[jerf]

At this phase in the run, the punditariat is greatly, greatly more confident than the facts justify. I don't mean that specific to this year... I mean generically at this phase of the campaign. If the punditariat was correct at this phase, Hillary Clinton would not currently be able to run, because she'd be finishing out her second term, having defeated Rudy Guiliani in the 2008 campaign by a small but significant margin.

Note how they would have gotten both candidates wrong.

My rule of thumb is that whoever is leading at this phase of the run is not going to be the candidate. It always seems nailbiting at the time but it's been right for all the years I've been paying serious attention to the campaign, which is about since 2004 or so. (I recall paying attention to both Clinton campaigns but not the primary fight; I was in high school for them. I don't quite recall the 2000 primary fight well enough to remember if Bush was always the primary frontrunner; my memory says no but I've learned not to trust it, and I can't name names as to who was.) Someone older than me may be able to recall a counter example.

So, yes, I'd say Bernie Sanders is definitely in it. But I won't repeat the errors of the general punditariat and make wild proclamations about how much he's in it. It's still not out of the question another Democratic contender that's little more than rumor right now could pop up and dominate with surprising swiftness... IIRC that's a fair description of how Obama got to the Presidency.

[marktd]

In 2000, both Gore and Bush were always the frontrunners, and then they both won the primaries in landslides. I believe they both won every state, except Bush lost New Hampshire to McCain. Also in 2008, you're exaggerating the extent to which the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is.

The problem with Bernie is that he has very limited appeal outside of the areas where he's campaigning (overwhelmingly white, also a lot of college towns). He has a chance if he can improve his standing among minority voters somehow, but even then it's a long shot.

[eevilspock]

Cornel West, a highly respected person in the black community, just endorsed Sanders[1]. What's interesting, and not surprising if you know West, is that he's support of Sanders is much stronger than his support of Obama 8 years ago.

I think it will be far easier for black voters to get behind Sanders than behind Clinton. I'll suggest the same is true for Hispanic voters.

Since blacks aren't going to get behind any of the GOP candidates, the question is more about whether they will sit out this election.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/25/berni...

[jerf]

"the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is."

That is all I was claiming. Hillary is an unusual case; I've not seen this level of "shoo-in" before.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not making grandiose claims that I know something about the race, nor am I claiming that this is somehow identical to previous situations [1]... it's more that I know that something isn't true: The punditariat is wildly overconfident, and their current confidence in their beliefs is wrong. Even if they are ultimately correct, they're still overconfident right now. The echo chamber does that.

[1]: It never really is, and there's a certain amount of anti-inductiveness to similar situations in politics: http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/ If you see a similarity that favors X, in general, so do X's opponents, and they're likely to do something that will, as a side effect, break the similarity somehow.

[eli_gottlieb]

>In 2000, both Gore and Bush were always the frontrunners, and then they both won the primaries in landslides. I believe they both won every state, except Bush lost New Hampshire to McCain.

I think the question is: does the ability of pundits to predict elections correlate or anticorrelate with voter participation rates?

Or in simpler terms: do pundits predict well when primaries are democratic and reflect the will of the people, or when they're isolated, low-information games that mostly reflect punditry itself?

[slg]

It is also worth noting that in 2008 the Clinton campaign was a lot weaker than it currently is and Obama's campaign was a lot stronger than Sanders' current campaign. [1]

[1] - http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-b...

[Someone1234]

Sanders and Trump are doing well for similar reasons, they've both rejected the corruption which has become so commonplace in American politics. Trump is famously self-funded, and Sanders has a great grassroots campaign which has help keep him afloat. Neither has yet really resorted to corporate bribes.

That's why you're seeing them do so well with their own respective bases. While it is undeniable that the general public doesn't care about corporate bribery within politics, it is clear that enough people do to seriously bump the limited candidates that fight against it up in the polls.

Do I think either can win? I think, in theory, both could win their respective primary. But I also think that if either did win their respective primary then their "message" would be considered too extreme by the moderates which have the biggest swing vote in American elections, Republicans always vote Republican, Democrats always vote Democrat, it is the moderates that are the kingmakers.

So ultimately what I think will happen is that both will continue gaining in popularity, but when it comes right down to it, someone more "electable" will win the primary since neither party can afford to actually lose the presidency completely. That means maybe Hillary and Marco Rubio.

[radiorental]

Valid points, interested to hear what you make of the perspective that Sanders commands decent support from blue collar conservatives in VT?

His message/views appear to speak to a broader base than simply Team Blue fans.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Trump has no extreme positions that I've heard. Totally mainstream populist.

People are downvoting me, but if you don't realize that any policy comments Trump has put forth poll great you are just out of touch. You would be by definition "extreme."

[rmxt]

Right, because calling Mexican immigrants to the United States "criminals, drug dealers, rapists" is a completely reasonable position. I'm sure that many of the 100+ million people in the United States that are non-white would definitely agree with that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-epic-statement-...

[thanatropism]

Did the parent poster say "reasonable"? He said "mainstream".

[rmxt]

I wrote the above in response to the GP position that they have "heard no extreme positions [from Trump]." I swear I didn't edit the page to include this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extreme#Antonyms

[a8da6b0c91d]

A lot of them do. And the white majority doesn't find the discussion around that point unreasonable. Like I said, you're just out of touch.

[rmxt]

Being "out of touch" with "the white majority" (or anyone for that matter) is fine by me, if it means being able to have nuanced and rational opinions. (Unlike Trump's broad brush statements.) Furthermore, your argumentum ad populum doesn't make Trump's statement any more just or accurate.

[gjm11]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think about "that point"? Do you think the Mexican government is pushing large numbers of drug dealers and rapists into the USA? Do you think this is an issue important enough that it should be a major part of a would-be president's campaigning?

