another win but not enough to win by themselves without a deal.
Sanders may well end with the largest single pile of delegates at the a Convention, but so long as he is winning with just 25% of the vote, he’s going to get little more than a third of all elected delegates, which is nowhere near enough for him to win. Of course, his vote share might go up as the field starts to narrow, but it seems more likely that the supporters of drop-out candidates will coalesce against him rather than behind him, either (or both) in the later primaries, or on the Convention floor. If Sanders wants to be the nominee, he needs to start winning primaries with a 40-50% vote share.
Sanders has his fervent support base, without doubt, and he may indeed have some appeal to sections of the wider electorate. But first he has to win over Democratic Party primary voters, and so far there’s not much sign that they are buying what he’s selling. This was also the problem for him in 2016, and in the final analysis he wasn’t the nominee then because he couldn’t convince enough Democrat voters to back him. But the race this year is young, of course, and there’s still time for him to firm into the genuine favourite. We’ll know more about his chances of being the nominee in a few weeks.
The 15% threshold will help Sanders, while the moderate field stay big. Where only 2 candidates poll over 15 %, the highest vote gets the majority of delegates (unless the vote is close enough for a dead heat, if they have even numbers of delegates). Where only 1 one candidate gets over 15%, they get the lot.
https://www.270towin.com/content/thresholds-for-delegate-allocation-2020-democratic-primary-and-caucus
Bernie Sanders doesn’t have broad appeal. Even across the Democratic Party, let alone the broader electorate. He is just succeeding because he doesn’t have any real competition, except for Elizabeth Warren, who is fading fast.
Intellect and intellectual honesty are the most important qualities for me. I’m ruling out supporting Biden, Warren and Buttigieg based on their professed religiosity.
Sanders and Bloomberg seem to be secular Jews but too piss weak to actually say they are atheists.
When are we going to get a secular, rational humanist to become POTUS?
https://www.pollbludger.net/2020/02/12/new-hampshire-democratic-primary-live-commentary/comment-page-11/#comment-3342411
That 37% includes any types of not getting a majority, including Sanders being just short of a majority.
If Sanders plus Warren (already at an estimated 6 delegates) get a combined majority, Sanders will get the Presidential nomination and Warren will probably get the Vice-Presidential nomination. Warren`s chances of a future candidacy would be dead if she blocked Sanders.
It is only if Sanders+Warren+Gabbard (should she win any delegates, I wouldn`t rule out her winning a very small number in Hawaii, her home state, if she is still in the race) don`t get a majority that there is any likelihood of Sanders not getting the nomination.
Diogenes @ #545 Saturday, February 15th, 2020 – 10:47 pm
2008.
Obama? He wasn’t even close to being a secular, rational atheist.
Remember him throwing his own pastor under the bus to improve his election chances.
Hillary? She is a lifelong Methodist who found time to commune with Eleanor Roosevelt.
I should add that Eleanor was well and truly dead at the time.
I’m still a little leery of Nate Silver’s 538 Primary Forecast Model until we get some more polling, some of the figures look a little odd currently, for example:
a) In S.Carolina the model is forecasting Sanders on top with 30% because the model factors a 20% chance that Biden will drop out before the Primary. If Biden stays in Nate says Biden would then be favourite to win there. The latest poll, earlier this week, has Sanders second (behind Biden) on 20%
b) In Florida the model is forecasting Sanders on top with 30%. In the latest poll, yesterday, Sanders is third (behind Bloomberg and Biden) on only 10% – although the 538 model adjusts that to 13% for ‘house effects’ with that polling outfit
c) In Georgia the model again has Sanders on top with 30%. The latest poll, earlier this week, has Sanders second (behind Biden) on 14%