Difference between '08 and '20, everyone knows Booker is a Wall Street loyalist

[uti2]

Obama tried to act nixon-esque and pander his way around the issues, this is what attracted bernie-style progressives to him back in 2008, but Booker doesn't even pretend to do that.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama tried to act nixon-esque and pander his way around the issues, this is what attracted bernie-style progressives to him back in 2008, but Booker doesn't even pretend to do that.

Booker wouldn't be relying on the same coalition that Obama relied on.  He'd be leaning on at least a subset of the Clinton 2016 primary coalition.  Doesn't actually need to get all of them, since it's probably not going to be just a 2-person race.  But he'd still need to somehow get ~35% pluralities in some of the early states, and then build from there.  Can he do it?  I don't know.  We'll have to wait and see.

Btw, on the subject of progressives being disillusioned with Booker, this isn't worth starting a brand new thread on, so I'll slip it in here: Last week at the David Friedman confirmation hearing, Booker said something to him like "I admire the depth of your love for the state of Israel", and there was a bit of Twitter snark from some on the left over that.  I'll be curious to see what kind of foreign policy divisions we get among the Dems in 2020.

[Vosem]

Obama tried to act nixon-esque and pander his way around the issues, this is what attracted bernie-style progressives to him back in 2008, but Booker doesn't even pretend to do that.

Who cares? Most Democrats are just fine with it. Hillary crushed Bernie by double-digits nationally, and in 2020 you'll have a bunch of candidates misguidedly trying to pander to the progressive minority, splitting their vote uselessly. If what you're saying is true, Booker will win in a landslide.

[uti2]

Obama tried to act nixon-esque and pander his way around the issues, this is what attracted bernie-style progressives to him back in 2008, but Booker doesn't even pretend to do that.

Who cares? Most Democrats are just fine with it. Hillary crushed Bernie by double-digits nationally, and in 2020 you'll have a bunch of candidates misguidedly trying to pander to the progressive minority, splitting their vote uselessly. If what you're saying is true, Booker will win in a landslide.

Hillary had regional strength with Hispanics in the SW in both 2008 and 2016, don't expect them to necessarily vote for Booker. The Hispanic vote is not the Black vote.

[Vosem]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

[uti2]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

[Vosem]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

[uti2]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

[Vosem]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

[uti2]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

[Vosem]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

Sure, but we can look at the patterns from the 2008 and 2016 primaries to determine where primaries or caucuses might be dominated, or likely to be won, by anti-establishment candidates. Much of New England, much of Appalachia, much of the Mountain West and the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest fits this description. The Southwest basically doesn't.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yup, plenty of us Obama 2008 primary voters are NeverBooker.

[Vosem]

Yup, plenty of us Obama 2008 primary voters are NeverBooker.

I'd imagine the standard Obama '08/Sanders '16 voter is unlikely to be charmed by Booker. But then I doubt that Booker is particularly targeting you guys either.

[uti2]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

Sure, but we can look at the patterns from the 2008 and 2016 primaries to determine where primaries or caucuses might be dominated, or likely to be won, by anti-establishment candidates. Much of New England, much of Appalachia, much of the Mountain West and the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest fits this description. The Southwest basically doesn't.

Jesse Jackson did well in the south in the 1988 primary, it's clear that in the south, Obama was helped by African-Americans, it wasn't an establishment/anti-establishment dynamic. Obama just had regional strength there, as did Bill Clinton in 1992.

So combine the african-american jesse jackson voters in the south with Bernie's voters and that's how you get Obama's coalition.

As far as the SW goes, that hasn't been proven. Latinos had a strong preference for Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/43587/

[Vosem]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

Sure, but we can look at the patterns from the 2008 and 2016 primaries to determine where primaries or caucuses might be dominated, or likely to be won, by anti-establishment candidates. Much of New England, much of Appalachia, much of the Mountain West and the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest fits this description. The Southwest basically doesn't.

Jesse Jackson did well in the south in the 1988 primary, it's clear that in the south, Obama was helped by African-Americans, it wasn't an establishment/anti-establishment dynamic. Obama just had regional strength there, as did Bill Clinton in 1992.

