Democratic Debate at Drake University
November 14, 2015 4:50 PM   Subscribe

Tonight at 9 EST Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley will come together for a debate in Iowa at Drake University.

The debate is being presented by CBS News and the Des Moines Register and is scheduled to last two hours. The candidates have been preparing for a debate on domestic and economic issues. However, in the wake of the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris CBS has announced that the emphasis of the debate will shift to include discussions of foreign policy and national security.

Josh Vorhees at Slate discusses what the candidates must do to make an impact in tonight's debate.

CBS guide for how to tune in.
posted by Drinky Die (169 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
I wish Elizabeth Warren was on stage instead of the meaningless Martin O'Malley
posted by growabrain at 4:53 PM on November 14, 2015 [11 favorites]


Yeah, even if she doesn't want to run for President, just put her up there as a special guest debater.


Or moderator.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:53 PM on November 14, 2015 [8 favorites]


However, in the wake of the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris CBS has announced that the emphasis of the debate will shift to include discussions of foreign policy and national security.

Ugh. There's going to be dumb and offensive questions at the least and if were unlucky dumb and offensive answers.

At least it's not a republican debate, I guess.

But still, ugh.
posted by Artw at 4:56 PM on November 14, 2015 [6 favorites]


According to people on my Twitter feed who are at the debate, Bernie's people complained about the emphasis shift, and it's been de-shifted back and will now cover the same topics as it was initially going to cover. Which is good, because that was a stupid idea.

Incidentally, literally nobody in Iowa is going to be watching the debate except the people in the room, and half of them are going to be watching the Iowa-Minnesota game on their phones. Politics is a sport in Iowa, but college football is a much more important sport.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:59 PM on November 14, 2015 [6 favorites]


Best show money can buy.
I like Bernie, go, Bernie.
posted by clavdivs at 4:59 PM on November 14, 2015


Saturday night at 9pm, they're really trying to hide Hilary's policy platform for as long as possible aren't they?
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:00 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


The last one was on a Friday night, they're definitely not trying to get anyone under forty to watch these.
posted by octothorpe at 5:08 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Here are some sources for unofficial streams if the CBS one ends up not working for you. Use at your own risk, pirate stream sites can be shady.

http://www.livenewschat.eu/
http://www.stream2watch.co/live-tv/us/
http://www.hulkusc.com/

Saturday night at 9pm, they're really trying to hide Hilary's policy platform for as long as possible aren't they?

I don't necessarily think hiding policy is the issue, but they definitely don't want people to watch. Or at least they only want the dedicated primary voters who would care enough to watch instead of the reality show mass audience the Republicans are going for.

According to people on my Twitter feed who are at the debate, Bernie's people complained about the emphasis shift, and it's been de-shifted back and will now cover the same topics as it was initially going to cover.

Here's what I found on that. Basically, CBS wanted to cut the opening statements to make time for foreign policy and the Sanders campaign convinced them not to in a conference call. I suspect the end result is the Paris talk is going to take time out of the other subjects planned for instead. It's definitely going to be discussed.
Weaver said the campaign was not trying to avoid a conversation about foreign policy with Hillary Clinton, even though Sanders has been criticized for a lack of foreign policy experience. "We're going to have a discussion about that issue, which is extremely important, how we deal with ISIS,” Weaver said. “We're going to have a discussion about all the other important issues facing Americans -- income inequality, college affordability. We're going to have a debate about a wide range of issues.”
posted by Drinky Die at 5:08 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Bernie's people complained about the emphasis shift, and it's been de-shifted back and will now cover the same topics as it was initially going to cover. Which is good, because that was a stupid idea.

fwiw, cnn just reported that the new shift towards an emphasis on international affairs will be happening.
posted by futz at 5:10 PM on November 14, 2015


or what DD said ^^
posted by futz at 5:11 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Interesting. Conventional wisdom is that focusing on foreign policy hurts Bernie. And of course conventional wisdom is what matters, because nobody is going to be watching except reporters and pundits.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:16 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Sanders refuses to spend more time talking about terrorism"

Nice headline, Politico.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:31 PM on November 14, 2015 [15 favorites]


So, has anyone announced for the 2020 campaign yet?
posted by eriko at 5:33 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Kanye West.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:33 PM on November 14, 2015 [14 favorites]


I was going to say Deez Nuts, but Deez Nuts will still not be old enough to run.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:34 PM on November 14, 2015 [7 favorites]


So, has anyone announced for the 2020 campaign yet?

Chelsea Clinton v. Jenna Bush.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:38 PM on November 14, 2015 [11 favorites]


Chelsea Clinton v. Jenna Bush.
I was going to naysay that, but OMG, they'll both be old enough to run by then (Chelsea's 35 now, Jenna's 33). Thanks for making me feel VERY old.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:47 PM on November 14, 2015 [9 favorites]


These charts are driving me crazy. The line graph has Hillary as the darkest blue always; the pie chart gives the darkest blue to whomever's in the lead.
posted by lauranesson at 5:55 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


All these CBS election pundits are making me dumber, as expected. But I think the insta-Twitter graphics are exacerbating the effect.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:58 PM on November 14, 2015


I would vote for John Dickerson.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:08 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


Surfing around for a source that doesn't include the inane tweet stream. Failing :(
posted by antinomia at 6:10 PM on November 14, 2015


I just can't watch, I just can't. I already know who I'm voting for, and I just cannot watch them make political hay out of the Paris tragedy, I just can't.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:12 PM on November 14, 2015 [6 favorites]


Hillary is taking the high road and blaming the Iraqis.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:13 PM on November 14, 2015


That set background is a monstrosity, unless they're purposefully trying to turn my TV 4:3 and motion-sickness inducing.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:15 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


Ughhh, "nations who are opposed to Islam" gaffe.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:19 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


If anyone is listening on radio, here is a screenshot of what the stream looks like.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:20 PM on November 14, 2015 [7 favorites]


