Sanders performing near Obama '08 levels, Clinton out ahead

Democratic Primaries '08 and 2016 in One Graph

Since the New York Times disappeared the 2008 results from their 2016 primary calendar, it has become harder to compare the current nominees' performance to that of 2008, which is particularly interesting on the Democratic side. Fortunately, this data is freely available on wikipedia.

Road to the Democratic Nomination '08 vs '16.
Note that Michigan and Florida didn't count in '08.

Numbers from the "Election Result" column from the wikipedia page were used for '08.
Graphing the '08 and '16 pledged delagate count into the same plot (we've seen in 2008 that superdelegates follow pledged delegates, in spite of what the Clinton campaign says) leads to a few conclusions:

• Sanders performs near Obama levels at this stage in the primaries.
• Clinton is well ahead of her '08 performance, largely fueled by delegates that in '08 went to Edwards.
• Michigan and Florida didn't count in '08 due to their early voting that was disallowed by the DNC, this gives both candidates a bump in 2016 versus '08 results. Without Michigan, Sanders would be near Clinton '08 levels.
• Both Obama and Clinton tracked very closely up to this stage in the primaries in 2008, with most pledged delegates still up for grabs. In 2016, this means both candidates can still hope to win the nomination.

5 reasons why watching the debates sucked

did you watch the debates? did you wish the candidates would just speak their minds instead of repeating their stump speeches and dodging questions? actually, the candidates have no choice but to act this way, and here are the 5 reasons why.

1 Not enough people watch the debates

soon computer

58m viewers equals less than 20% of the population. that means most of us were politics junkies looking to observe how things pan out rather than make up our minds - we already have. think this debate was for you? think again...

2 the debates are a ritual performed for the media

oh yeah

most voters will read or hear about them the on the next day through second hand reporting by some media outlet. that means that it doesn't really matter what is said but who produces the best sound bite and the best optics.

3 the media doesn't like complexity because viewers turn it off

i feel like...

talking about the issues can lead to complicated arguments weighing the pros and cons of a proposed solution, while viewers switch off. this is not a recipe for success in the media, which is all about eyeballs on commercials. so instead, the media concentrates on gossip-like news like who looked more statesmanlike or nervous and who looked into the camera more. expect it to be trotted out by talking heads and self-appointed experts ad nauseam. this concentration on secondary messages leads to...

4 candidates are afraid to be branded "divisive"

yeah, right

doesn't almost every sports store have merchandise saying "the other team sucks"? divisiveness is as American as apple pie, yet the word has strong negative connotations. for some reason, voters are uncomfortable with conflict, although the conflict of ideas is what it's all about. that means that when Romney talks about how he worked across the isle as a governor, Obama can't reply that he tried that, and republicans threw away the invite. and when Obama talks about his grandma having worked and paid into social security so that she could then draw from it when she needed it most, Romney can't reply how much he hates moochers that are "unwilling to take responsibility for their lives."

5 debates are for the undecided, aka the uninformed

huh?

seriously, if you still don't know by now who you prefer, you just haven't been paying attention. that's just the kind of person who'd get swayed by the kind of gossip dominating the media. unfortunately, this voting block is what swings the electron, so all messages we will be seeing will be at their level.

a couple of insights from the US diplomatic cables on wikileaks

Wikileaks figurehed Julian Assange
Wikimedia.org

as the story of the US diplomatic cables unfolds, it is time for a couple of thoughts of what they do and don't mean. (read about the highlights of their contents on the New York Times website or, more concise but still changing, on wikipedia.)

First, they do not contain any surprising content when it comes to the fact that, in international negotiations, everyone tries to outsmart their opponents and thinks of each other with little kindness. We all suspected as much and, as much as we enjoy a little chuckle at the characterizations of Berlusconi as

feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader

or Merkel as

tenacious but ... risk averse and rarely creative

i don't think that is too far from what we have been able to read in the papers for quite some time now.

amid all the haggling for influence, the not-so-flattering characterizations, the deception and thinly veiled threats, there is one recurrent theme, however: international governments talk to each other, all the time, about all sorts of issues. i think this is a ray of hope in a world that is rife with conflict, or so at least the media tell us. no matter how little they think of each other, or how much they rattle their sabers, at the end of the day the governments of this world all find the time to send envoys to the negotiating table, forge back room deals and, by doing that, come to a better mutual understanding. like the style or not, this is reassuring.

the second insight is that all this time people make changes in their countries and what we see as progressive powers are learning to wait their turn and then act. this one is only a rumor but worth highlighting in my opinion

An unidentified ally of former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani suggested that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has terminal leukemia and was expected to die in months and Rafsanjani's unwillingness to act after the disputed presidential election in 2009 comes from his wish to succeed Khamenei and annul Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election afterwards.

we do live in interesting times, indeed.