So combine the african-american jesse jackson voters in the south with Bernie's voters and that's how you get Obama's coalition.

As far as the SW goes, that hasn't been proven. Latinos had a strong preference for Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/43587/

Lots of African-Americans, rather than preferring one faction over the other, like to cast their votes for fellow African-American politicians, who they trust. Most of Obama's coalition in the South, which largely went over to supporting Clinton in 2016, is eminently winnable for Cory Booker.

The Democratic Party in the Southwest tends to nominate more establishment candidates for congressional and gubernatorial positions, and liked Clinton because she reflected their ideological outlook. This is not necessarily the case across the country (I believe Latinos in Chicago broke for Sanders, for instance, though that may have had to do with their strong distaste for Mayor Emanuel and his support for the Clinton campaign), but is the case in more places than not. See a majority-Latino district in Harlem electing a new member of the IDC to the New York state Senate in 2016.

[uti2]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

Sure, but we can look at the patterns from the 2008 and 2016 primaries to determine where primaries or caucuses might be dominated, or likely to be won, by anti-establishment candidates. Much of New England, much of Appalachia, much of the Mountain West and the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest fits this description. The Southwest basically doesn't.

Jesse Jackson did well in the south in the 1988 primary, it's clear that in the south, Obama was helped by African-Americans, it wasn't an establishment/anti-establishment dynamic. Obama just had regional strength there, as did Bill Clinton in 1992.

So combine the african-american jesse jackson voters in the south with Bernie's voters and that's how you get Obama's coalition.

As far as the SW goes, that hasn't been proven. Latinos had a strong preference for Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/43587/

Lots of African-Americans, rather than preferring one faction over the other, like to cast their votes for fellow African-American politicians, who they trust. Most of Obama's coalition in the South, which largely went over to supporting Clinton in 2016, is eminently winnable for Cory Booker.

The Democratic Party in the Southwest tends to nominate more establishment candidates for congressional and gubernatorial positions, and liked Clinton because she reflected their ideological outlook. This is not necessarily the case across the country (I believe Latinos in Chicago broke for Sanders, for instance, though that may have had to do with their strong distaste for Mayor Emanuel and his support for the Clinton campaign), but is the case in more places than not. See a majority-Latino district in Harlem electing a new member of the IDC to the New York state Senate in 2016.

And like I said, that goes for the entire US in general, where establishment dems dominate simply because we haven't had a dem tea party, and don't know what the effects would be and what it would look like yet.

Both Warren and Harris, were endorsed by Obama in their senate races, for what it's worth, but the MA dems, for instance, are still overall 'establishment', as is the CA dem party. Apparently, recently, there have been incursions into the CA dem party by left-wingers, but this is just developing now.

[uti2]

Hillary's strength in the SW region was cultural (just like Obama's/Bill's strength in the south, and Hillary's 2016 strength in the south), not ideological, and there's no evidence to suggest that Booker maintains any cultural strength in the area. Hillary understood how to appeal to mexican-americans in the SW, which is a different demographic from african-americans, cubans in FL, etc.

This actually goes back a number of decades.

http://shapleigh.org/news/print/1568-clinton-laid-groundwork-in-this-area-decades-ago

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

Sure, but we can look at the patterns from the 2008 and 2016 primaries to determine where primaries or caucuses might be dominated, or likely to be won, by anti-establishment candidates. Much of New England, much of Appalachia, much of the Mountain West and the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest fits this description. The Southwest basically doesn't.

Jesse Jackson did well in the south in the 1988 primary, it's clear that in the south, Obama was helped by African-Americans, it wasn't an establishment/anti-establishment dynamic. Obama just had regional strength there, as did Bill Clinton in 1992.

So combine the african-american jesse jackson voters in the south with Bernie's voters and that's how you get Obama's coalition.

As far as the SW goes, that hasn't been proven. Latinos had a strong preference for Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/43587/

Lots of African-Americans, rather than preferring one faction over the other, like to cast their votes for fellow African-American politicians, who they trust. Most of Obama's coalition in the South, which largely went over to supporting Clinton in 2016, is eminently winnable for Cory Booker.