Will Saudi Arabia stand up to jihadi radicalism? We're all waiting with baited breath for the answer to that question.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:20 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I keep feeling like I should be listening to Drake right now but I can't put my finger on why
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:21 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I don't know why they named the university after a rapper either.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:22 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Ughhh, "nations who are opposed to Islam" gaffe.
Yeah, was wondering if I heard that wrong. Yikes
posted by torticat at 6:22 PM on November 14, 2015


I know when that phone rings at 3 AM, that can only mean one thing
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:24 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


O'Malley is kind of right about how "Boots on the ground" is dehumanizing. Never thought about it before.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:25 PM on November 14, 2015 [19 favorites]


Oh man, I hope O'Malley just brought an end to the phrase boots on the ground.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 6:25 PM on November 14, 2015 [9 favorites]


I'm watching the debate at a bar without audio, so I'm just scanning faces and trying to parse out tone in combination with tweets incoming.

The set design seems to kill depth perception, which may in fact be a feature.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:25 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Oh Hillary picked up on the gaffe... nice play.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:26 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Surfing around for a source that doesn't include the inane tweet stream. Failing :(

We're watching full screen on a Mac, zoomed in a bit to hide the Twitter insanity.

If you're watching in a browser window, you could enlarge the contents with cmd-shift-plus and resize the window to do something similar.
posted by jhc at 6:28 PM on November 14, 2015


I can't believe how many questions we are having about what to call the threat.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:28 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


Hillary: We have carte blanche for war with the AUMF. Huh.
posted by dhens at 6:30 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


O'Malley's hand gestures seem familiar....
ah yes.
posted by Westringia F. at 6:32 PM on November 14, 2015


One thing I will say about the CBS live stream... I do appreciate that timer telling me how long remains in the break.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:35 PM on November 14, 2015


Hillary: We have carte blanche for war with the AUMF. Huh.

She knows the Bush/Obama administration line cold, I won't be shocked to hear her try to blame Snowden.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:36 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


The Spin Zone?

Jon Stewart would be rolling in his grave.
posted by Talez at 6:40 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Did one of the moderators really just laugh at the 90% tax rate?
posted by Rhaomi at 6:43 PM on November 14, 2015


I laughed when Sanders said he wasn't as socialist as Dwight Eisenhower.
posted by Talez at 6:43 PM on November 14, 2015 [11 favorites]


That was the first time that the audience applauded, at the Eisenhower line. Not sure why they've been so silent thus far...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:45 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Starting off with the terrorism discussion kind of takes some of the wind out of the enthusiasm sails.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]



Will Saudi Arabia stand up to jihadi radicalism?


No.

Not only no, but absolutely not.

The last time the Whahabbis tried to overthrow the House of Saud, they were beat down, then to make sure it never happened again, they were given basically complete control over Saui society. At least, the parts that weren't Royal. So, the House of Saud supports the Whahabbis, and the Whahabbis don't overthrow the House of Saud.

The Whahabbis are all about the Caliphate being reformed. So, the Sauds will continue to dump money in, which will go right to terroists, because they don't want their sweet deal to end.

There is, frankly, no corruption quite like the House of Saud. Some day, of course, they will be taken down, quite probably by the Wahabbis. Which means, literally, a replay of Iran.

But because it's the Wahabbis, Iran won't deal with them when they do. Because Iran is Shia, and the Whabbis are Sunni, and there's no hatred quite like the hatred you have for somebody who agrees with 95% of what you believe.
posted by eriko at 6:48 PM on November 14, 2015 [27 favorites]


That's the way to handle interruptions. Immediate cut to commercial. Prisoner's dilemma.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:48 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


I would like to hear Sanders say that we need to cut agricultural subsidies, thereby getting rid of an expernse in the federal budget as well as making strides in the fight against poor nutrition and eating practices in the US. Unfortunately, the predominance of the Iowa caucuses makes this unlikely.
posted by dhens at 6:48 PM on November 14, 2015


Wow, O'Malley tried to butt in, but the moderator just cut him off and he actually stopped talking! The Democratic debates are way more civil than the Republican ones.
posted by FJT at 6:49 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yeah, it's amazing how much more civil a debate gets when you don't have 20 candidates all fighting for airtime like carnival barkers.*

*Nice, one O'Malley.
posted by Dr. Zira at 6:54 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


Fact checking O'Malley on net zero immigration from Mexico: Mostly true

And also reveals Bill Clinton said it earlier (June on the Daily Show).
posted by FJT at 6:54 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Sanders should have let Hillary take her turn there first.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:56 PM on November 14, 2015


Wow, O'Malley is killing it.
posted by Westringia F. at 6:57 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


"We will talk about Wall Street, but first we need to go to a commercial"

American politics in a nutshell.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:58 PM on November 14, 2015 [52 favorites]


I completely forgot about this. Given that it's on fairly late on a Saturday evening (eastern time) I assume that's what the Democratic party was hoping for.

What a ridiculous time for a debate.
posted by Justinian at 7:00 PM on November 14, 2015 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I think O'Malley knows he's trailing both Clinton and Sanders and has nothing to lose. His little knock on Trump not only plays to the audience, but also maybe Trump will respond and get him a little bit of that Trump bump.
posted by FJT at 7:01 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm in Wall Street's pocket because 9/11!
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:05 PM on November 14, 2015 [12 favorites]


Methinks Sanders hit a sore spot. Gender card and terrorism card in the same breath?
posted by Rhaomi at 7:05 PM on November 14, 2015 [9 favorites]


Nice answer Rud...I mean Hillary.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:07 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Well, I was wrong about O'Malley just being out there to run for VP (for Clinton anyway).
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:08 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


"I know you appointed an investment banker in 2010."