[mikeash]

What's your basis for that statement?

[jeffreyrogers]

To me the remarkable thing is how well Trump is doing even after the media (on both sides) have tried to extremize his views. The contrast between what Trump actually says and how the media frames it is appalling.

But, by and large you're right. His policies are fairly mainstream and even the ones that sounds extreme (immigration being the main one) are commonly held by a large part of the population.

[ConceptJunkie]

It's simple, the people who support Trump don't trust the media, and with good reason. The media in this country has stopped even pretending they are impartial.

[0xCMP]

@rmxt It's not whether it's reasonable or not. Thats what people think and what they want. Those people vote too.

[nindalf]

I disagree with the assessment that (in your experience) the front runners usually lose or that this Democratic primary cycle is similar to the last one.

Focusing on the latter, fivethirtyeight did a comparison of Clinton's chances today compared to 8 years ago and found that she is in a much better position [1]. As much as I want Sanders to win, I trust fivethiryeight and I think they've got it right on this one.

[1] - http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-b...

[jerf]

The front runners at this phase generally are not the nominees, and I make no claims as to whether this Democratic primary cycle is like the next one; see my comment about "anti-inductive".

That said, this is what I meant by it always seems nailbiting at the time to predict that the frontrunners at this phase (remember, well over a year until the election), because surely this time we've got it all figured out? But... no, no we don't, and if anything I think it gets worse every cycle. The news cycle keeps speeding up, and other than Trump's apparently locating the teflon breastplate created by Reagan and then found again by Bill Clinton, every news cycle is an opportunity for a candidate to completely flame out.

[dragonwriter]

> I disagree with the assessment that (in your experience) the front runners usually lose or that this Democratic primary cycle is similar to the last one.

Out of seven races under something approximating the modern primary system where an incumbent President or Vice President from the party isn't running, Democratic early (Summer-to-Fall of the year preceding the election) front-runners have apparently once actually won the nomination, have failed to win five times, and there's been one race with no clear early front runner (the one apparent win may not actually have been as early as Summer-Fall preceding, but I can't clearly rule it out, so we'll call it in.)

(Incidentally, I restrict this to Democrats because the way primaries and caucuses factor into nominations is different between the two major parties, such that one cannot validly assume that similar, from external qualities, positions in the two are similarly situated with regard to nomination.)

And the no-clear-frontrunner and frontrunner-wins elections were the first two opportunities -- everything since then (everything after 1984) has featured a clear early front-runner that lost.

2012 obviously wasn't in issue, because Obama was an incumbent President. 2008 Clinton was the early front-runner, Barack Obama the nominee 2004 Dean was the early front-runner (something lots of people making comparisons between Dean and Sanders forget), John Kerry the nominee 2000 wasn't an issue, because Gore was an incumbent VP. 1996 wasn't an issue, because Clinton was an incumbent President. 1992 IIRC, Tom Harkin was the early front-runner with Paul Tsongas second place in the early period, Bill Clinton ended up with the nomination. 1988 Gary Hart was the early frontrunner, Michael Dukakis the nominee 1984 I think Mondale was the early frontrunner (can't find any clear information easily that places that status back into Summer-Fall of 1983, though), and was the nominee. 1980 Carter was incumbent President 1976 -- the first nomination using something like the modern primary-dominated system rather than nominee selection dominated by party bosses -- no clear early front-runner, and Carter -- a relative unknown nationally before the primaries got started -- won the nomination.

> Focusing on the latter, fivethirtyeight did a comparison of Clinton's chances today compared to 8 years ago and found that she is in a much better position [1].

You omitted the detailed citation, but presumably you are referring to the piece "Hillary Clinton's Inevitable Problems" [0].

There's not really a coherent argument in that for why she is better positioned, just some scattered observations without any clear analytical framework (or even strong rationale for the other elections that are offered as comparables.)

> As much as I want Sanders to win, I trust fivethiryeight and I think they've got it right on this one.

The Fivethirtyeight brand was built on a richly deserved reputation of doing a good job of providing a useful framework for aggregating and interpreting general election polling, and I haven't seen many places do that better. Beyond that, I don't see much that Fivethirtyeight institutionally deserves "trust" on.

[0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-scandal-...

[AnimalMuppet]

> Out of seven races under something approximating the modern primary system where an incumbent President or Vice President from the party isn't running...

That "Vice President from the party isn't running" part may change at any moment, though...

[nindalf]

Thanks for the response. I did amend my comment soon after I posted it, with the correct link to fivethirtyeight. It is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. The title is - "Bernie Sanders, you're no Barack Obama"

[PaulHoule]

I think it is a lot about what plays on the media.

Up until a few weeks ago there were too many Republican candidates to keep track, no perceived competition for Clinton, plus Clinton was not talking to the media.

Trump is a front runner because there are too many Republicans so none of them stand out. Democrats have been sitting out the primaries because they don't want to be punished by Clinton and the rest of the establishment.

Trump and Sanders make for interesting stories, and they will live on that for some time.

[javert]

But Sanders is not ahead, technically, Hilary is. I think. Sanders is still a dark horse candidate. So by your logic, I think Sanders should have a great shot.

[jerf]

Yes, I know. That's my point. I don't accept that Clinton has it sewn up, and right now he appears to be the second in line, which isn't a bad place to be at this point in the race.

[umanwizard]

Biden?

[jerf]

Hard to be in second place when you're not officially running. Where he'd pop in if he does I have not seen polls on (not saying they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them), and I also wouldn't trust such polls anyhow. I'd want to see at least a month to settle in, the very first such poll results tend to be more "Do you recognize the name X?" rather than "Do you want X to be President?" Same is true of the very first primary polling for any run. (We're only mostly past that right now.)