The Democratic Party in the Southwest tends to nominate more establishment candidates for congressional and gubernatorial positions, and liked Clinton because she reflected their ideological outlook. This is not necessarily the case across the country (I believe Latinos in Chicago broke for Sanders, for instance, though that may have had to do with their strong distaste for Mayor Emanuel and his support for the Clinton campaign), but is the case in more places than not. See a majority-Latino district in Harlem electing a new member of the IDC to the New York state Senate in 2016.

And like I said, that goes for the entire US in general, where establishment dems dominate simply because we haven't had a dem tea party, and don't know what the effects would be and what it would look like yet.

Both Warren and Harris, were endorsed by Obama in their senate races, for what it's worth, but the MA dems, for instance, are still overall 'establishment', as is the CA dem party. Apparently, recently, there have been incursions into the CA dem party by left-wingers, but this is just developing now.

Left-wingers have none of the top positions in California. Brown might be the most liberal, and he's nowhere as liberal as people think. Every top Democrat in the state endorsed Hillary. Bernie's top endorsement was a mayor of a city with a fraction of a percent of the state's population.

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary's strength in the SW region was cultural (just like Obama's/Bill's strength in the south, and Hillary's 2016 strength in the south), not ideological, and there's no evidence to suggest that Booker maintains any cultural strength in the area.

I don’t think there’s a reason to think the Southwest is a gimme for any of the potential candidates.  Candidates can be legit contenders for the nomination even if (at this incredibly early stage) they don’t have a solid coalition of supporters already lined up and ready to hand them the nomination.

All we can really do at this early stage is speculate about which sectors of the electorate might be most open to a candidate, or which sectors might be most hostile or most in between.  For Booker, presumably blacks would be his most likely base of support.  On the flip side, white liberals of the stripe who voted for Sanders in big numbers would probably be the least likely to back him (“Wall Street” concerns and the like).  White Clinton voters or Hispanics?  Who knows?  Maybe they’d back Booker and maybe they’d back someone else.  Maybe he’d win a substantial chunk of them but not a plurality.

In a multi-candidate field, you don’t need a majority anyway.  You just need a ~35-40% plurality that puts you far enough ahead that everyone else is forced out of contention.

[uti2]

Er, Hillary had no particular personal advantage in the Southwest; the Democratic parties in CA/NV/AZ/TX are very establishment-oriented and are likely to vote for whoever the "establishment Democrat" ends up being. (Look at how hard Lucy Flores tanked in NV for a non-presidential example of that state's politics). Obama won Texas (even though your map gives it to Hillary for winning a beauty contest there) through black turnout, mostly, which is likely to favor Booker in 2020.

NM, which has lots of white liberals and where the Hispanos have a different voting pattern than urban Hispanics, is a swing area between the two blocs, though I'll note Hillary won it twice. The state parties in UT and CO are dominated by white liberals and are likely to vote for whoever the "progressive" candidate ends up being (likelier than not, Sanders himself).

How did Lucy Flores do compared to Bob Goodman? Slightly better.

Obama only won more delegates in TX due to the 2008 dem primary having a caucus there in addition to a primary.

Obama overcame the naturally establishment-leaning Democratic primaries and cauci in Texas by adding blacks to his coalition. Bob Goodman was a sacrificial lamb from China not connected to any wing of the Democratic Party. The real question is how Lucy Flores did compared to Ruben Kihuen -- she lost the Democratic primary by double-digits.

Obama, like Bernie, in general, did well in caucuses for similar reasons. Dems haven't even had their own tea party yet. It's like where the republicans were a decade ago, there were very few proto-tea partyers in office (one of them being Pence).

The difference between the result of the Texas caucus (which Obama won, 56-44) and the Texas primary (which Clinton won, 51-47), can be attributed to the sort of white progressives that are likely to vote in caucuses and uniformly shifted Obama/Bernie. But note that the difference is not so large (Obama gains 9 points, and Clinton loses 7), and note that Obama in both cases is uplifted by blacks.