Well prepared.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:09 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Lehman Brothers was not a big bank? WTF is a big bank then?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:09 PM on November 14, 2015 [7 favorites]


I just want to know what those three buttons on the moderator's desk do. I feel like I've seen them before...
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:10 PM on November 14, 2015


It's cool to bail out banks as long as they're not Ludicrous-size banks.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:10 PM on November 14, 2015


The Hamms Bear: "I'm in Wall Street's pocket because 9/11!"

Yeah, I winced at that.
posted by octothorpe at 7:12 PM on November 14, 2015


Can we all agree never to use the phrase "Trump bump" again? Shudder...
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:14 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


9/11 invocation brought up in the debate!
posted by dhens at 7:15 PM on November 14, 2015


They're making her respond to a tweet? Daaaamn.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:15 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Baltimore isn't one of the safest cities"
Over the line, dude!
posted by J.K. Seazer at 7:15 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


Sanders missing an opportunity to link gridlock on consensus gun control policy with the power of wealthy lobbies like the NRA.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:15 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


Moderators are reading Metafilter and calling it "Twitter", obviously.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:16 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Lehman Brothers was not a big bank? WTF is a big bank then?

I can only assume she's trying to deflect blame from her big donors, e.g. BofA and Goldman Sachs, by scapegoating these problems on "small investment banks." Of course, the whole issue is that you can be both a depositor bank and an investment bank at the same time - that's basically the entire problem with having repealed Glass-Steagall.
posted by dialetheia at 7:16 PM on November 14, 2015 [9 favorites]


Hilary has now referenced Krugman so often that I'm starting to wonder if he's the one running.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:18 PM on November 14, 2015


Can we all agree never to use the phrase "Trump bump" again? Shudder...

Let's try and get Trump Stamp into the popular lexicon
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:18 PM on November 14, 2015 [10 favorites]


"Wage a campaign for real American capitalism"

Wow, gee, sign me up!
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:19 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


But Clinton's point was that Lehman Bros was not a depository bank, so Glass Steagal in itself would have had no effect on them (or for Goldman, etc.)
posted by tau_ceti at 7:19 PM on November 14, 2015 [8 favorites]


Exactly; she was making a good point but she made it poorly.
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on November 14, 2015


Did Bernie Sanders just lose the Baltimore vote? That seemed a little cold.
posted by redsparkler at 7:20 PM on November 14, 2015


I think most Baltimoreans know the deal.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:22 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


But Clinton's point was that Lehman Bros was not a depository bank, so Glass Steagal in itself would have had no effect on them (or for Goldman, etc.)

But her point is still wrong, because the failure of Lehman wouldn't have caused people to invoke "too big to fail" in the first place if it weren't for their interconnectedness with big depository banks like BofA which was a direct result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Certainly more needs to be done to address systemic risk, but arguing that we need to look at those smaller actors, to the exclusion of dealing with the "too big to fail" banks themselves, is just silly.
posted by dialetheia at 7:23 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Bill Clinton just endorsed Hillary on Twitter according to the stream. This is big! He couldn't even wait till the end of the debate to decide, she must be doing well.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:24 PM on November 14, 2015 [10 favorites]


Did Bernie Sanders just lose the Baltimore vote? That seemed a little cold.

Puts to the forefront again Sanders being a rural Democrat vs city/urban Democrats like O'Malley.
posted by FJT at 7:25 PM on November 14, 2015


personally I think the American people are now also sick and tired of hearing about the damn comment Sanders made about Clinton's damn emails
posted by Gymnopedist at 7:25 PM on November 14, 2015 [8 favorites]


I'm tired of Clinton having to agree with the damn comment Sanders made about Clinton's damn emails.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:26 PM on November 14, 2015


Post this one, CBS!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5m5 minutes ago
"@jcooper75: #DemDebate this debate stinks. CBS News, major fail. @realDonaldTrump"
posted by Drinky Die at 7:28 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm tired of the Democrats onstage debating the Republicans instead of debating each other.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:28 PM on November 14, 2015


Americijuana!
posted by quin at 7:30 PM on November 14, 2015 [15 favorites]


Throwing Baltimore a college bone.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 7:34 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Per usual, I'm wondering about Bernie's lapel pin.
posted by box at 7:35 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Did Bernie Sanders just lose the Baltimore vote? That seemed a little cold.

Yeah, I could've done without that remark, but I'll still vote for the dude. The mention of "Burlington, Vermont or Baltimore, Maryland" just now might even be a subtle attempt at walking it back.

(At least that makes sense in my now-starting-to-be-influenced-by-that-magic-brownie-I-had-an-hour-ago brain. Small amount, so it's totally decriminalized so get off my back guys, and by the way thanks for hooking that up on your way out the door, O'Malley.)
posted by CommonSense at 7:35 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'd like to see Clinton debate her selves.
posted by buzzman at 7:36 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


I agree with Bernie and imma let him finish but what about the menace of useless college educated philosophers that Marco Rubio has vowed to defeat with plumbers?
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:39 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


"We've got to take a break or the machine breaks down." WFT? Also, cutting O'Malley off for commercial again? That's cold.
posted by dhens at 7:41 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


'We've got to take a break, or the machine breaks down.'
posted by box at 7:41 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


'We've got to take a break, or the CSI machine breaks down.'
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:43 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


O'Malley's probably wondering if he's in the Matrix or something right now
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:43 PM on November 14, 2015


Well, they let the Trivago guy out of his white room so the Matrix is the only plausible explanation.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:45 PM on November 14, 2015


Heh, killing bin Laden kind of wins this round by default.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:47 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


editing closed just as I went to fix "WFT?" to "WTF?" Dammit.
posted by dhens at 7:47 PM on November 14, 2015


O'Malley: "I, too have had emergencies. I can do emergencies."
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:47 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


"No dollar too small!"
posted by redsparkler at 7:50 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I thought mentioning vets was a pretty good rebuttal.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:50 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


"I went to government. I did an emergency."
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:51 PM on November 14, 2015 [14 favorites]


"For more information on O'Malley go to mmalley.ultimate-poker-casino.biz.tv"
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:51 PM on November 14, 2015 [19 favorites]


First, the important stuff: Hawkeyes: 33. Gophers: 21. 12 minutes left to go in the fourth quarter.

According to my Twitter feed, this debate was won by John Dickerson.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:54 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


More important stuff: OU-Baylor 34-26
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:55 PM on November 14, 2015


Just out of curiousity, what exactly is in Spin Alley? Do they have prostitutes and drunks?
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:56 PM on November 14, 2015


Why do they keep pitching their websites?

"I'm Oscar dot com!"
posted by FJT at 7:57 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


The Twitter thing needs to die in a fire. I can't believe they made the candidates stick around for that. What do they think this is, a *Republican* debate?
posted by uosuaq at 7:58 PM on November 14, 2015


Where's the word cloud? Are...are they not doing a word cloud?
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:59 PM on November 14, 2015


Word clouds break the machine.
posted by Dr. Zira at 8:01 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


John Dickerson accidentally reveals existence of The Machine, spends rest of short life on the run from Mechanical Hounds
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:07 PM on November 14, 2015 [15 favorites]


‏@FrankLuntz
If GOP thinks Hillary is easily beatable, they're wrong

It's not just words, but her tone & style are the best I've seen so far. #DemDebate

posted by Drinky Die at 8:08 PM on November 14, 2015


""The telephone is ringing I say "Hi it's me. Who is it there on the line?""
posted by clavdivs at 8:09 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


If Frank Lutz is saying it, he doesn't believe it. His art is getting the wrong story told. He thinks the GOP will pwn Clinton in the general.

The fascinating thing is he's stating he can beat Sanders.

So: that's solved then. If I had a voice in the nomination, I'd vote Sanders. But I live in Illinois. So, I don't.
posted by eriko at 8:25 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


I don't think you can safely assume everything Luntz says is a lie. He has no problem lying to spin things but he also has no problem telling the truth to do the same. The devil can quote scripture for his purposes.

Barring a complete game changing disaster for her Clinton essentially has the nomination sewn up and nothing Luntz says can affect that one way or another. Sanders is more in the nature of a backup in case Clinton gets hit by a bus.
posted by Justinian at 8:31 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


Oh, the aforementioned bus is metaphorical in exactly the way that Ralph's viking dreams are not.
posted by Justinian at 8:33 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I only watched a bit, but I think Hills knocked it out of the park despite the fact that her get up was very Lisa Simpson.
posted by sweetkid at 8:36 PM on November 14, 2015


If Frank Lutz is saying it, he doesn't believe it. His art is getting the wrong story told. He thinks the GOP will pwn Clinton in the general.

His art is reading focus groups to find out how to wrap bad ideas in pretty paper which is obviously fundamentally dishonest, but to me at least he doesn't have a reputation for just straight up lying about what he sees the way you are describing. That feels like more of a Rove thing.

I only watched a bit, but I think Hills knocked it out of the park despite the fact that her get up was very Lisa Simpson.

I didn't notice the necklace at all during the debate but now I can't unsee it as Lisa's. I wonder if she could pull off one of those badass chain necklaces like Diane wears on The Good Wife.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:36 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


But how can I do my synechdotic Trump gender fuck fan fiction without the Trump bump? It's a romantic comedy where his ego falls in love with his "hair" and together they give birth to the whore of Babylon, which of course gestates in the Trump bump before emerging to bring about ragnorok (in the movie adaptation it will be voice acted by Eddie Murphy doing his goofy sidekick thing).
posted by idiopath at 8:38 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


I am so tired of people going after Hillary's wardrobe. Leave her Wall Street ties out of it!
posted by srboisvert at 8:39 PM on November 14, 2015


Hillary: We have carte blanche for war with the AUMF. Huh.

60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History
posted by homunculus at 8:40 PM on November 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


Frank Luntz is a brilliant, sincere individual and I hope he'll still be around to dispense his wisdom to our great-great-grandchildren.
posted by uosuaq at 8:44 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Well, until the Supreme Court chooses to rule or Congress impeaches a president using it, an AUMF pretty much means the executive has carte blanche with one in place.

I've always thought this was a mistake, but arguably, it's simple. Congress, who has the power to declare war, has authorized the executive to use the military. There's an honest question here: what difference is that from a declaration of war?
posted by eriko at 8:47 PM on November 14, 2015 [1 favorite]




There's an honest question here: what difference is that from a declaration of war?

According to "lawyers" on "the internet" it doesn't say "declare war" so it doesn't count.

I didn't say it, I declared it.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:55 PM on November 14, 2015




Carnival barkers.*
*Nice, one O'Malley.


ahem.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:09 PM on November 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I really enjoyed the sheer honesty of Martin O'Malley's appreciation of Hillary's political chops when he muttered something like"Man, you're good," to her remark about how he hired an investment banker guy in 2010.

Hillary was also so, so smooth when she worked in how she hadn't told Bill anything about the Osama Bin Laden situation as reassurance for those who think her administration would be Bubba Redux, while simultaneously noting that Obama had called all the living presidents to inform them what was up. Audience concludes, "Hmmm... can't picture those GOP guys doing that." Masterful.
posted by carmicha at 9:15 PM on November 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


His art is reading focus groups to find out how to wrap bad ideas in pretty paper which is obviously fundamentally dishonest, but to me at least he doesn't have a reputation for just straight up lying about what he sees the way you are describing. That feels like more of a Rove thing.

You, I recall Luntz being unabashedly excited about Obama's chances to win in 2008. I thought he was going to flip sides, but I think in the end, he just loves his craft, for better or for worse, and couldn't help calling it as he saw it.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:08 PM on November 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


FYI, that PPP poll was paid for by Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC.
posted by Backslash at 1:08 AM on November 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yeah, I heard that. Possibly she only won with 60% instead of 67%.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:19 AM on November 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


So, who does the media think won?