The Texas caucus has since been abolished; Texas held a primary only in 2016. Clinton won, 65/33. Even if Texas goes back to a caucus (which it won't), a similar shift would not be enough to give Bernie the state (he still loses, 58/42). "White progressives" on their own are just not enough to win Texas in a Democratic contest. It is enough in Utah and Colorado. But not Texas.

Pretty much every Dem state is dominated by 'establishment Dems', even Warren's own state. There are very few of these anti-establishment dems in power to begin with, that doesn't mean all of these regions are 'establishment'.

That's why I'm talking about hispanics, not whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html

Sure, but we can look at the patterns from the 2008 and 2016 primaries to determine where primaries or caucuses might be dominated, or likely to be won, by anti-establishment candidates. Much of New England, much of Appalachia, much of the Mountain West and the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest fits this description. The Southwest basically doesn't.

Jesse Jackson did well in the south in the 1988 primary, it's clear that in the south, Obama was helped by African-Americans, it wasn't an establishment/anti-establishment dynamic. Obama just had regional strength there, as did Bill Clinton in 1992.

So combine the african-american jesse jackson voters in the south with Bernie's voters and that's how you get Obama's coalition.

As far as the SW goes, that hasn't been proven. Latinos had a strong preference for Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/43587/

Lots of African-Americans, rather than preferring one faction over the other, like to cast their votes for fellow African-American politicians, who they trust. Most of Obama's coalition in the South, which largely went over to supporting Clinton in 2016, is eminently winnable for Cory Booker.

The Democratic Party in the Southwest tends to nominate more establishment candidates for congressional and gubernatorial positions, and liked Clinton because she reflected their ideological outlook. This is not necessarily the case across the country (I believe Latinos in Chicago broke for Sanders, for instance, though that may have had to do with their strong distaste for Mayor Emanuel and his support for the Clinton campaign), but is the case in more places than not. See a majority-Latino district in Harlem electing a new member of the IDC to the New York state Senate in 2016.

And like I said, that goes for the entire US in general, where establishment dems dominate simply because we haven't had a dem tea party, and don't know what the effects would be and what it would look like yet.

Both Warren and Harris, were endorsed by Obama in their senate races, for what it's worth, but the MA dems, for instance, are still overall 'establishment', as is the CA dem party. Apparently, recently, there have been incursions into the CA dem party by left-wingers, but this is just developing now.

Left-wingers have none of the top positions in California. Brown might be the most liberal, and he's nowhere as liberal as people think. Every top Democrat in the state endorsed Hillary. Bernie's top endorsement was a mayor of a city with a fraction of a percent of the state's population.

I was talking about the very very recent events in the past couple of months.

[Ronnie]

I hope Booker's 2020 primary opponents go after him with more than just kid gloves.  Trump was right when he said that, if Booker is the Dems' future, then they have no future.

[SCNCmod]

The whole Wall-Street criticism of Dems ... drives me crazy.  It totally lacks critical analysis.. IMO

[uti2]

The whole Wall-Street criticism of Dems ... drives me crazy.  It totally lacks critical analysis.. IMO

That's what makes the issue so ridiculous. All Dems need to do is throw their base a few reasonable bones like bringing back glass-steagall and throwing some bankers in jail to get their base off their backs. You could make the same argument for cia torturers by the way, just jail them, you'll make the base happy, and it'll be a deterrent for future torturers.

A few ceremonial measures like this, and the left-wing of the base will be as good as gold.

[SCNCmod]

The whole Wall-Street criticism of Dems ... drives me crazy.  It totally lacks critical analysis.. IMO

That's what makes the issue so ridiculous. All Dems need to do is throw their base a few reasonable bones like bringing back glass-steagall and throwing some bankers in jail to get their base off their backs. You could make the same argument for cia torturers by the way, just jail them, you'll make the base happy, and it'll be a deterrent for future torturers.

A few ceremonial measures like this, and the left-wing of the base will be as good as gold.

There is a similar lack of real analysis when it comes to free-trade agreements & manufacturing jobs.... since 87% of manufacturing job loss is the result of technology ... not trade agreements.

.... and the small % of manufacturing jobs loss from free trade... and more than surpassed by jobs gained as a result of tree trade agreements.