"A focus group conducted by.... Democratic strategist (Chris Kofinis) in Iowa during the debate showed Mrs. Clinton to be the winner. The survey gauged the feelings of 33 undecided Democrats in Des Moines, where the debate was held. A total of 23 said Mrs. Clinton won the debate; 10 said Mr. Sanders was the winner. “It was clear that Clinton’s answers on terrorism, and her improved answers on domestic issues, moved undecided Iowans in striking ways. It has almost definitively made Clinton the likely nominee and is a profound lost opportunity for Sanders and O’Malley.”" - WSJ

"Winner: John Dickerson" - Politico

"Winner: Hillary Clinton"
- Vox

"Winner: John Dickerson" - Daily Beast

"Martin O’Malley sort of won. It doesn’t matter." - Politico

"To put it simply, Clinton won the debate." - The Decaturian

"Hillary Clinton, guarding a commanding lead in the Democratic presidential contest, deployed a prevent defense in the party’s second debate on Saturday night. It appeared to work." - Fortune

"Hillary Clinton did what she had to do. . . She exits this debate as the Democratic frontrunner by a wide margin . . . It was clear during the debate that Sanders is having a major impact on the Democratic agenda... for that reason he is a winner." - Politicus

"Hillary Clinton was vulnerable at the debate Saturday night and could have been taken down a notch if she’d had formidable opponents on the stage. But she didn't. They didn’t. And that leaves the race pretty much exactly where it is—give or take a few percentage points." - Daily Beast

"Winner: Hillary Clinton" - Al.com

"Nobody "won", nobody "lost"" - Daily KOS

"Hillary Clinton Won the CBS Debate: Barely, and Sometimes Cheaply" - Slate

"Clinton won the debate." - Washington Post

"Clinton, distancing herself from Obama on Islamic State, wins Dem debate" - Chicago Sun-Tiimes

"Clinton did not let her rivals rattle her composure. She entered the debate as the frontrunner, and said nothing that seemed likely to change that. " - The Atlantic

"No clear winner means Hillary can keep dominating" - IBT
posted by markkraft at 5:07 AM on November 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's worth mentioning though that there is only one more debate between now and when the first absentee ballots will start to be cast, and two debates between now and when Democrats will vote in Iowa.

This is a problem for Clinton's competitors, as it will tend to lock in a significant percentage of voter's intentions at a situation favorable to her, making it very hard for them to close the gap in early states.

At this point in the race in 2007, Obama was just beginning to pull ahead in Iowa, though it took him until December to be on parity to Sanders in New Hampshire. He went on to lose that state in a close race, despite having an 8.3 point lead in the polls on the day of the primary, largely because of Clinton's extremely organized GOTV efforts.

2008, in particular, was a real race on the part of the Obama campaign to capitalize on early victories in order to change longstanding, nationwide perceptions about Clinton's inevitability and desirability as the party's most electable candidate. The problem being, they never seemed to have enough time to fully change voter perceptions. They were, however, able to eke out more electoral votes, even though they received somewhat fewer votes than Clinton nationally.

Throughout the primaries, Obama was polling ahead in several states right before the election, only to lose, due, in large part, to early / absentee / mail-in voting. Obviously, the same problem will likely impact this election's crop of challengers, but the election just isn't as close as it was in November 2007. The barriers to changing minds and winning primaries is much higher, because the election and voter intent is less fluid.

If O'Malley and Sanders can't change the race *really* soon, or if Clinton doesn't implode, I don't see a path for either of them that isn't effectively over with the Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary, at which time Super Tuesday will just be a formality.
posted by markkraft at 6:34 AM on November 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


Because of the Democratic superdelegates Clinton already has a 15 point lead over Sanders before a single primary has been run. She's got 359 delegates, far ahead of where she was this time in '07. Sanders will do well in his neighbor state of NH but I can't see how he's going to overcome Clinton's momentum.
posted by octothorpe at 7:27 AM on November 15, 2015




This is all very good and well; but which candidate will be appearing on DWTS next season?
posted by buzzman at 9:02 AM on November 15, 2015


Sadly, I think the more likely question to have an answer is which DWTS alumnus will be running for President in 2020.
posted by Etrigan at 9:05 AM on November 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


Well, until the Supreme Court chooses to rule or Congress impeaches a president using it, an AUMF pretty much means the executive has carte blanche with one in place.

I've always thought this was a mistake, but arguably, it's simple. Congress, who has the power to declare war, has authorized the executive to use the military. There's an honest question here: what difference is that from a declaration of war?


Well, one answer is that it's a declaration of a different war. It's frustrating that everyone has given up and bought the idea that the AUMF granted authority for any war anybody feels like fighting anymore because we're just living in a post-9/11 world now!!! The actual text of the AUMF says:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Emphasis mine. So, sure, the AUMF provided authority for the war in Afghanistan. And now we know that the link between Iraq and 9/11 was fabricated, but at the time the Bush administration tried really hard to argue to the people of the US and to the UN that the Iraq war was authorized because Saddam "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11" or whatever. They were wrong, but they at least acknowledged that the authorization was important.

But these days, who cares? ISIS didn't plan, authorize, commit, or aid the September 11 attacks or harbor such organizations or persons. The closest anyone comes to acknowledging this is arguing "oh ISIS is a spinoff of Al Qaeda" which is like arguing that spaghetti squash is an Italian pasta dish because look!, it has "spaghetti" right there in the name! ISIS grew out of a jihadist organization based in Iraq formed in the aftermath of the Iraq war and was later called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" after months of negotiations, but (a) it didn't exist on September 11, 2001, and (b) although it reached an agreement with Al Qaeda after its founding, it wasn't an offshoot. And since then, the real, actual Al Qaeda (who everyone agrees did plan, authorize, and commit the September 11 attacks) has formally disavowed any ties to ISIS.

Which is why I laughed last night when Hillary said she would "like to see [the AUMF] updated" but nevertheless it "certainly" authorizes the fight against ISIS. It's like, sure it would be nice if the AUMF had anything to do with the war I want to wage, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't matter because everyone will pretend it does anyway. ISIS is terrible and maybe we need a greater military response, maybe not. But if we do, it would be nice for the Administration to at least go through the motions of getting authorization for the war first instead of bending over backwards to pretend that the 2001 AUMF has anything to do with ISIS. Seriously, how hard could it be? Whether or not it's right, who's going to vote against it outside of Rand Paul and a handful of pacifist Democrats?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:25 AM on November 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


You know how some people like Bernie Sanders because he's a fighter?!

Well, this is a boxing match. It has rules and techniques, strategies and tactics.

Hillary Clinton is a better boxer. Often annoyingly so, because she bobs and weaves and jabs, and when forced into a corner, she weaves out of it, or grabs on to her opponent until the ref breaks things up.

Those looking for their fighter to land a K.O. are usually sadly disappointed, especially when their fighter fails to land many clean blows, spends all evening dodging jabs, and goes home with a fat lip and a black eye.
posted by markkraft at 11:42 AM on November 15, 2015


Clinton supporters are very overconfident. No one has ever not been nominated after winning both NH and IA and Sanders is in striking distance of that. Her apparent belief she can combine support from bosses, Wall Street dollars and a less-well-educated voter base to turn the tide is breathtakingly cynical, and probably wrong, to boot. Superdelegates will follow the primary and caucus voters.
posted by MattD at 11:58 AM on November 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


Did omalley come out and say he won't take VP nomination? He looked positively Vice Presidential last night.
posted by sweetkid at 12:04 PM on November 15, 2015


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

"HE" determines? OMG you guys, all we need to do is elect Hillary and the AUMF won't apply!
posted by jcreigh at 12:18 PM on November 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


" Her apparent belief she can combine support from bosses.."

"Bosses", meaning Democratic Party super-delegates, prominent unions, and donors, all of which Sanders has tried to compete to get the support of, at various times. If they do endorse Sanders, they are surprisingly not called "bosses".

Really, if Sanders was serious about getting their support, he would've become a Democrat when the party offered him their nomination in his last senate election. Instead, he's tried to play things both ways, as an independent or Democrat when the situation best suits him, only to find that the history, loyalty, and support wasn't there.

From my perspective, you are basically complaining that Sanders is at a disadvantage because he doesn't know how to run a political campaign, and that somehow he deserves more credibility with Democrats for having absolutely no track record of being one. It's sour grapes.

"Wall Street dollars"

You're attacking a straw man from last decade, as opposed to how Hillary Clinton funds her campaign today. If I did the same thing, we'd be talking about Bernie getting a substantial chunk of his money from superPACs, real estate lobbyists, big sugar, and HillPAC.


"and a less-well-educated voter base"

Except that's not particularly true. Polls suggest that Hillary Clinton has slightly more support from college educated individuals, in total numbers, but also has much greater support for those who make under $50,000 a year, many of whom are not college educated. A higher percentage of Sanders supporters are white... particularly white and male. This obviously skews the education stats, if you are looking at it on a strict percentage basis. To the extent your claim is true, it's also very racially-loaded and anti-poor, critical of those who have less opportunity for a college education than most of Bernie's supporters... not that you need a college education to know which candidate is most capable of helping you.

Your argument smacks too much of White Man's Burden, frankly... in truth, the poor and minorities have much more riding on this election than white males do, and they want to elect a candidate they feel will keep the GOP out of office.
posted by markkraft at 1:03 PM on November 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


(As a side-note, I remember seeing a poll's methodology about a month ago which suggests that Clinton's support peaks at both ends of the scales, educationally... those with only a HS education, and those with advanced degrees, with those with a college education but no advanced degree being more equally split

The reasoning for this is kind of obvious... many of her supporters are a bit older, and have had more time to earn advanced degrees.)
posted by markkraft at 1:13 PM on November 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't think Sanders has a chance of winning Iowa, and a win in NH means basically nothing for a politician from northern New England, due to their home-field advantage.

This might be my PTSD from the Howard Dean campaign speaking, but I just don't have faith that the Sanders campaign is going to turn their broad base of shallow support into people willing and able to go out in the cold to sit in a library or whatever for the hours it takes to work through the caucus process. Meanwhile, I would be stunned if the Clinton people made any tactical errors whatsoever in putting together their Iowa caucus campaign.

Basically, you have to think of a campaign in a caucus state as less like a political campaign and more like a military campaign — your goal is to get more soldiers, and better organized soldiers, and better equipped soldiers, to a specific location at a specific time than your rivals can. Sure, the "battle" you're sending these soldiers involves winning control of a debate process rather than shooting bullets at each other, but it must be understood in military campaign terms — you're asking people to organized to do something that miserable that no rational person would ever want to do. Because you're trying to reach the people who can and will do something uncomfortable for you (go out in the cold, sit under flickering fluorescent lights, get into arguments for hours with absolutely the crankiest retirees you can imagine, while everyone tries to turn the rules of order to their own ends), people whose idea of political involvement consists of "hey I like that guy maybe I'll vote for him if I can get time off work that day and if I remember to go to the polls" are completely useless to you — and this, unfortunately, describes many Sanders supporters. They're great people, but not useful soldiers — they can't drop everything to do something that no one would normally ever want to do.

Although the part of Howard Dean's collapse that people remember is the media assassination after he lost Iowa (you know, the thing where all the networks turned up his mic and turned down the crowd noise mic, so that he sounded crazy and drunk?), the thing that really killed his campaign was the actual loss itselff, not the Dean Scream. And the reason why he finished third in Iowa is because his team in Iowa consisted in large part of political outsiders (like Zephyr Teachout) and semi-outsiders (like Joe Trippi) who had not at that point ever run campaigns in Iowa before. Because of their (in retrospect blindingly obvious) cluelessness they had no chance to convert the broad shallow support they had into caucus-goers.

The strategy they ended up picking — flying in college students from around the country to doorknock in Iowa — seemed good to them. Earnest bright college students were the Dean supporters with the most free time and most free enthusiasm, so why not send them to round up Iowans for the caucuses? The reason why not, of course, is that the college students seemed like crazy cultists — a bunch of kids from Not Around Here, wandering around in the cold, all wearing orange hats1 for reasons too obscure for anyone to explain.

Meanwhile, Kerry, who IIRC was polling at 2% in Iowa in November of 2003, worked hard to get the endorsement of the Iowa firefighters unions. Given that small towns across Iowa were swarmed with:
  1. Culty-seeming doorknocking college kids in orange hats from Not Around Here trying to turn out the vote for Dean, and
  2. Beloved firefighters from Around Here trying to turn out the vote for Kerry.
it is not at all surprising why charisma-free John Kerry ended up stomping populist firebrand Howard Dean.

Unless people following the Sanders campaign closer than I am can say otherwise, I am going to assume that the Sanders people are going to be almost as bad at the caucus game as the Dean people were.

1: Orange hats. All the Dean volunteers wore orange hats. Why orange? I have no idea. But everyone wore orange hats.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:15 PM on November 15, 2015 [3 favorites]


"this, unfortunately, describes many Sanders supporters. They're great people, but not useful soldiers"

I actually disagree with this. The more telling factor, though, is age. Older people are much more likely to vote *AND* to caucus. And Hillary's supporters in Iowa are both more numerous and trend older.

The other important factor is just how much more advanced and developed Clinton's support mechanism is for getting people out to vote. She has huge email lists, data mining, localized polling, highly targeted advertising and messages, etc. She hired the top tech talent from Obama's two successful campaigns, the top software people, top people over at Google, and made early investments that will pay later dividends.
posted by markkraft at 1:33 PM on November 15, 2015 [2 favorites]


Oh... looks like CBS did their own post-debate poll.

Fifty-one percent say Clinton won, compared to 28 percent who favor Bernie Sanders. Just 7 percent pick Martin O'Malley as the winner. Fourteen percent called it a tie.
posted by markkraft at 1:42 PM on November 15, 2015


She hired the top tech talent from Obama's two successful campaigns, the top software people, top people over at Google, and made early investments that will pay later dividends.
She's also hired a lot of the Democrats' Iowa field organizers from 2014. You could argue that 2014 was a disaster, and it was, but I don't think that was the field organizers' fault. They're experienced and smart and they know the territory.

I know I've said this already, but I don't think I can say it enough. Very few people actually watched the debate last night. Nobody in Iowa did. What matters about this debate isn't the actual debate. It's the post-debate scuttlebutt. And the post-debate scuttlebutt is somewhere between "it was a draw" and "Clinton won," which means that it doesn't change anything. I think you still have to assume that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win Iowa, barring some sort of hit-by-a-bus style scandal.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:03 PM on November 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Very few people actually watched the debate last night. Nobody in Iowa did."

It was apparently the least viewed of the debates thus far for either party, but still more viewed than the debates in the last election.

That said, people did, in fact, watch the debate in Iowa. They had viewing parties all over the state, for both Clinton and Sanders. Clinton spoke to a fairly large, energetic one after the debate, in fact, which was full of supporters who couldn't get in to the debate on campus.

That doesn't mean that the great majority won't just see a few clips or read an article or two, and basically walk away with the idea that they didn't miss much and that nothing significant has changed. CBS is particularly unhelpful in making it easy and obvious on how to view the debate in full now, and it isn't available on C-SPAN.
posted by markkraft at 2:17 PM on November 15, 2015


I'm sure that someone was watching it. But I know a lot of politically active Democrats in Iowa, and almost everyone was watching the football game. Some people said they would be "switching back and forth," but it was a close, important football game, so I'm not sure how much switching actually went on.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:15 PM on November 15, 2015


Clinton's support peaks at both ends of the scales, educationally... those with only a HS education, and those with advanced degrees, with those with a college education but no advanced degree being more equally split

The reasoning for this is kind of obvious... many of her supporters are a bit older, and have had more time to earn advanced degrees.


I think this cries out for the kind of more sophisticated analysis that we probably don't have the data to do--what proportion of M. Ed.'s and MSW's support Hilary vs Bernie? What percentage of MDs and JDs? Professional vs purely academic degrees?

I feel like it's probably more complex than 'well, they're old,' but, like I say, I doubt we have the data for that kind of analysis, and I wouldn't be the person to do it even if we did.
posted by box at 5:08 PM on November 15, 2015


Couple thoughts:

1) Hillary using the "he's attacking my integrity" thing when Bernie pointed out that when politicians receive donations their donators expect favor was awful. Everyone knows that's true. Trying to pretend you're the one person who's not influenced is absurd. That's why people donate to campaigns. To influence them. To pretend the money is just coming in from happy supporters is ridiculous and I hope everyone saw through that shit.

2) Regardless of who wins, can we have one real debate on a night where people are at home with nothing else to do? Please? It's not a lot, but please. Please. I'm so tired of this.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:31 PM on November 15, 2015 [4 favorites]


There hasn't been a New Hampshire primary poll for a few weeks, so I was curious whether the election had shifted there more, like it has in Iowa... and that appears to be the case, with the new Gravis poll.

Clinton 46, Sanders 25, O'Malley 3

This is four days old, before the debates. The sample size is low and the margin of error is fairly high, but it does seem to indicate a significant shift has occurred, similar to that in Iowa.

There are several polls that are likely to come out in the next week, which should show if there is any post-debate shift. I guess we'll see then whether NH voters are getting Berned out.

It might be a good idea for Hillary to say to the other candidates that people don't want to see Democrats attacking each other, by wasting tens of millions of dollars flooding the air with ads, and offer to pull all TV and radio ads, if the other candidates agree. At this point, the offer could only help her, I suspect.
posted by markkraft at 6:47 PM on November 15, 2015


"Regardless of who wins, can we have one real debate on a night where people are at home with nothing else to do? Please? It's not a lot, but please. Please. I'm so tired of this."

I was curious, so I checked...

The next Debate is on Saturday, Dec. 19 in Manchester, NH. The debate will presumably have a similar time schedule, and looks to be likely to air up against "A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa" on NBC, back when Piggy and Kermie were together... and the Jennings vs. Ortiz WBA World heavyweight title fight on HBO.

It's also a great night to go out to see all the Christmas lights! We are so blessed!
posted by markkraft at 7:22 PM on November 15, 2015


Oh, and don't forget about the Cure Bowl on CBS Sports and the New Orleans Bowl on ESPN. Great day evening for a game!
posted by markkraft at 7:38 PM on November 15, 2015


So all the MeFites will be watching The Muppets (which you should and I will be too. We're taking roll so don't think you can skip out, buster). Sports people who like the fights will watch that (and I might have to switch to that a bit as well. I don't pay close attention to most sports but my grandfather instilled a weird boxing love in me). Or the Bowls more likely for most. And it's Saturday again. Even if you assume this idea about reducing primary exposure works and helps reduce friction for an agreed-upon candidate, it's still another month where the Republicans are the only ones running for president in terms of media coverage. At least tell people you're running.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:45 PM on November 15, 2015


Oh, did I mention that they're releasing a movie that weekend? I'm sure it won't impact things much, though.

All we need is "A Very Merry Game of Thrones Christmas" and all the bases would be covered!
posted by markkraft at 7:51 PM on November 15, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's strange but I feel both a weird comfort and sickness in the fact that my vote doesn't matter. I live in California, so the Democrat will win the presidential vote. And I have no problem with my adorable but wacky conservative Oklahoma relatives voting however they want because the Republican will win there. None of our votes matter. So whatever we do within a party or outside is really minimal for the most part. Structural politics will ensure that things generally go in the way they're intended by their designers. All our arguing and pretending really doesn't do much more than make us feel we're right and content.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:27 PM on November 15, 2015


"Structural politics will ensure that things generally go in the way they're intended by their designers."

You talk about "designers" like it's a great conspiracy, but in truth the design was screwed from the beginning, with the emergence of a two-party system that was arguably less ethical than it is today, in many key ways. If you don't believe me, read Gore Vidal's "Inventing a Nation".

All we are really complaining about is that certain classes of people -- politicians, lobbyists, corporations, etc. -- are highly professional and skilled at working the system to their advantage.

Overturning Citizen's United would merely return levels of corruption to the abhorent revolving door corporate / lobbyist environment before the ruling... back to the good ol' days of Jack Abramhoff, where, as he said, all he'd have to do to own a politician indefinitely is merely suggest that he could arrange a job for them somewhere, once they leave office. How do you fix that? Provide them a permanent salary, and ban them from all other sources of income for life?!

The absolute best you can hope for is some kind of sweeping reform that would lead to a new game that is a little harder for lifetime professionals to totally control and master.

Or to paraphrase Lawrence Lessig,
"Don't hate the playa, hate the game."
posted by markkraft at 10:03 PM on November 15, 2015


It's not that I don't believe it or think it's a grand conspiracy or any of that nonsense. It just sorta sickens me that it's so ingrained and protected and that even any pretension of sweeping reform doesn't happen and is never going to happen. Power ensures power and the weak always suffer.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:15 PM on November 15, 2015


Trying to pretend you're the one person who's not influenced is absurd.

You mean like Bernie does?

That's why people donate to campaigns.

I can't speak for everyone, but I donate because I want a certain candidate to win, because I have already decided to trust that candidate to act in my best interests. I have no illusions that my individual donation, or donations in the aggregate, will influence that candidate. She's already demonstrated to me that she will do what I want.

I happen to work for a multinational corporation, but my interests have nothing whatsoever to do with the company I work for or the industry it's in. I imagine it's pretty much the same for those donors who work for other corporations. After all, employees of Wall Street companies are not all or even mostly CEOs, brokers, and traders, they're also regular office workers, data entry people, IT people, janitors, and mail room clerks.
posted by caryatid at 1:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]




Jindal's out.
posted by octothorpe at 4:13 PM on November 17, 2015


No doubt focusing on being awful in other ways.
posted by Artw at 6:12 PM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


Dude's term-limited, polling pretty badly in LA, and, nationally, let's-say-insignificant--it's not his time or his turn or whatever, I feel that, but I'm not sure what his ceiling looks like these days. I don't know if he can be the conservative South Asian guy (and D'Souza has that spot for the foreseeable future). I don't really see Jindal getting a Cabinet post in a Rubio or Cruz administration, and I wouldn't say he's looking senatorial right now, or that people are clamoring to see his TV show or read his book or whatever. Bobby Jindal, NPR told me, is 44 years old. What's next from here?
posted by box at 7:01 PM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I hope what's next is "going away" for Bobby Jindal. Much as I loathe his politics I also hate having to defend him in some way against claims he's "trying to be white" like there's some right way to be Indian American properly.
posted by sweetkid at 8:45 PM on November 17, 2015


Poor Jindal. Discovered that he was a less useful useful idiot than he thought.

Off to the elephant's graveyard, for a slow, agonizing death, his bloated corpse picked apart by the buzzards and Matt Drudge.
posted by markkraft at 9:44 PM on November 17, 2015


« Older Kink left severity 4   |   “We weren’t as great as the greats but we were the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments