90s scandals may threaten to erode Hillary Clinton’s strength with women
January 20, 2016 1:06 PM Subscribe
Now that the stories are resurfacing, they could hamper Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to connect with younger women, who are learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time. Several news organizations have published guides to the Clinton scandals to explain the allegations to a new generation of readers. [SLNYT]
. . . the resurfacing of the scandals of the 1990s has brought about a rethinking among some feminists about how prominent women stood by Mr. Clinton and disparaged his accusers after the “bimbo eruptions,” as a close aide to the Clintons, Betsey Wright, famously called the claims of affairs and sexual assault against Mr. Clinton in his 1992 campaign.
. . . the resurfacing of the scandals of the 1990s has brought about a rethinking among some feminists about how prominent women stood by Mr. Clinton and disparaged his accusers after the “bimbo eruptions,” as a close aide to the Clintons, Betsey Wright, famously called the claims of affairs and sexual assault against Mr. Clinton in his 1992 campaign.
From what I can tell of my friends and peers (35/f), these are not people planning to vote for Hillary in any primary, anyway.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:12 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:12 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also what on earth is Vanity Fair News??
posted by resurrexit at 1:14 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by resurrexit at 1:14 PM on January 20, 2016
man who could have guessed that older generations lie to their children about history
posted by shakespeherian at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
Why Millenial Feminists Don't Like Hillary Clinton seems to have covered the reasons for not liking her quite well, without reference to scandals, alleged and not.
posted by zizzle at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by zizzle at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
The Times really doesn't like Clinton.
posted by octothorpe at 1:18 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:18 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Times really doesn't like Clinton.
Wasn't it the Times that broke a story about Hillary being under investigation and it turned out to be bogus?
posted by NoMich at 1:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wasn't it the Times that broke a story about Hillary being under investigation and it turned out to be bogus?
posted by NoMich at 1:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
2016 has to be some kind of record for having the absolute worst candidates across the board. The GOP primary race is the expected clown show, but Hillary and Bernie are both seriously unpalatable to major portions of the Democratic base as well. I don't remember 1988 too well, but all the other elections in my lifetime had at least one "I guess wouldn't mind seeing that guy get elected" candidate in the running.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:22 PM on January 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 1:22 PM on January 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
I have a very strong feeling that whoever is elected in 2016 is going to be a one term president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:22 PM on January 20, 2016 [37 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:22 PM on January 20, 2016 [37 favorites]
The Times really doesn't like Clinton.
The Times seem to like her well enough, given their general dismissal of Bernie Sanders at every opportunity, and especially after debates.
Anyway, I suspect that this won't change too many minds. People seem to believe she is a stalwart defender of gays and lesbians, and yet she wasn't a supporter of same-sex marriage until it was politically safe to say so. I suspect her position on her husband's affairs was motivated by similar pragmatism.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Times seem to like her well enough, given their general dismissal of Bernie Sanders at every opportunity, and especially after debates.
Anyway, I suspect that this won't change too many minds. People seem to believe she is a stalwart defender of gays and lesbians, and yet she wasn't a supporter of same-sex marriage until it was politically safe to say so. I suspect her position on her husband's affairs was motivated by similar pragmatism.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't really want Clinton to be president, except I suppose in a best-reasonably-likely-scenario sort of of way, but this whole article reads like pretty transparent deliberate scandal-mongering.
posted by brennen at 1:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by brennen at 1:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
The NYTimes has had many many journalistic blunders this century. But I'm also beginning to think that their editorial slant, by which I mean the choices of where to allocate resources for extensive stories, is at least as pernicious as their journalistic practices. I'm not a huge Hillary Clinton fan, nor am I huge fan of President Clinton's sexism in that era, but they seem to be pushing back against Clinton really really hard.
Where are the hard-hitting stories on the decades old dirt on all the other politicians on the national stage?
posted by Llama-Lime at 1:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Where are the hard-hitting stories on the decades old dirt on all the other politicians on the national stage?
posted by Llama-Lime at 1:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
The GOP primary race is the expected clown show, but Hillary and Bernie are both seriously unpalatable to major portions of the Democratic base as well. I don't remember 1988 too well, but all the other elections in my lifetime had at least one "I guess wouldn't mind seeing that guy get elected" candidate in the running.
Martin O'Malley closes the window with MetaFilter in it, and a single tear rolls down his face.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [109 favorites]
Martin O'Malley closes the window with MetaFilter in it, and a single tear rolls down his face.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [109 favorites]
Eh, people were saying Obama wasn't black enough before he was elected.
posted by FJT at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by FJT at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Where are the hard-hitting stories on the decades old dirt on all the other politicians on the national stage?
Hell, Trump is practically telling those stories from his past, and people are laughing and still planning to vote for him.
posted by Etrigan at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hell, Trump is practically telling those stories from his past, and people are laughing and still planning to vote for him.
posted by Etrigan at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm deeply conflicted. The growing practice of believing accusers of sexual assault/sex crimes as a matter of course sure feels right, and certainly doesn't necessarily mean convicting the accused. That word is for courts to use. However, if this is going to be our practice, we can't limit it to Bill Cosby and James Deen and cases where there's a sudden deluge of accusers. We have to consider Bill Clinton, and therefore Hillary's role in his defense.
That role leaves her stance on this issue very complicated. It's a serious discussion that needs to be had. One would hope that she could engage in some serious self-examination and criticism, even if she still fully believes Bill's innocence. Hell, I still tend to believe Bill's innocent, but what do I know, really?
And yet for all this -- no matter how damning the case may be here -- I find it hard to believe that this will really cost Hillary votes in a general. The primary, sure. Not the general. Not when her opponent will clearly and inevitably be someone who will hurt women in America far, far more than Hillary.
And as far as Trump and his ilk stepping up to champion this cause, when they plainly would not do so in every case? That's the difference between the case of Bill Clinton compared to Cosby, Deen, etc. Those guys aren't being targeted by political opponents.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
That role leaves her stance on this issue very complicated. It's a serious discussion that needs to be had. One would hope that she could engage in some serious self-examination and criticism, even if she still fully believes Bill's innocence. Hell, I still tend to believe Bill's innocent, but what do I know, really?
And yet for all this -- no matter how damning the case may be here -- I find it hard to believe that this will really cost Hillary votes in a general. The primary, sure. Not the general. Not when her opponent will clearly and inevitably be someone who will hurt women in America far, far more than Hillary.
And as far as Trump and his ilk stepping up to champion this cause, when they plainly would not do so in every case? That's the difference between the case of Bill Clinton compared to Cosby, Deen, etc. Those guys aren't being targeted by political opponents.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
NoMich: "Wasn't it the Times that broke a story about Hillary being under investigation and it turned out to be bogus?"
Back in July, yeah.
posted by octothorpe at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Back in July, yeah.
posted by octothorpe at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
...yet she wasn't a supporter of same-sex marriage until it was politically safe to say so.
Supporter of anything until the polls tell her it's safe to do so.
Seriously, you can't pin her down on anything. A year after other politicians have made up their mind she was still dodging question on the XL-pipeline.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2016 [43 favorites]
Supporter of anything until the polls tell her it's safe to do so.
Seriously, you can't pin her down on anything. A year after other politicians have made up their mind she was still dodging question on the XL-pipeline.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2016 [43 favorites]
every time a write up like this happens they conflate what hillary supposedly said/did about her husband's affairs with what she supposedly said/did about assault accusations. they are not comparable. the fact that those who want to push this story refuse to separate them makes me question their views on women and assault as much as they want me to question hillary's. and i say this as someone who likely won't vote for her in the primaries.
posted by nadawi at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2016 [30 favorites]
Martin O'Malley closes the window with MetaFilter in it, and a single tear rolls down his face.
Not to say that he won me over, but he was much, much stronger in that last debate. The media & comedians seem aggressive in the way they're shutting him out, and it's starting to bug me. Everyone points to how Sanders is treated as evidence of the DNC & media being in the tank for Hillary, but I think O'Malley's situation is the real smoking gun there.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Not to say that he won me over, but he was much, much stronger in that last debate. The media & comedians seem aggressive in the way they're shutting him out, and it's starting to bug me. Everyone points to how Sanders is treated as evidence of the DNC & media being in the tank for Hillary, but I think O'Malley's situation is the real smoking gun there.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:27 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
The NYT is obsessed with two things...
posted by notsnot at 1:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by notsnot at 1:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Whatever. Sanders or Hillary, whatever, just in the sense of deciding what specific Democrat I'm going to vote for. There's absolutely zero reason to vote Republican, so to me this is just ridiculous months long slog to figure out which team can sling the best arrows.
I'd prefer Sanders, but really, if it's Hillary, then ok fine.
Yes, yes, I know there should be more choices or some such, but really this is only for the Presidency. It's the governor, Senator and sweet black baby jesus, the House of Representatives that really need more attention. Because if they're still full of fucktarding fucktards, then who's President isn't going to matter a whole lot, because Congress is going to act like spoiled little shits with power.
So yeah, pick who you want for the primary, then show up to vote for President. But really pay attention to your state and local governments, because those motherfuckers are getting truly cray cray. If you think I'm mistaken, I invite you to drink from a faucet in Flint, Michigan.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [152 favorites]
I'd prefer Sanders, but really, if it's Hillary, then ok fine.
Yes, yes, I know there should be more choices or some such, but really this is only for the Presidency. It's the governor, Senator and sweet black baby jesus, the House of Representatives that really need more attention. Because if they're still full of fucktarding fucktards, then who's President isn't going to matter a whole lot, because Congress is going to act like spoiled little shits with power.
So yeah, pick who you want for the primary, then show up to vote for President. But really pay attention to your state and local governments, because those motherfuckers are getting truly cray cray. If you think I'm mistaken, I invite you to drink from a faucet in Flint, Michigan.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [152 favorites]
O'Malley has a huge problem in that he was the governor of Maryland, which helps nobody, electorally, and he was the governor of a state with Baltimore in it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Alexis Isabel Moncada, the 17-year-old founder of Feminist Culture, a popular blog, was not old enough to remember the 1990s, but lately she and her thousands of young female readers have heard a lot about the scandals.
“I heard he sexually harassed people and she worked to cover it up,” Ms. Moncada said of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of girls in my age group are huge feminists, and we don’t react well to that.”
Heard? As in, through the grapevine, or eavesdropping on a bus?
Well, I guess that's one way to perform your due diligence as a "popular" feminist blogger vetting the potential candidates.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
“I heard he sexually harassed people and she worked to cover it up,” Ms. Moncada said of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of girls in my age group are huge feminists, and we don’t react well to that.”
Heard? As in, through the grapevine, or eavesdropping on a bus?
Well, I guess that's one way to perform your due diligence as a "popular" feminist blogger vetting the potential candidates.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
trump is a rapist. i do not care what a rapist thinks about the wife of someone accused of sexual assault.
posted by nadawi at 1:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [32 favorites]
Hell, Trump is practically telling those stories from his past, and people are laughing and still planning to vote for him.Well, at least the Washington Post is posting enough of the truth that Trump claims he's going to sue.
posted by Llama-Lime at 1:30 PM on January 20, 2016
Well, I guess that's one way to perform your due diligence as a "popular" feminist blogger vetting the potential candidates.
you're using a single pull quote to mock a teenager? congratulations.
posted by nadawi at 1:33 PM on January 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
you're using a single pull quote to mock a teenager? congratulations.
posted by nadawi at 1:33 PM on January 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
Trump is right: Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual history is fair game
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:34 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:34 PM on January 20, 2016
I have a very strong feeling that whoever is elected in 2016 is going to be a one term president.
Can you elaborate on this? I've seen it expressed before and I don't get it. You mean this to apply whether a Democrat or a Republican gets elected, right? So you predict that the political climate is going to shift so far to either the right or the left to overwhelm the well-established incumbency effect, but you can't predict which way. Whoever is elected, there will be a dramatic backlash over the course of 4 years the likes of which America hasn't seen since 1992 (and before that, 1980). What leads you to that conclusion?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 1:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can you elaborate on this? I've seen it expressed before and I don't get it. You mean this to apply whether a Democrat or a Republican gets elected, right? So you predict that the political climate is going to shift so far to either the right or the left to overwhelm the well-established incumbency effect, but you can't predict which way. Whoever is elected, there will be a dramatic backlash over the course of 4 years the likes of which America hasn't seen since 1992 (and before that, 1980). What leads you to that conclusion?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 1:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, what Hillary did was exactly par for the course among high profile political wives at the time: deny the accusations, smear the women involved. It was What You Did. On the other hand, it's still pretty fucking repellent, and when you add it to her choice as a lawyer to smear a 12 year old rape victim to get her client off, it adds up to some Bad News Bears. I do not believe for a moment that she sincerely cares about women's issues that don't personally affect her - at least, certainly not more than she cares about power.
That said, it's obvious that Trump has nothing in mind but tearing her down. But that doesn't make what he's saying false.
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
That said, it's obvious that Trump has nothing in mind but tearing her down. But that doesn't make what he's saying false.
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm not buying it. Bill's popularity actually rose amidst Monicagate. All the Republicans behind it ultimately went down in flames, some because of their own sex scandals. Nobody who cares about Bill's infidelity would even consider voting Democratic in this election. And the whole thing happened almost 20 years ago, before the youngest crop of voters were even born.
I'm sorry, but this is a non-issue.
posted by panama joe at 1:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, but this is a non-issue.
posted by panama joe at 1:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes please, Media, let's talk about twenty and thirty year old blowjobs some more. Because we didn't cover this exhaustively the last time around.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [46 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [46 favorites]
I do not believe for a moment that she sincerely cares about women's issues that don't personally affect her - at least, certainly not more than she cares about power.
And yet the entire GOP field aren't openly hostile to women (and LGBT people, and PoC, and immigrants, and Muslims, and so on)?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
And yet the entire GOP field aren't openly hostile to women (and LGBT people, and PoC, and immigrants, and Muslims, and so on)?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Can you elaborate on this? I've seen it expressed before and I don't get it.
I sort of feel that we're going to end up with Clinton vs. Trump because we have to. Nobody else is ready and or willing to step up and or is popular enough right now. I don't think that'll be the case 4 years from now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I sort of feel that we're going to end up with Clinton vs. Trump because we have to. Nobody else is ready and or willing to step up and or is popular enough right now. I don't think that'll be the case 4 years from now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
2016 has to be some kind of record for having the absolute worst candidates across the board. The GOP primary race is the expected clown show, but Hillary and Bernie are both seriously unpalatable to major portions of the Democratic base as well.
Citation needed?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Citation needed?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
(about Clinton and Sanders, I mean.)
posted by Going To Maine at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why Millenial Feminists Don't Like Hillary Clinton seems to have covered the reasons for not liking her quite well, without reference to scandals, alleged and not.
Oh well, I can't possibly support her if "firebrand feminist writer and academic Camille Paglia" isn't a fan.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
Oh well, I can't possibly support her if "firebrand feminist writer and academic Camille Paglia" isn't a fan.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
Yes please, Media, let's talk about twenty and thirty year old blowjobs some more. Because we didn't cover this exhaustively the last time around.
It's not really about the blowjobs, but about how Mrs. Clinton treated the women who gave the blowjobs at that time, and how to reconcile that with her political branding now.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
It's not really about the blowjobs, but about how Mrs. Clinton treated the women who gave the blowjobs at that time, and how to reconcile that with her political branding now.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
Capt. Renault: "Yes please, Media, let's talk about twenty and thirty year old blowjobs some more. Because we didn't cover this exhaustively the last time around."
Well it keeps them from having to actually talk about the issues. 'Cause that stuff is boring.
posted by octothorpe at 1:43 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well it keeps them from having to actually talk about the issues. 'Cause that stuff is boring.
posted by octothorpe at 1:43 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: “I have a very strong feeling that whoever is elected in 2016 is going to be a one term president.”
Sadly, that hasn't happened since Kurt Cobain was alive. And at least one of those times it seemed gobsmackingly obvious to all of us that the dude was a one-term president, and then there we were...
posted by koeselitz at 1:45 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sadly, that hasn't happened since Kurt Cobain was alive. And at least one of those times it seemed gobsmackingly obvious to all of us that the dude was a one-term president, and then there we were...
posted by koeselitz at 1:45 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
And yet the entire GOP field aren't openly hostile to women (and LGBT people, and PoC, and immigrants, and Muslims, and so on)?
And this is why this will probably blow over, no pun intended. The Republican alternatives are all so much worse on this issue that most rational people will move on.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:45 PM on January 20, 2016
And this is why this will probably blow over, no pun intended. The Republican alternatives are all so much worse on this issue that most rational people will move on.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:45 PM on January 20, 2016
I think the next president only having one term is easily possible. Both parties are split. Republicans are divided between the rich asshole, Cruz and the establishment people (none of which really like the others). Sanders and Clinton are showing just how easily cracked a "big tent" style party can be if there isn't one person who can represent everyone's views at least somewhat. I predict low turnout on both sides with the eventual winner of the election barely succeeding over the other candidate. And then they have about two years to solidify the rest of their own party behind them before the whole thing starts again. And any legislation that passes that their own supporters will like will only reinforce why people that didn't support them in the primary still don't.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:47 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:47 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
i don't think it's anti-feminist to speak ill of women who slept with your husband, some for a period of years - which is why i really wish we'd separate the cheating from the assault accusations. but the party doing the attacking thinks spousal rape doesn't exist and think campus rape/acquaintance rape is usually the woman's fault, so of course they're coming after hillary. blame all the women you can, i guess.
posted by nadawi at 1:48 PM on January 20, 2016 [52 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:48 PM on January 20, 2016 [52 favorites]
Yes please, Media, let's talk about twenty and thirty year old blowjobs some more.
Adultery with a consenting partner is far less damning than harassment and assault. Those are the actual problems.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Adultery with a consenting partner is far less damning than harassment and assault. Those are the actual problems.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes please, Media, let's talk about twenty and thirty year old blowjobs some more.
Bill Clinton's sexual past isn't just consensual blowjobs. My policy is to believe women who say they were raped, and Juanita Broaddrick says she was raped by Bill Clinton. I don't care if it happened 30 years ago, any more than I care how long ago Bill Cosby raped someone.
I don't have a clear sense of how this affects how I feel about Hillary Clinton, and, if she is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for her. But I won't disregard it as inconsequential, or say that there are real issues we should be focusing on and this isn't one of them.
posted by maxsparber at 1:50 PM on January 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
Bill Clinton's sexual past isn't just consensual blowjobs. My policy is to believe women who say they were raped, and Juanita Broaddrick says she was raped by Bill Clinton. I don't care if it happened 30 years ago, any more than I care how long ago Bill Cosby raped someone.
I don't have a clear sense of how this affects how I feel about Hillary Clinton, and, if she is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for her. But I won't disregard it as inconsequential, or say that there are real issues we should be focusing on and this isn't one of them.
posted by maxsparber at 1:50 PM on January 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
I mean, personally, I have a difficult time with anyone who stays in a relationship where there was infidelity on the other partner's part. That's just MY junk, and it shouldn't impact how I feel about someone's ability to be president, but it does.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not really about the blowjobs, but about how Mrs. Clinton treated the women who gave the blowjobs...
Back then, it wasn't supposed to be about the blowjobs either, it was about Bill's lying about the blowjobs, but who actually believed that it was a scandal about lying? It was only ever about the blowjobs.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:52 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Back then, it wasn't supposed to be about the blowjobs either, it was about Bill's lying about the blowjobs, but who actually believed that it was a scandal about lying? It was only ever about the blowjobs.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:52 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump would definitely be a one-term president, because you can't run for president of a post-apocalyptic hellscape.
posted by uosuaq at 1:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [42 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 1:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [42 favorites]
Also: probably not applicable to Bill & Hillary's marriage, but I'm waiting desperately for the day that the media finds out some famous person is having an "affair" and said famous person's spouse says, "Yeah, I know, it's perfectly fine and it's none of your business."
Probably not gonna be anyone running for public office in America, though. Open marriages and/or polyamory would cause too many heads to explode.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:56 PM on January 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
Probably not gonna be anyone running for public office in America, though. Open marriages and/or polyamory would cause too many heads to explode.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:56 PM on January 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think it is impossible to form any opinion on Hillary based on what we see in the media. If she says she likes chocolate ice cream, the media will eviscerate her for being against vanilla, and responsible for the demise of rocky road. It will inevitably result in a discussion about Bill's cock, some aspect of her charitable donations and Benghazi! Having lived through the late 90's, with the Clinton Derangement Syndrome funding a multimillion dollar industry based solely on discussing Bill's penis, I can't imagine anyone would be able to separate truth from fiction. It is truly remarkable.
posted by Chuffy at 1:56 PM on January 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Chuffy at 1:56 PM on January 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
Bill Clinton's sexual past isn't just consensual blowjobs. My policy is to believe women who say they were raped, and Juanita Broaddrick says she was raped by Bill Clinton.
i would love to see a good piece of journalism that focused on juanita broaddrick and paula jones, while leaving gennifer flowers completely out of it. the fact that there's no interest from the powers that be about that piece point to what those pushing this in the media are concerned about.
posted by nadawi at 1:57 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
i would love to see a good piece of journalism that focused on juanita broaddrick and paula jones, while leaving gennifer flowers completely out of it. the fact that there's no interest from the powers that be about that piece point to what those pushing this in the media are concerned about.
posted by nadawi at 1:57 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
I sort of feel that we're going to end up with Clinton vs. Trump because we have to. Nobody else is ready and or willing to step up and or is popular enough right now. I don't think that'll be the case 4 years from now.
Huh. I mostly think the incumbency effect will hold, though I can sort of see either Trump or Cruz being a one-term president, basically due to the evangelicals coming out in strength for him, but then being inevitably disappointed with lack of progress on any of their issues and not coming out in '20, while the Dems get galvanized and push their candidate through.
Whereas if Hillary wins now, anyone who shows up for her in '16 will surely come back in '20, maybe even some of the Sanders fans who don't come out in the general this year decide the first term wasn't so bad. On the other hand the Republican clown show, if they lose this year, will be nearly an exact repeat in 4 years and no more successful then than now.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Huh. I mostly think the incumbency effect will hold, though I can sort of see either Trump or Cruz being a one-term president, basically due to the evangelicals coming out in strength for him, but then being inevitably disappointed with lack of progress on any of their issues and not coming out in '20, while the Dems get galvanized and push their candidate through.
Whereas if Hillary wins now, anyone who shows up for her in '16 will surely come back in '20, maybe even some of the Sanders fans who don't come out in the general this year decide the first term wasn't so bad. On the other hand the Republican clown show, if they lose this year, will be nearly an exact repeat in 4 years and no more successful then than now.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh well, I can't possibly support her if "firebrand feminist writer and academic Camille Paglia" isn't a fan.
You can do whatever you want with your vote.
I found that article to match my experience of Clinton quite well. It was something that I happened to find articulate some of the issues Clinton does indeed have with female voters. And I think it did a much better and much more comprehensive job of doing so than the article linked in this FPP.
What's alarming to me about Clinton is that she and her campaign don't understand why they have a problem with a lot of women voters and have done very little to work at changing that. (And it's not as though the Sanders campaign is completely free and clear of this, either. It's not, but the FPP is focused on Clinton, so my comments are as well.)
posted by zizzle at 2:07 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
You can do whatever you want with your vote.
I found that article to match my experience of Clinton quite well. It was something that I happened to find articulate some of the issues Clinton does indeed have with female voters. And I think it did a much better and much more comprehensive job of doing so than the article linked in this FPP.
What's alarming to me about Clinton is that she and her campaign don't understand why they have a problem with a lot of women voters and have done very little to work at changing that. (And it's not as though the Sanders campaign is completely free and clear of this, either. It's not, but the FPP is focused on Clinton, so my comments are as well.)
posted by zizzle at 2:07 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have a very strong feeling that whoever is elected in 2016 is going to be a one term president.
That would require the Republicans to nominate someone who could win moderates. I see no evidence of this. They've completely lost control of their primary.
Do you really think they're going to have better chances in four years, when the demographics are even more against them, but now they're running against an incumbent?
posted by leotrotsky at 2:07 PM on January 20, 2016
That would require the Republicans to nominate someone who could win moderates. I see no evidence of this. They've completely lost control of their primary.
Do you really think they're going to have better chances in four years, when the demographics are even more against them, but now they're running against an incumbent?
posted by leotrotsky at 2:07 PM on January 20, 2016
I don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and it really doesn't have to do with Bill: it's her I'm objecting to these days. I will only vote for her under duress --- i.e., as the lesser evil. (Which, considering the GOP's slate of extremists, is probable. Dammit.)
Ms. Clinton first stood out for me way back during Bill's first run for the White House: at a speech, she said that voting for Bill meant you get a two-for-one deal, because they would be --- in her words --- "co-presidents". My opinion of her has been downhill from there.
posted by easily confused at 2:08 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ms. Clinton first stood out for me way back during Bill's first run for the White House: at a speech, she said that voting for Bill meant you get a two-for-one deal, because they would be --- in her words --- "co-presidents". My opinion of her has been downhill from there.
posted by easily confused at 2:08 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have a very strong feeling that whoever is elected in 2016 is going to be a one term president.
Kanye West 2020?
posted by FJT at 2:09 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Kanye West 2020?
posted by FJT at 2:09 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Do you really think they're going to have better chances in four years, when the demographics are even more against them, but now they're running against an incumbent?
I question whether they will run against an incumbent is what I'm saying. I have a feeling either winner will be Johnson'ed out.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:10 PM on January 20, 2016
I question whether they will run against an incumbent is what I'm saying. I have a feeling either winner will be Johnson'ed out.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:10 PM on January 20, 2016
A fairer but still somewhat critical take on Hillary's feminism than the Lizzie Crocker Daily Beast piece: Hillary Clinton and the authenticity of her feminism
Authenticity has remained the great albatross of Clinton's political career. In her book, titled "Hillary Clinton in the News: Gender and Authenticity in American Politics", Shawn Parry-Giles argues that that the mainstream media's judgement of her character is based on a gender double-bind: The press first positioned the "real Hillary" as a polarising feminist with "likability" issues, and then used that very image to question her authenticity over and again.posted by tonycpsu at 2:12 PM on January 20, 2016 [39 favorites]
[...]
Parry-Giles and other Hillary sympathisers are entirely right when they argue that the demand for authenticity places a disproportionate and unfair burden on minority candidates aspiring for the highest office.
The bar is far lower for white men like, say, George W Bush who can leverage the most synthetic form of authenticity - be it cutting brush at a Texas ranch or swaggering in a flight suit - to sell themselves as the "real thing". But the greater and more intractable dilemma may well be that a 67-year-old Hillary Clinton's politics are, in fact, authentic.
The "real Hillary" was and remains a white, middle-class feminist, and of a generation that was taught too well that glass ceilings could be broken - but only by mastering the rules written and administered by men, and by pushing, but only so fast and so far.
[...]
The fact is that Hillary's problem of authenticity is as much generational as it is personal. Here's a woman who diligently learned to colour inside the lines, only to find that the lines themselves have shifted.
The presumptive Democratic nominee for President is married to a repeat rapist, and serial philanderer, and contrary to that infamous clip of the time, she stood by her man like it was her job -- which, apparently, it was, because she knew there would be a payoff in the future.
Loathsome person, all the way around.
posted by gsh at 2:15 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Loathsome person, all the way around.
posted by gsh at 2:15 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
uosuaq: Trump would definitely be a one-term president, because you can't run for president of a post-apocalyptic hellscape.
Well, of course - he becomes Immorten Joe, God-Emperor to the War Boys and whatever he calls women.
Oh shit, this is more real than I realized.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:18 PM on January 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
Well, of course - he becomes Immorten Joe, God-Emperor to the War Boys and whatever he calls women.
Oh shit, this is more real than I realized.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:18 PM on January 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
you're using a single pull quote to mock a teenager? congratulations
Nope. I'm mocking a NYT piece supposedly pointing to a decline in support for Hillary Clinton among feminist voters, but whose main evidence consisted of disparaging quotes from Donald Trump, Camille Paglia, a teenage blogger, and an off-hand Lena Dunham comment overheard at a dinner party.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:19 PM on January 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
Nope. I'm mocking a NYT piece supposedly pointing to a decline in support for Hillary Clinton among feminist voters, but whose main evidence consisted of disparaging quotes from Donald Trump, Camille Paglia, a teenage blogger, and an off-hand Lena Dunham comment overheard at a dinner party.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:19 PM on January 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
I question whether they will run against an incumbent is what I'm saying. I have a feeling either winner will be Johnson'ed out.
Whaaat. The next president would have to perform the political equivalent of getting bogged down in Vietnam for that to happen - and as we saw in Iraq in 2003-04, maybe even that's not enough anymore. I can't see either Democratic candidate doing anything even remotely that dumb.
I also think the "fractured Democratic party" is oversold. Even if you have serious concerns about how sold-out the mainstream party is to big money interests (concerns that I share), any Democrat is far and away better than any Republican on basically all the issues.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Whaaat. The next president would have to perform the political equivalent of getting bogged down in Vietnam for that to happen - and as we saw in Iraq in 2003-04, maybe even that's not enough anymore. I can't see either Democratic candidate doing anything even remotely that dumb.
I also think the "fractured Democratic party" is oversold. Even if you have serious concerns about how sold-out the mainstream party is to big money interests (concerns that I share), any Democrat is far and away better than any Republican on basically all the issues.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm waiting desperately for the day that the media finds out some famous person is having an "affair" and said famous person's spouse says, "Yeah, I know, it's perfectly fine and it's none of your business."
Kind of off topic, but since you're looking for it, that's basically Will and Jada Pinkett-Smith's deal.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 2:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Kind of off topic, but since you're looking for it, that's basically Will and Jada Pinkett-Smith's deal.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 2:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I also think the "fractured Democratic party" is oversold.
Yeah -- in Iowa, for example, 89% of Democrats view Sanders positively and 86% view Clinton favorably. There's a split in who they most want to win, but those numbers do not indicate some huge divide. Either candidate will likely get pretty firm support, just as Clinton supporters (and Clinton herself) turned out for Obama in 2008.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
Yeah -- in Iowa, for example, 89% of Democrats view Sanders positively and 86% view Clinton favorably. There's a split in who they most want to win, but those numbers do not indicate some huge divide. Either candidate will likely get pretty firm support, just as Clinton supporters (and Clinton herself) turned out for Obama in 2008.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
> Hillary and Bernie are both seriously unpalatable to major portions of the Democratic base as well.
> Citation needed?
Unpalatable might not be the right word, but Bernie isn't connecting with voters across the board and the country
posted by filthy light thief at 2:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
> Citation needed?
Unpalatable might not be the right word, but Bernie isn't connecting with voters across the board and the country
On March 1 [2016] comes Super Tuesday, when a dozen mostly Southern states will hold presidential primaries and caucuses. And in many of those states, African-Americans are key voters.And this is a problem for Bernie. Why Most Black Voters Still Aren’t Feeling Bernie Sanders (The Root, Oct. 20, 2015).
posted by filthy light thief at 2:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I also think the "fractured Democratic party" is oversold.
No doubt! In fact, this is the most unified I've seen the party in my entire life. For years, the narrative was "The Republicans march lockstep on a few important issues and that's why they always win, but the Democrats have such a 'big tent' that it's hard to get them united". Remember that line of thinking? We should. The Bush Years weren't that long ago.
But look at where we're at now. On the Democratic side, we've got Bernie saying, "We've got to take big, bold steps in a single direction!" and we've got Hillary saying, "I, on the other hand, think we should take cautious, measured steps in the same direction." Meanwhile, the Republican lineup is a frigging zoo.
This, more than anything else, gives me hope for the Democratic party for years to come. I think it's going to be a long time until we see the kind of Republican unity we saw during the Bush years. All they can agree on these days is hating Obama.
posted by panama joe at 2:31 PM on January 20, 2016 [23 favorites]
No doubt! In fact, this is the most unified I've seen the party in my entire life. For years, the narrative was "The Republicans march lockstep on a few important issues and that's why they always win, but the Democrats have such a 'big tent' that it's hard to get them united". Remember that line of thinking? We should. The Bush Years weren't that long ago.
But look at where we're at now. On the Democratic side, we've got Bernie saying, "We've got to take big, bold steps in a single direction!" and we've got Hillary saying, "I, on the other hand, think we should take cautious, measured steps in the same direction." Meanwhile, the Republican lineup is a frigging zoo.
This, more than anything else, gives me hope for the Democratic party for years to come. I think it's going to be a long time until we see the kind of Republican unity we saw during the Bush years. All they can agree on these days is hating Obama.
posted by panama joe at 2:31 PM on January 20, 2016 [23 favorites]
And this is a problem for Bernie. Why Most Black Voters Still Aren’t Feeling Bernie Sanders (The Root, Oct. 20, 2015).
Still, we'll never see Hillary do an interview with Killer Mike, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:32 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Still, we'll never see Hillary do an interview with Killer Mike, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:32 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't care if it happened 30 years ago, any more than I care how long ago Bill Cosby raped someone.
Just so we're clear -- I like to think that I've learned a bit about power dynamics and workplace harassment since that time, and that my current opinion regarding Bill's conduct is drastically different from the 'It's between them' opinion I had back then. I wouldn't excuse any of it now.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just so we're clear -- I like to think that I've learned a bit about power dynamics and workplace harassment since that time, and that my current opinion regarding Bill's conduct is drastically different from the 'It's between them' opinion I had back then. I wouldn't excuse any of it now.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think Hillary might face issues being re-elected too. She's been in the public eye for too long, people get fatigued with her. The establishment Republicans will make sure they have a viable candidate next time around. Nominating someone from the more crazy branch of their party isn't their usual strategy.
I don't blame her for standing by her family, that's as much a human thing as a political thing. Circle the wagons around your own, the people trying to hurt them are bad. It's natural, if problematic as hell considering the context, but these were much, much, more Bill's crimes than hers.
Even the consensual affair with Lewinsky had power dynamics so screwed up it's easy for people who have been educated on the modern feminist notions of consent to see consent in that case as existing in an extremely warped circumstance. She's an adult, and she can consent to whatever she wants, but my opinion of Bill Clinton is still very low as a result of how he used his power during his career as leverage to get sex or get away with sexual harassment and possibly even rape.
He isn't fit to be in any position of power ever again. He abused that power. But this election isn't about him, it's about his wife. She should have handled herself differently I think, but her reaction to what Bill did is not among the reasons I wouldn't vote for her.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't blame her for standing by her family, that's as much a human thing as a political thing. Circle the wagons around your own, the people trying to hurt them are bad. It's natural, if problematic as hell considering the context, but these were much, much, more Bill's crimes than hers.
Even the consensual affair with Lewinsky had power dynamics so screwed up it's easy for people who have been educated on the modern feminist notions of consent to see consent in that case as existing in an extremely warped circumstance. She's an adult, and she can consent to whatever she wants, but my opinion of Bill Clinton is still very low as a result of how he used his power during his career as leverage to get sex or get away with sexual harassment and possibly even rape.
He isn't fit to be in any position of power ever again. He abused that power. But this election isn't about him, it's about his wife. She should have handled herself differently I think, but her reaction to what Bill did is not among the reasons I wouldn't vote for her.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
I dunno, the sex stuff sells of course, but this story just doesn't pop, you know? It's not something we can really nail her with. Oh hey, I know! What about that aide that got gacked back in the day, whassisname...Vince Foster, right? OK, we need to do a story about how Clinton killed Vince Foster. THAT will do some real damage!
Pity we can't have a story about her giving birth to a magical murder baby- no wait, that's Game of Thrones. Oh well, Clinton stalking Vince Parker in a park with a pistol it is.
posted by happyroach at 2:40 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pity we can't have a story about her giving birth to a magical murder baby- no wait, that's Game of Thrones. Oh well, Clinton stalking Vince Parker in a park with a pistol it is.
posted by happyroach at 2:40 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm confused? Is Bill Clinton running for office or is Hillary Clinton? I understand that they are married and during Clinton's Presidency Hillary was prone towards aggressive defense against allegations but I'm not seeing how this is going to be a defining issue this time. People are either going to vote for Clinton or against Clinton for a whole host of reasons but this seems like pretty standard concern trolling in the "I'm concerned that Hillary Clinton just isn't a feminist" when sure she's not ideal in any way but she's vastly better than the Republican alternatives in every conceivable way.
Is Clinton an ideal candidate? Nope not even close but let's be honest neither is Sanders and O'Malley is a non-entity. I would prefer either of them to any of the Republican alternatives and while I dislike Clinton on several policy issues I general feel like she's more than competent to be a President.
Obviously people have rebranded themselves successful in the past and it's unclear if Hillary's rebranding will be fully successful in the future but I'm not entirely sure that these attempts to link her to old scandals of the past will actually have much impact one way or another. Obviously it's in the interest of the Sanders campaign to illustrate that Hillary is somehow unpalatable to women voters just like it's in the Republican interests to somehow weaken Hillary's voting blocks but it's not really been illustrated in any polling that these strategies will be successful.
In terms of a insurgent strategy I would suggest that Sanders is in a much more uphill climb than Obama was in 2008 at a similar point in the campaign and that was against a Clinton campaign that was way way less skilled in retail politics than Hillary 2016. When it gets to the general election is there really any doubt as to whether Hillary will be able to get a majority of women voters regardless of her relative softness on feminist issues?
posted by vuron at 2:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Is Clinton an ideal candidate? Nope not even close but let's be honest neither is Sanders and O'Malley is a non-entity. I would prefer either of them to any of the Republican alternatives and while I dislike Clinton on several policy issues I general feel like she's more than competent to be a President.
Obviously people have rebranded themselves successful in the past and it's unclear if Hillary's rebranding will be fully successful in the future but I'm not entirely sure that these attempts to link her to old scandals of the past will actually have much impact one way or another. Obviously it's in the interest of the Sanders campaign to illustrate that Hillary is somehow unpalatable to women voters just like it's in the Republican interests to somehow weaken Hillary's voting blocks but it's not really been illustrated in any polling that these strategies will be successful.
In terms of a insurgent strategy I would suggest that Sanders is in a much more uphill climb than Obama was in 2008 at a similar point in the campaign and that was against a Clinton campaign that was way way less skilled in retail politics than Hillary 2016. When it gets to the general election is there really any doubt as to whether Hillary will be able to get a majority of women voters regardless of her relative softness on feminist issues?
posted by vuron at 2:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Even if Hillary opted for divorce, I don't think anyone who dislikes her now would dislike her any less. She would probably still be blamed somehow and accused of being power hungry and ditching Bill when it hurt her potential rise to power. And at the time (and probably now) it would just be more fuel for the Clinton Hate Machine.
Personally, I don't see her staying with him as a good or bad mark on her character. It just is.
posted by FJT at 2:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Personally, I don't see her staying with him as a good or bad mark on her character. It just is.
posted by FJT at 2:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Clinton is pro-choice, and endorsed by Planned Parenthood. That is my number one issue as a feminist.
“We’re proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights. This is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake.” --Cecile Richards
posted by feste at 2:46 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
“We’re proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights. This is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake.” --Cecile Richards
posted by feste at 2:46 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
She's been in the public eye for too long, people get fatigued with her. The establishment Republicans will make sure they have a viable candidate next time around.
Like they did in 2008? Or 2012? Or this year?
Truth be told I am a little worried about the depth of the Democratic bench, too. Elizabeth Warren may never feel like running at this point; she's nearly as old as Hillary. Chafee's a joke (he has literally been a moderate Republican, no "might as well be" about it!), and I can't see O'Malley's chances getting better further in the future. The party really needs to work on getting some young charismatic people elected as Senators and Governors so they can be ready to go in 2024 (or, God forbid, 2020).
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:48 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like they did in 2008? Or 2012? Or this year?
Truth be told I am a little worried about the depth of the Democratic bench, too. Elizabeth Warren may never feel like running at this point; she's nearly as old as Hillary. Chafee's a joke (he has literally been a moderate Republican, no "might as well be" about it!), and I can't see O'Malley's chances getting better further in the future. The party really needs to work on getting some young charismatic people elected as Senators and Governors so they can be ready to go in 2024 (or, God forbid, 2020).
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 2:48 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Millennial Feminists do Clinton scandal run in under 12 Parsecs!
posted by srboisvert at 2:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 2:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
14!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Like they did in 2008? Or 2012?
McCain and Romney? Yes, they were viable. Romney would have had a good chance against Hillary this year if he wasn't already a loser and the Republicans weren't in a crazier than usual mood.
The convention will be a good time to evaluate the Democratic bench. It's not going to be folks like Chafee, he was in it for himself, nobody in the party at ever point saw him as a potential President.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:54 PM on January 20, 2016
McCain and Romney? Yes, they were viable. Romney would have had a good chance against Hillary this year if he wasn't already a loser and the Republicans weren't in a crazier than usual mood.
The convention will be a good time to evaluate the Democratic bench. It's not going to be folks like Chafee, he was in it for himself, nobody in the party at ever point saw him as a potential President.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:54 PM on January 20, 2016
(And nobody on the long term bench saw much point in jumping in this time around to get creamed by Hillary and the DNC.)
posted by Drinky Die at 2:59 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:59 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
For future Democratic Presidential candidates, I like Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom. Expect to see more of them in the coming years.
posted by panama joe at 3:01 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by panama joe at 3:01 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
> That role leaves her stance on this issue [Bill's sex life] very complicated. It's a serious discussion that needs to be had.
No, it's not serious, and it doesn't need to be had at all. None of this would be any issue at all in any other civilized country, and has no bearing on Hillary's ability to be a good President.
No one expected people to behave with perfect accuracy if their partner is "with" someone else.
There are numerous reasons not to want Hillary - her militarism, receiving tens of millions of dollars in "speaking fees" from financial firms, the "Manhattan project for encryption" (as if we aren't being spied on enough already). Just her support for the Iraq War, over a decade, should be enough to bar her from public office again.
She's a dreadful candidate, and the first Democratic candidate I've actively disliked in a long time (though I thought Dukakis was pretty limp).
But none of that has anything to do with private life. Americans should get over it.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:02 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
No, it's not serious, and it doesn't need to be had at all. None of this would be any issue at all in any other civilized country, and has no bearing on Hillary's ability to be a good President.
No one expected people to behave with perfect accuracy if their partner is "with" someone else.
There are numerous reasons not to want Hillary - her militarism, receiving tens of millions of dollars in "speaking fees" from financial firms, the "Manhattan project for encryption" (as if we aren't being spied on enough already). Just her support for the Iraq War, over a decade, should be enough to bar her from public office again.
She's a dreadful candidate, and the first Democratic candidate I've actively disliked in a long time (though I thought Dukakis was pretty limp).
But none of that has anything to do with private life. Americans should get over it.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:02 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
...yet she wasn't a supporter of same-sex marriage until it was politically safe to say so.
Supporter of anything until the polls tell her it's safe to do so.
While it's nice to have ideological fighters in your corner when a war is going on, I actually wouldn't mind if more politicians were less dug into entrenched positions and more open to going with the public's wishes, changing position as necessary. The problematic question with Hillary is that when the public's wishes do not align with those of big industry/finance, whose interest does she choose to represent?
posted by anonymisc at 3:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Supporter of anything until the polls tell her it's safe to do so.
While it's nice to have ideological fighters in your corner when a war is going on, I actually wouldn't mind if more politicians were less dug into entrenched positions and more open to going with the public's wishes, changing position as necessary. The problematic question with Hillary is that when the public's wishes do not align with those of big industry/finance, whose interest does she choose to represent?
posted by anonymisc at 3:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Clinton is pro-choice, and endorsed by Planned Parenthood. That is my number one issue as a feminist.
Is Bernie not? O'Malley? Pretty much all the Democrat candidates for president have mostly been on the right side of this for some time. Realistically speaking, all those presidents can/will do is veto or otherwise prevent regressive conservative policies until democrats regain control of the house. Correspondingly, this hasn't really come up much in the primary. They can't accuse each other of being more or less pro-women's rights so much as argue over policies designed to promote it.
These days women's reproductive rights are being fought mostly on the state level. They shouldn't, a person's medical choices should be enshrined in a frigging constitutional amendment that doesn't allow the state to interfere in any way, but we are where we are.
I guess what I wanted to say is, all the democrats - pretty sure even Chafee and Webb, back when they were running - are fairly strongly pro-choice, regardless of Planned Parenthood's endorsement. Now that we've settled that, you may want to think very hard about that topic for state level races...
In other news, media continues to focus on history of candidate's spouse instead of substantive discussion of issues.
More scandal at 11:00.
posted by Strudel at 3:11 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is Bernie not? O'Malley? Pretty much all the Democrat candidates for president have mostly been on the right side of this for some time. Realistically speaking, all those presidents can/will do is veto or otherwise prevent regressive conservative policies until democrats regain control of the house. Correspondingly, this hasn't really come up much in the primary. They can't accuse each other of being more or less pro-women's rights so much as argue over policies designed to promote it.
These days women's reproductive rights are being fought mostly on the state level. They shouldn't, a person's medical choices should be enshrined in a frigging constitutional amendment that doesn't allow the state to interfere in any way, but we are where we are.
I guess what I wanted to say is, all the democrats - pretty sure even Chafee and Webb, back when they were running - are fairly strongly pro-choice, regardless of Planned Parenthood's endorsement. Now that we've settled that, you may want to think very hard about that topic for state level races...
In other news, media continues to focus on history of candidate's spouse instead of substantive discussion of issues.
More scandal at 11:00.
posted by Strudel at 3:11 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Heard? As in, through the grapevine, or eavesdropping on a bus?
Well, I guess that's one way to perform your due diligence as a "popular" feminist blogger vetting the potential candidates.
...
Nope. I'm mocking a NYT piece
maybe that's what you meant to do, but it's not what you did.
posted by nadawi at 3:14 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, I guess that's one way to perform your due diligence as a "popular" feminist blogger vetting the potential candidates.
...
Nope. I'm mocking a NYT piece
maybe that's what you meant to do, but it's not what you did.
posted by nadawi at 3:14 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
While it's nice to have ideological fighters in your corner when a war is going on, I actually wouldn't mind if more politicians were less dug into entrenched positions
In general, sure, but on questions of bigotry and human rights I don't want someone who goes with the crowd. Gay marriage was that kind of question.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:16 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
In general, sure, but on questions of bigotry and human rights I don't want someone who goes with the crowd. Gay marriage was that kind of question.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:16 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am voting Hillary in the general election because the alternative isn't in any disguise this time -- it's pure fucking authoritarianism with a side order of Jesus.
I am voting Bernie in the primary because she needs the reminder that that's the only reason I'm voting for her.
posted by delfin at 3:19 PM on January 20, 2016 [31 favorites]
I am voting Bernie in the primary because she needs the reminder that that's the only reason I'm voting for her.
posted by delfin at 3:19 PM on January 20, 2016 [31 favorites]
Part of the reason why there is an attempt to dredge up old scandals is because the Democratic primary is almost complete devoid of drama. Sanders and Clinton tend to agree on a wide variety of issues and mainly differ with the tactics of how to implement policy but both seem to be more than cognizant of the partisan difficulties facing any Democratic president in the current political environment.
In contrast the Republican primary season has been almost complete nonstop circus crazy town which is easy and more importantly fun to write (and read) about so it's gotten almost all the attention. Honestly short of Clinton dropping of a signed confession from the "Hitman" that "killed" Vince Foster there is almost no oxygen left in the political classes to pay attention to Clinton when they can focus on whatever stupid thing Trump or Cruz said last.
After endless politically motivated Benghazi scandal mongering there just is almost no tolerance for continued scandal mongering directed at Hillary at this point. Either you are convinced she is literally Satan made flesh at this point or you just don't care anymore and more scandal mongering isn't going to make a difference. That's the problem that the Republicans have created after demonizing the Clintons for decades at this point in time there is virtually no tolerance for even valid criticisms of her. It's the boy who cried wolf incarnate at this point people are so tired of hearing lies they probably wouldn't pay attention to damning facts even if they showed up at this point.
posted by vuron at 3:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
In contrast the Republican primary season has been almost complete nonstop circus crazy town which is easy and more importantly fun to write (and read) about so it's gotten almost all the attention. Honestly short of Clinton dropping of a signed confession from the "Hitman" that "killed" Vince Foster there is almost no oxygen left in the political classes to pay attention to Clinton when they can focus on whatever stupid thing Trump or Cruz said last.
After endless politically motivated Benghazi scandal mongering there just is almost no tolerance for continued scandal mongering directed at Hillary at this point. Either you are convinced she is literally Satan made flesh at this point or you just don't care anymore and more scandal mongering isn't going to make a difference. That's the problem that the Republicans have created after demonizing the Clintons for decades at this point in time there is virtually no tolerance for even valid criticisms of her. It's the boy who cried wolf incarnate at this point people are so tired of hearing lies they probably wouldn't pay attention to damning facts even if they showed up at this point.
posted by vuron at 3:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
OK, how many feminists— true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool, feminists— would believe some
random woman in league with her husband's political enemies over her husband, whom
she presumably loves and trusts and has a child with? How many would side with some person they don't know or know vaguely who accuses a loved one of *anything*?
Is there any woman in the world— who would be married to a man— that would behave that way?
I am a real non-fan of Hillary, but this stuff makes me want to go out and donate to her because it's just asking her to live up to an inhuman standard that no one could.
If you want to believe she's a calculating power-hungry bitch who married him only for political advantage and so attacks others to avoid losing that political advantage, well, you're probably not going to vote for her anyway.
If you believe she's a normal, human woman— well, give her a break. And frankly, any feminist who is going to vote for an anti-choice, anti-family-leave, pro gutting the government Republican because Hillary didn't "believe the accusers" needs to have her head examined.
posted by Maias at 3:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [48 favorites]
random woman in league with her husband's political enemies over her husband, whom
she presumably loves and trusts and has a child with? How many would side with some person they don't know or know vaguely who accuses a loved one of *anything*?
Is there any woman in the world— who would be married to a man— that would behave that way?
I am a real non-fan of Hillary, but this stuff makes me want to go out and donate to her because it's just asking her to live up to an inhuman standard that no one could.
If you want to believe she's a calculating power-hungry bitch who married him only for political advantage and so attacks others to avoid losing that political advantage, well, you're probably not going to vote for her anyway.
If you believe she's a normal, human woman— well, give her a break. And frankly, any feminist who is going to vote for an anti-choice, anti-family-leave, pro gutting the government Republican because Hillary didn't "believe the accusers" needs to have her head examined.
posted by Maias at 3:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [48 favorites]
In general, sure, but on questions of bigotry and human rights I don't want someone who goes with the crowd. Gay marriage was that kind of question.
I can understand that, but Obama was the same and eventually ended DADT and other things. Its nicer when people are right from the beginning, sure, but at least some politicians can move when the country does, as opposed to those still trying to push opinion back.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can understand that, but Obama was the same and eventually ended DADT and other things. Its nicer when people are right from the beginning, sure, but at least some politicians can move when the country does, as opposed to those still trying to push opinion back.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not only was Obama the same, so was Sanders! He opposed gay marriage as recently as 2006-2007. This is not an issue with which Sanders can hit Clinton unless he wants to try "I was in favor of gay marriage at least a full six months before my opponent."
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
A lot of this reminds me of the media and Republican fear-mongering about how Clinton supporters wouldn't turn out for Obama, or the even-crazier idea that they would support McCain because Palin was a woman.
They love to play up the differences and encourage division, especially the conservative media, while completely ignoring the larger picture. But voters don't actually seem to do that as much. While many Democrats may have issues with Clinton's (both of them, really) behavior on this issue, as Maias said no one is seriously going to vote for ANY of the Republican candidates because of feminist issues, nor are they even likely to stay home and let an aggressively misogynist Republican win instead.
Many may well vote for Sanders in the primary because of this, sure. But given the Republican field, this is going to be a repeat of 2008 and the Democrats will come together without problems.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
They love to play up the differences and encourage division, especially the conservative media, while completely ignoring the larger picture. But voters don't actually seem to do that as much. While many Democrats may have issues with Clinton's (both of them, really) behavior on this issue, as Maias said no one is seriously going to vote for ANY of the Republican candidates because of feminist issues, nor are they even likely to stay home and let an aggressively misogynist Republican win instead.
Many may well vote for Sanders in the primary because of this, sure. But given the Republican field, this is going to be a repeat of 2008 and the Democrats will come together without problems.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I can understand that, but Obama was the same and eventually ended DADT and other things. Its nicer when people are right from the beginning, sure, but at least some politicians can move when the country does, as opposed to those still trying to push opinion back.
It's waiting until it's "safe" and then pretending that you actually cared that's off-putting. See the Iraq War and every Democrat who voted for it.
posted by hoyland at 3:30 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's waiting until it's "safe" and then pretending that you actually cared that's off-putting. See the Iraq War and every Democrat who voted for it.
posted by hoyland at 3:30 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not only was Obama the same, so was Sanders! He opposed gay marriage as recently as 2006-2007.
I'm fairly certain Secretary Clinton didn't approve of marriage equality until several years after that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on January 20, 2016
I'm fairly certain Secretary Clinton didn't approve of marriage equality until several years after that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on January 20, 2016
Like I said, "My opponent approved of gay marriage in 2009 while I did in 2007 or 2008" is pretty weak sauce.
posted by Justinian at 3:34 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:34 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm fairly certain Secretary Clinton didn't approve of marriage equality until several years after that.
And Obama didn't approve of it until 2012. In 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.". 2010: "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage." Only in 2012 did he come out in favor of it. But again, I think at this point its clear he ended up being a reasonably good ally, even if many of us might have preferred someone who was more aggressive on the issue.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't think gay rights is a good issue for Clinton, at all. Sanders has a good record going back decades.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
(I don't actually know what year Clinton flopped reevaluated her position but the point is the same.)
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's always been fashionable to tut-tut about how silly Americans are for caring about this, and how over in Europe they just talk about SERIOUS POLITICS and not about blue dresses, but Bill Clinton's sex scandal was never an infidelity scandal to me. It was about assault and harassment and imbalance of power in a sexual relationship. I hated the reporting about it at the time but I hated even more the lack of concern from the left about the whole situation.
And I don't hold her responsible for it, but I can't see it as something that has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton the candidate, either. Which pretty much sums up my feelings on the entire Clinton presidency.
posted by gerstle at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
And I don't hold her responsible for it, but I can't see it as something that has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton the candidate, either. Which pretty much sums up my feelings on the entire Clinton presidency.
posted by gerstle at 3:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know what might actually put something like gay marriage at risk? Pretending that there are substantive divisions in the Democratic party between Sanders and Clinton on issues relating to same-sex marriage or pro-choice.
The reality is that substantive divisions on these issues are pretty small and even on issues that are more divisive in the Democratic party activist voices like the Black Lives Matter movement have created an environment where we can actually talk about structural racism and sexism and all sorts of other issues and generally manage to find some hope of consensus.
Sanders as President might put up some slightly different jurists to the SCOTUS than Clinton but in general either one is going to put up jurists that would reaffirm pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage positions. In contrast Cruz and Trump would put up complete assholes and we could see very real erosion of civil rights in a very short period of time.
At the end of the day the vast gulf between either Democratic candidate and any Republican candidate concerning issues of extreme concern to me as simply too vast. It would take something monumental for me to seriously consider not voting for either one even though my vote in a state like Texas is pretty much pointless.
Pretend it's voting for the lesser of two evils if you have to but keep in mind there are a lot of people in this online community that have a lot to lose if a Democrat doesn't win the election.
posted by vuron at 3:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
The reality is that substantive divisions on these issues are pretty small and even on issues that are more divisive in the Democratic party activist voices like the Black Lives Matter movement have created an environment where we can actually talk about structural racism and sexism and all sorts of other issues and generally manage to find some hope of consensus.
Sanders as President might put up some slightly different jurists to the SCOTUS than Clinton but in general either one is going to put up jurists that would reaffirm pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage positions. In contrast Cruz and Trump would put up complete assholes and we could see very real erosion of civil rights in a very short period of time.
At the end of the day the vast gulf between either Democratic candidate and any Republican candidate concerning issues of extreme concern to me as simply too vast. It would take something monumental for me to seriously consider not voting for either one even though my vote in a state like Texas is pretty much pointless.
Pretend it's voting for the lesser of two evils if you have to but keep in mind there are a lot of people in this online community that have a lot to lose if a Democrat doesn't win the election.
posted by vuron at 3:42 PM on January 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
Man, I didn't realize the hate for Hillary was so strong. No politician is perfect and they always seem to be the lesser of evils but it kills me how much the right AND the left seem to have it in for her. I had the pleasure of spending time with Mrs. Clinton when she was Sec of State. A friend and I photographed her for Newsweek and the only way I can describe her as is being absolutely lovely. I was an early Obama supporter and I truly felt guilty after meeting her at the State Dept. She was gracious, smart, funny and genuine throughout the 90 mins we spent with her. She busted every perception I had of her and even though she's far from perfect I will happily vote for her next Nov. with that said, I still think Bill is a schmuck and I think voters would have a more favorable view of Hillary had she left him but that just wasn't going to happen.
posted by photoslob at 3:44 PM on January 20, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by photoslob at 3:44 PM on January 20, 2016 [30 favorites]
it kills me how much the right AND the left seem to have it in for her
Be careful against extrapolating from what you're seeing online too much. Hillary's got a deep and wide base of support on the ground that Bernie's going to have a very hard time matching. He's certainly looking well in the polls, and he's got my vote in the primary right now, but the "pro Bernie, anti Hillary" voter who would actually stay home or vote GOP is rarer than one might expect reading blogs and MeFi comments.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:47 PM on January 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
Be careful against extrapolating from what you're seeing online too much. Hillary's got a deep and wide base of support on the ground that Bernie's going to have a very hard time matching. He's certainly looking well in the polls, and he's got my vote in the primary right now, but the "pro Bernie, anti Hillary" voter who would actually stay home or vote GOP is rarer than one might expect reading blogs and MeFi comments.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:47 PM on January 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hillary seems better than Bernie to me on foreign policy issues, but I don't think he would really do enough harm there for those deficits to outweigh his more aggressive domestic policies.
posted by Small Dollar at 3:56 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 3:56 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I lived through the 90s and I had issues then and have (more) issues now with how Hillary Clinton handled aspects of the adultery/rape allegations. Sure, she could have done better, and she should have kicked Carville right in the balls over that dragging money through a trailer park comment. But, you know, there was a lot of crazy stuff going down in the 90s, like people accusing the president and his wife of assassinating people and running a drug ring and all sorts of things. I've had a much more sedate life than Hillary Clinton and I've still handled some things pretty badly. If she didn't handle it perfectly, it's not like I can cast stones or get high and mighty that I would have done much better in her shoes, necessarily.
My feminist action is giving her the mediocre white dude pass because $DEITY knows she's earned it after working twice as hard for four times as much shit (2x for being a woman and 2x for being married to the guy who inspired Clinton Derangement Syndrome). But I am aware it is a pass. And I'm aware that sits uncomfortably with my other feminist convictions, but there is no way to be a perfect feminist here. Either you're buying into the shit dumped on the women who allege Bill Clinton raped them or you're buying into the shit that holds Hillary responsible for various things Bill did. You're just deciding which is the lesser injustice because the playing field is fucked.
No blame to those women who decide differently when they're doing that math, though. Or to folks who prefer other candidates on substantial policy issues, which none of this scandalmongering even touches.
posted by immlass at 4:01 PM on January 20, 2016 [27 favorites]
My feminist action is giving her the mediocre white dude pass because $DEITY knows she's earned it after working twice as hard for four times as much shit (2x for being a woman and 2x for being married to the guy who inspired Clinton Derangement Syndrome). But I am aware it is a pass. And I'm aware that sits uncomfortably with my other feminist convictions, but there is no way to be a perfect feminist here. Either you're buying into the shit dumped on the women who allege Bill Clinton raped them or you're buying into the shit that holds Hillary responsible for various things Bill did. You're just deciding which is the lesser injustice because the playing field is fucked.
No blame to those women who decide differently when they're doing that math, though. Or to folks who prefer other candidates on substantial policy issues, which none of this scandalmongering even touches.
posted by immlass at 4:01 PM on January 20, 2016 [27 favorites]
Dear millennial feminists. HRC is a female Presidential candidate who is available this year, not in 4 or 8 years when the next possibility comes up. She's got strong progressive credentials and a long history of fighting for issues you should care about. Please don't fuck this up by picking an old white guy making promises that he won't be able to keep.
posted by humanfont at 4:04 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 4:04 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Vuron nails it. It's all about the SCOTUS.
Oh and the Republican strangle hold on the House.
posted by Max Power at 4:08 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh and the Republican strangle hold on the House.
posted by Max Power at 4:08 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary seems better than Bernie to me on foreign policy issue
If you're into bombing brown people, sure, she's real good on that.
posted by turntraitor at 4:09 PM on January 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
If you're into bombing brown people, sure, she's real good on that.
posted by turntraitor at 4:09 PM on January 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
Can you link to a source so I can post this all over the entire world?
Link
Its not "bigger news" because many people would not consider it rape (although most Mefites would, I suspect). Trump's lawyer: "“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”"
Also I suspect anyone who would care about this already knows Trump is an almost cartoonishly horrible human being.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Link
Its not "bigger news" because many people would not consider it rape (although most Mefites would, I suspect). Trump's lawyer: "“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”"
Also I suspect anyone who would care about this already knows Trump is an almost cartoonishly horrible human being.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
As the old saying goes, you are legally required to vote for the candidate whose generals most closely resemble your own
posted by shakespeherian at 4:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by shakespeherian at 4:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dear millennial feminists. HRC is a female Presidential candidate who is available this year, not in 4 or 8 years when the next possibility comes up. She's got strong progressive credentials and a long history of fighting for issues you should care about. Please don't fuck this up by picking an old white guy making promises that he won't be able to keep.
i'm a millennial feminist, and i know damn well why i'm voting for bernie sanders in the primary and not hillary clinton, thanks very much. she's hardly a progressive, and i trust bernie more than her to advocate for causes and policies i believe in. i will of course vote for her in the primary, because lord knows nothing on earth could persuade me to vote for any of the republican candidates, but it will be as a matter of pragmatism and damage control, not out of any real belief that she'll meaningfully advocate for me and my cohort or that her policies align with mine.
i don't see how that's "fucking up".
posted by burgerrr at 4:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [37 favorites]
i'm a millennial feminist, and i know damn well why i'm voting for bernie sanders in the primary and not hillary clinton, thanks very much. she's hardly a progressive, and i trust bernie more than her to advocate for causes and policies i believe in. i will of course vote for her in the primary, because lord knows nothing on earth could persuade me to vote for any of the republican candidates, but it will be as a matter of pragmatism and damage control, not out of any real belief that she'll meaningfully advocate for me and my cohort or that her policies align with mine.
i don't see how that's "fucking up".
posted by burgerrr at 4:25 PM on January 20, 2016 [37 favorites]
I am an extremely old woman feminist person, like, old enough that I read about the Clinton scandals in the newspaper, to which I had a subscription, in the morning before I went to work. And still I think Senator Clinton is problematic, not because of her sexually harassing husband, but because she is an unapologetic servant of big business. Feminists who are my contemporaries need to knock off condescending to millennial feminists - they are as entitled to vote their consciences as we are. (And dudes who are my contemporaries or older need to shut the hell up with telling women of any age how to feminist better. You had your turn. Take a seat.)
posted by gingerest at 4:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [53 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 4:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [53 favorites]
Many of the areas on which I ding Hillary are areas where she is far from alone in falling short.
But that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? There is a base level for a self-identifying Democrat and both Bernie and Hillary meet that standard, Beyond that, you have liberals like me struggling to pull the party out of center-rightsville and you have New Democrats claiming that only center-rightsville Dems are electable. That struggle for the soul of the party is real and, while neither one can get real leftist policy through a fiercely antagonistic House, Sanders is a lot more likely to at least want to try. If you measure what each one is more likely to settle for in negotiations, in nominees and in vetoes, I know who represents me far better, and I don't want Hillary trotting to the nomination without a helluva fight.
posted by delfin at 4:32 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
But that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? There is a base level for a self-identifying Democrat and both Bernie and Hillary meet that standard, Beyond that, you have liberals like me struggling to pull the party out of center-rightsville and you have New Democrats claiming that only center-rightsville Dems are electable. That struggle for the soul of the party is real and, while neither one can get real leftist policy through a fiercely antagonistic House, Sanders is a lot more likely to at least want to try. If you measure what each one is more likely to settle for in negotiations, in nominees and in vetoes, I know who represents me far better, and I don't want Hillary trotting to the nomination without a helluva fight.
posted by delfin at 4:32 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sanders as President might put up some slightly different jurists to the SCOTUS than Clinton but in general either one is going to put up jurists that would reaffirm pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage positions. In contrast Cruz and Trump would put up complete assholes and we could see very real erosion of civil rights in a very short period of time.
The balance of the SCOTUS is why I have been telling people that no matter how excited they may be about either Sanders or Clinton, it's very important that they see the value of the other as well - because that and the veto vote really matter and make tangible differences.
but holy shit i hadn't ever thought specifically about the idea of trump appointing anyone to the SCOTUS - that is utterly terrifying.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:34 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
The balance of the SCOTUS is why I have been telling people that no matter how excited they may be about either Sanders or Clinton, it's very important that they see the value of the other as well - because that and the veto vote really matter and make tangible differences.
but holy shit i hadn't ever thought specifically about the idea of trump appointing anyone to the SCOTUS - that is utterly terrifying.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:34 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm voting for Sanders in the primary (it'll be interesting to see how NY shakes out on that one, but almost certainly for Clinton) because I share his views and he is the most clearly sincere major candidate I've seen in my lifetime.
I imagine I'll be voting for Clinton in the general because the alternative will be too monstrous to consider, but also because, if nothing else, she'll be a continuation of the current administration or perhaps a little better. There are a lot of things about the Obama administration that I wish had been pushed harder, done better, etc., but generally I'm happy for the improvements we've seen.
Everything about Bill that we're discussing is troubling as hell, of course, but this is about the next four to eight years, and the President holds lives in his or her hands in ways we can't even really comprehend. That's the bigger thing for me.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I imagine I'll be voting for Clinton in the general because the alternative will be too monstrous to consider, but also because, if nothing else, she'll be a continuation of the current administration or perhaps a little better. There are a lot of things about the Obama administration that I wish had been pushed harder, done better, etc., but generally I'm happy for the improvements we've seen.
Everything about Bill that we're discussing is troubling as hell, of course, but this is about the next four to eight years, and the President holds lives in his or her hands in ways we can't even really comprehend. That's the bigger thing for me.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:38 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.
Needless to say that is not what the law says - now, anyway.
posted by atoxyl at 4:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Needless to say that is not what the law says - now, anyway.
posted by atoxyl at 4:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll vote and campaign for whoever the Democrat is because I don't want to live in the Republic of Gilead
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:44 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:44 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Its not "bigger news" because many people would not consider it rape (although most Mefites would, I suspect).
It's not bigger news because the woman involved later stated that it was not actually rape. That does not mean it wasn't, but it's hard for the media to roll with an accusation the victim apparently does not want made.
“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”
posted by Drinky Die at 4:50 PM on January 20, 2016
It's not bigger news because the woman involved later stated that it was not actually rape. That does not mean it wasn't, but it's hard for the media to roll with an accusation the victim apparently does not want made.
“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”
posted by Drinky Die at 4:50 PM on January 20, 2016
but holy shit i hadn't ever thought specifically about the idea of trump appointing anyone to the SCOTUS - that is utterly terrifying
Let it roll around on your tongue for a bit:
Chief
Justice
Gary
Busey
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Let it roll around on your tongue for a bit:
Chief
Justice
Gary
Busey
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Not only was Obama the same, so was Sanders!
And I'm critical of both of them for it. And I'm critical of Republicans when their positions evolve due to politics or personal circumstance as well. This isn't a partisan or political criticism, it's a moral one. People who oppose gay marriage are acting in a bigoted way and should all be called out for what they did, even if they eventually evolve. Good leaders lead, they don't follow.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
And I'm critical of both of them for it. And I'm critical of Republicans when their positions evolve due to politics or personal circumstance as well. This isn't a partisan or political criticism, it's a moral one. People who oppose gay marriage are acting in a bigoted way and should all be called out for what they did, even if they eventually evolve. Good leaders lead, they don't follow.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I for one, would welcome Gordon Ramsey as secretary of commerce.
The odd thing is, I think people want to vote middle of the road and Hilary is to some extent, it's that no one really fucking trusts her.
posted by clavdivs at 5:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The odd thing is, I think people want to vote middle of the road and Hilary is to some extent, it's that no one really fucking trusts her.
posted by clavdivs at 5:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get really, really scared by all the fervent BERNIE IS THE BEST OMG I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY UGH bullshit, because if she does end up being the nominee, I'm genuinely worried these short-sighted assholes will screw the rest of us over by not voting because they're just so special and their ideals are just so pure that they can't possibly bring themselves to vote when their heart's not in it or whatever bullshit taking-my-ball-and-going-home excuse is deployed.
There are SCOTUS seats at stake here. Frankly, I'm not thrilled with ANY of my choices on the left, but I'm voting for whoever the DNC dumps the balloon shower on at the convention because I believe protecting those SCOTUS nominations is the most important thing we can do for our collective future. I wish I trusted all the Bernie bros to do the same thing if it's not their guy they get to vote for, but... I'm bracing myself to be fucked over pretty severely by my fellow "progressives".
posted by palomar at 5:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
There are SCOTUS seats at stake here. Frankly, I'm not thrilled with ANY of my choices on the left, but I'm voting for whoever the DNC dumps the balloon shower on at the convention because I believe protecting those SCOTUS nominations is the most important thing we can do for our collective future. I wish I trusted all the Bernie bros to do the same thing if it's not their guy they get to vote for, but... I'm bracing myself to be fucked over pretty severely by my fellow "progressives".
posted by palomar at 5:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
(Bernie bro is a term applicable to all genders, just FYI)
posted by palomar at 5:21 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by palomar at 5:21 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
brogressives?
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:24 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000.
Oh come the fuck on, citing someone else's diary? I'm not going to condemn Hilary Clinton for how she privately vented about her husband's paramour to a close friend.
posted by desuetude at 5:26 PM on January 20, 2016 [35 favorites]
Oh come the fuck on, citing someone else's diary? I'm not going to condemn Hilary Clinton for how she privately vented about her husband's paramour to a close friend.
posted by desuetude at 5:26 PM on January 20, 2016 [35 favorites]
lupus,
That role leaves her stance on this issue [Bill's sex life] very complicated. It's a serious discussion that needs to be had.
No, it's not serious, and it doesn't need to be had at all. None of this would be any issue at all in any other civilized country, and has no bearing on Hillary's ability to be a good President.
Okay, those brackets you inserted? That's not what I'm saying, and the fact that anyone feels like that "correction" belongs there shows the misunderstanding that has to be addressed. There's a huge difference between Bill Clinton's sex life and the allegations of sexual assault. It's absolutely wrong to conflate the two. Consensual adultery is not the same thing as sexual harassment or assault. And it is an issue for Hillary if she's going to say we should believe people when they say they've been assaulted, but not when it's her husband.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
That role leaves her stance on this issue [Bill's sex life] very complicated. It's a serious discussion that needs to be had.
No, it's not serious, and it doesn't need to be had at all. None of this would be any issue at all in any other civilized country, and has no bearing on Hillary's ability to be a good President.
Okay, those brackets you inserted? That's not what I'm saying, and the fact that anyone feels like that "correction" belongs there shows the misunderstanding that has to be addressed. There's a huge difference between Bill Clinton's sex life and the allegations of sexual assault. It's absolutely wrong to conflate the two. Consensual adultery is not the same thing as sexual harassment or assault. And it is an issue for Hillary if she's going to say we should believe people when they say they've been assaulted, but not when it's her husband.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not only are women abused and not believed by the justice system, it's apparently their fault when their husbands might be rapists.
Even 30 years after the fact.
posted by innocentsabored at 5:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Even 30 years after the fact.
posted by innocentsabored at 5:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is anyone worried about Clinton ( or Sanders) being able to get the kind of SCOTUS nominees Metafilter would like ratified by the Senate? Won't the Republicans have enough votes to sabotage anyone we'd really like?
posted by wittgenstein at 5:38 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by wittgenstein at 5:38 PM on January 20, 2016
Won't the Republicans have enough votes to sabotage anyone we'd really like?
Yes, which is why so many people rightly point out that the fight isn't just about the presidency. It's about Congress and statehouses, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:43 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yes, which is why so many people rightly point out that the fight isn't just about the presidency. It's about Congress and statehouses, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:43 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Won't the Republicans have enough votes to sabotage anyone we'd really like?
Yes, which is why so many people rightly point out that the fight isn't just about the presidency. It's about Congress and statehouses, too.
Supreme Court appointments are are approved by the Senate, if I understand correctly, the House does not play a role so there isn't much impact from the state level.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:45 PM on January 20, 2016
Yes, which is why so many people rightly point out that the fight isn't just about the presidency. It's about Congress and statehouses, too.
Supreme Court appointments are are approved by the Senate, if I understand correctly, the House does not play a role so there isn't much impact from the state level.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:45 PM on January 20, 2016
(Bernie bro is a term applicable to all genders, just FYI)
It's a terrible way to talk about people who you want to keep on your side for the general election, though. Why be so pointlessly hostile and alienating, especially to new voters?
posted by dialetheia at 5:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
It's a terrible way to talk about people who you want to keep on your side for the general election, though. Why be so pointlessly hostile and alienating, especially to new voters?
posted by dialetheia at 5:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
I'm bracing myself to be fucked over pretty severely by my fellow "progressives".
I don't know, this makes me think of the 2008 nomination, when a splinter faction of HRC supporters pulled the same stunt you're describing in protest of BHO's nomination. My take is that a tiny minority of hardcore superfans will always say stuff like this — and sure, they're dangerous and wrong, but 1. it's hardly unique to the Sanders campaign and 2. they are going to make a lot more noise than practical impact. IIRC the vast majority of HRC supporters in that election voted for BHO. Similarly, I am pretty confident that the vast majority of Sanders supporters in this election will vote for HRC if she is the nominee, especially over someone like Trump or Cruz or Rubio: look at those favorability ratings. That's a lot of overlap.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't know, this makes me think of the 2008 nomination, when a splinter faction of HRC supporters pulled the same stunt you're describing in protest of BHO's nomination. My take is that a tiny minority of hardcore superfans will always say stuff like this — and sure, they're dangerous and wrong, but 1. it's hardly unique to the Sanders campaign and 2. they are going to make a lot more noise than practical impact. IIRC the vast majority of HRC supporters in that election voted for BHO. Similarly, I am pretty confident that the vast majority of Sanders supporters in this election will vote for HRC if she is the nominee, especially over someone like Trump or Cruz or Rubio: look at those favorability ratings. That's a lot of overlap.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't know, this makes me think of the 2008 nomination, when a splinter faction of HRC supporters pulled the same stunt you're describing in protest of BHO's nomination.
Exactly - I haven't heard anything from Sanders supporters that even approaches the rhetoric around the PUMA thing ("Party Unity My Ass"), and that didn't really affect the general election at all.
posted by dialetheia at 5:54 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Exactly - I haven't heard anything from Sanders supporters that even approaches the rhetoric around the PUMA thing ("Party Unity My Ass"), and that didn't really affect the general election at all.
posted by dialetheia at 5:54 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I am trembling with dread this whole election year, remembering all the leftist purists my circle who voted for Nader, since "Gore was no different than Bush". And then came Rhenquist.
posted by effluvia at 5:58 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by effluvia at 5:58 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
lol, I was just thinking to myself, "Who is going to be the first to start the Nader derail?" Could feel it coming.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:58 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:58 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Luckily, the odds of Hillary choosing to run with Joe Lieberman are pretty slim.
posted by delfin at 6:02 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by delfin at 6:02 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Eh, my dislike of Hillary has more to do with my perception that she's owned lock, stock, and barrel by the interests that Sanders seems prepared to fight at every turn. It's not so much that he would be successful as he would make the fight part of the national conversation again, and that's good enough for me right now.
That said, whichever Democrat comes out the other side of the primary process is who I'm voting for, without question, 'cause the other options suck like an electrolux with all the attachments.
posted by Mooski at 6:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
That said, whichever Democrat comes out the other side of the primary process is who I'm voting for, without question, 'cause the other options suck like an electrolux with all the attachments.
posted by Mooski at 6:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
I get really, really scared by all the fervent BERNIE IS THE BEST OMG I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY UGH bullshit, because if she does end up being the nominee, I'm genuinely worried these short-sighted assholes will screw the rest of us over by not voting because they're just so special and their ideals are just so pure that they can't possibly bring themselves to vote when their heart's not in it or whatever bullshit taking-my-ball-and-going-home excuse is deployed.
They might even vote for Trump. I've talked to a handful of people whose ranking of Sanders and Trump is (2), (1) or (1), (2). Which is odd, but interesting. I think the common thread is populism, but expressed in rather different ways and languages.
posted by theorique at 6:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
They might even vote for Trump. I've talked to a handful of people whose ranking of Sanders and Trump is (2), (1) or (1), (2). Which is odd, but interesting. I think the common thread is populism, but expressed in rather different ways and languages.
posted by theorique at 6:05 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
With the exception of some extreme bloviating online by progressives who want Sanders nominated (understandably) I haven't really heard that many people on the left who are Sanders or else I'm not voting (or god forbid I'm voting for the Republican). I think the reality as after being burned by the LOL GORE AND BUSH ARE THE SAME logic in 2000 most people realize that despite both parties being very corporatist at heart, which makes sense given that many corporations give money to both sides of the aisle, there is substantial differences between the parties on a whole host of issues. The extreme nativist core of the Republican party that is supporting Cruz and Trump is just completely illustrating that to everyone now.
I say this as someone whose political opinions are much more aligned with Sanders than Clinton that I'll be more than happy to have Hillary Clinton make history as the first female President. I don't just think she's the lesser of two evils but honestly feel like she's liable to be a very decent President in her own right. I will happily vote for either Sanders or Clinton at this point because even though I think Clinton is probably a better General Election candidate in terms of experience and electibility Sanders support has proven that he probably would do well enough in the General to not get trounced. Clinton is probably better for down ballot reasons but I'm not entirely convinced that Democratic coattails will be as important as widespread disgust with the Republican party.
Of course if Trump goes full megalomaniacal and goes with an independent run if Rubio or Cruz catch him I'm pretty sure that the Democrats could nominate Joseph Stalin and still win.
posted by vuron at 6:10 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I say this as someone whose political opinions are much more aligned with Sanders than Clinton that I'll be more than happy to have Hillary Clinton make history as the first female President. I don't just think she's the lesser of two evils but honestly feel like she's liable to be a very decent President in her own right. I will happily vote for either Sanders or Clinton at this point because even though I think Clinton is probably a better General Election candidate in terms of experience and electibility Sanders support has proven that he probably would do well enough in the General to not get trounced. Clinton is probably better for down ballot reasons but I'm not entirely convinced that Democratic coattails will be as important as widespread disgust with the Republican party.
Of course if Trump goes full megalomaniacal and goes with an independent run if Rubio or Cruz catch him I'm pretty sure that the Democrats could nominate Joseph Stalin and still win.
posted by vuron at 6:10 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I get really, really scared by all the fervent BERNIE IS THE BEST OMG I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY UGH
I imagine Sanders will spend significant energy urging his supporters to support Clinton should she get the nomination instead of him - and probably while also urging Clinton to earn that support. His overarching goal is to stop the rightward/corporatist slide of the Dems. He doesn't have to win the presidency to be productive on that front.
posted by anonymisc at 6:10 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
I imagine Sanders will spend significant energy urging his supporters to support Clinton should she get the nomination instead of him - and probably while also urging Clinton to earn that support. His overarching goal is to stop the rightward/corporatist slide of the Dems. He doesn't have to win the presidency to be productive on that front.
posted by anonymisc at 6:10 PM on January 20, 2016 [26 favorites]
Please don't fuck this up by picking an old white guy making promises that he won't be able to keep.
Come on, he isn't white. Bernie is Jewish. His family was killed in the Holocaust. His father was Jewish, and his mother was Jewish. He lived on a kibbutz. Bernie is actually less white than Obama.
The reason he got into politics, in his own words:
"A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:11 PM on January 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
Come on, he isn't white. Bernie is Jewish. His family was killed in the Holocaust. His father was Jewish, and his mother was Jewish. He lived on a kibbutz. Bernie is actually less white than Obama.
The reason he got into politics, in his own words:
"A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:11 PM on January 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
I must say, I'm encouraged by the number of people here who are planning to make their voices heard in the primary and grudgingly willing to choose the least worst option in the general.
Unless you're 100% sure your vote won't matter in your state and it then makes more sense to vote third party, this is the wisest way to go.
Ideological purism is a trap. Self-perpetuating ideology is a virus (my compliments to Mr. Stephenson). Ideals aren't worth a damn if they're not backed up with choices that acknowledge reality. Bernie himself would probably say so. Pretty sure both Bernie and Hillary will back the other up, when push comes to shove: this has already been apparent in the debates, which have been completely amicable by comparison with the republican debates. None of the choices in the democratic primary are bad when you compare them to the republican choices.
Most important is voting. Second most important is voting like a pragmatic realist.
posted by Strudel at 6:14 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Unless you're 100% sure your vote won't matter in your state and it then makes more sense to vote third party, this is the wisest way to go.
Ideological purism is a trap. Self-perpetuating ideology is a virus (my compliments to Mr. Stephenson). Ideals aren't worth a damn if they're not backed up with choices that acknowledge reality. Bernie himself would probably say so. Pretty sure both Bernie and Hillary will back the other up, when push comes to shove: this has already been apparent in the debates, which have been completely amicable by comparison with the republican debates. None of the choices in the democratic primary are bad when you compare them to the republican choices.
Most important is voting. Second most important is voting like a pragmatic realist.
posted by Strudel at 6:14 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Come on, he isn't white. Bernie is Jewish. His family was killed in the Holocaust. His father was Jewish, and his mother was Jewish. He lived on a kibbutz. Bernie is actually less white than Obama.
He's as white as I am, and I'm white.
posted by escabeche at 6:15 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
He's as white as I am, and I'm white.
posted by escabeche at 6:15 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wait are you implying that being ethnically Ashkenazi Jew somehow makes you not white? I'm not sure many people would agree with that assessment even though the outsider of the Jewish community in western societies does put them into greater alignment with other minority populations.
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on January 20, 2016
A, "What is white?" discussion might fit in better over here.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:18 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:18 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I get really, really scared by all the fervent BERNIE IS THE BEST OMG I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY UGH
I worried about all those people who believe that Bernie will be able to do much with a hostile Congress. Christ, we just went through all this Obama: big, lofty and sane promises that often fell far from reality when he made it to office.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
I worried about all those people who believe that Bernie will be able to do much with a hostile Congress. Christ, we just went through all this Obama: big, lofty and sane promises that often fell far from reality when he made it to office.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
I worried about all those people who believe that Bernie will be able to do much with a hostile Congress.
Heh, I'm secretly hoping against sense that the GOP clown circus will get so bad it casts a spillover shadow onto congressional voting and in a surprise turnaround congress ends up unexpectedly less hostile :)
posted by anonymisc at 6:26 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heh, I'm secretly hoping against sense that the GOP clown circus will get so bad it casts a spillover shadow onto congressional voting and in a surprise turnaround congress ends up unexpectedly less hostile :)
posted by anonymisc at 6:26 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's an issue of identity politics and privilege. I keep seeing people assign privilege to Bernie because he looks white, but honestly, the majority of the casual racism I see is anti-semitism. Jokes about Jews running the world, casual comments like "I'm not racist but I don't like Jews", and odd-compliments like "you do business like a Jew." On both the west coast and the midwest, it's surprisingly common to assume that everyone is white and then make a jew joke and be surprised when someone is offended.
It would be a huge step forward to have another unique voice in the white house, informed by a non WASP upbringing. Bernie is not a WASP, please stop assuming that he is.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would be a huge step forward to have another unique voice in the white house, informed by a non WASP upbringing. Bernie is not a WASP, please stop assuming that he is.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:28 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't imagine Bernie being as conciliatory and polite to Congress as Obama was for years. A different tack might be worth a try. And I don't imagine that that hostile Congress being nicer to Hillary, either.
posted by uosuaq at 6:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yes, nobody is passing anything much besides whatever they can to keep the government not shut down. The debates are a big show of pretending otherwise. You might be able to flex some more executive muscle but I think Obama may have taken that about as far as it can go. That's another reason I think Hillary will be vulnerable in four years, I don't know how she is going to develop a good record to run on when nothing of significance will pass. It will be another Supreme Court election. We should really just go to directly electing the Justices.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:32 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:32 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The nice thing about Sanders is even though he espouses socialism he is ultimately extremely pragmatic in terms of achieving his goals. That sort of incremental approach is common to both Clinton and Sanders in many ways as they both seem to focus on similar achievable goals even if their ultimate goals might have substantial differences. Both Clinton and Sanders have shown the ability to look across the aisle in meaningful ways while being legislators and both are probably pragmatic enough that they realize that with deeply partisan nature of Congress neither one will be able to deliver that much.
I have less certainty concerning Sanders and foreign policy but I figure he'll be solid either way (I don't think either one would pursue isolationism) while Clinton is broadly concerned to be a very very solid Secretary of State. In this regard I think both will pursue Obama administration guidelines looking to engage with diplomacy first in relation to Iran and Cuba among other states. I'm afraid neither one seems to have a particularly compelling strategy in regards to Syria and ISIL but there are far from unique in that regards.
From a legal perspective I'd expect slightly less corporatist jurists from Sanders but ultimately fairly similar approaches. Same with the administrative functionality of the Presidency.
In short I'd probably be happy with either one. Both come from outsider (if not minority) perspectives and both would help achieve a good amount for this country. I also suspect that both would ultimately be stymied by extreme Republican obstructionism but that's simply the reality of our intensely gerrymandered political representation.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have less certainty concerning Sanders and foreign policy but I figure he'll be solid either way (I don't think either one would pursue isolationism) while Clinton is broadly concerned to be a very very solid Secretary of State. In this regard I think both will pursue Obama administration guidelines looking to engage with diplomacy first in relation to Iran and Cuba among other states. I'm afraid neither one seems to have a particularly compelling strategy in regards to Syria and ISIL but there are far from unique in that regards.
From a legal perspective I'd expect slightly less corporatist jurists from Sanders but ultimately fairly similar approaches. Same with the administrative functionality of the Presidency.
In short I'd probably be happy with either one. Both come from outsider (if not minority) perspectives and both would help achieve a good amount for this country. I also suspect that both would ultimately be stymied by extreme Republican obstructionism but that's simply the reality of our intensely gerrymandered political representation.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
whether america views bernie as white or not, they'll certainly work out that he doesn't have the one qualification that all presidents so far have had - a stated belief in jesus christ as their lord and savior. i hope as a country we're beyond that need, and i hope that all those people who say in surveys that they're less religious or generally non-religious will come out to the polls in droves, but if we leave it to right wing mega churches busing people to vote, bernie doesn't have a prayer, and hillary isn't looking so good either.
the big story of this election, like the last 2 presidential elections, will be turnout. if people are disillusioned or thinks no one will vote the nutter republicans in, we're fuckin' toast. vote for hillary, vote for bernie - do what you feel is best in the primaries, but for all of us, please please vote democrat in the general.
posted by nadawi at 6:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
the big story of this election, like the last 2 presidential elections, will be turnout. if people are disillusioned or thinks no one will vote the nutter republicans in, we're fuckin' toast. vote for hillary, vote for bernie - do what you feel is best in the primaries, but for all of us, please please vote democrat in the general.
posted by nadawi at 6:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I have had a few friends and relatives indicate that they'd never vote for Hillary even if she was the Democratic nominee. My brother-in-law says that he would vote against her to teach the DNC a lesson because he thinks that they're conspiring to make Sanders lose.
posted by octothorpe at 6:38 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 6:38 PM on January 20, 2016
I'm voting for Sanders in the primary. Will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general, because that nominee, whoever it is, will be better for feminist and other issues than the Republican nominee.
I'd also like to encourage new voters from among those who wouldn't otherwise vote, a big tent Democratic party, and enthusiasm for more participation at the state and local levels.
As for Sanders' supporters not voting for the Democratic nominee, I'll quote the Senator himself: "No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler. I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:47 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'd also like to encourage new voters from among those who wouldn't otherwise vote, a big tent Democratic party, and enthusiasm for more participation at the state and local levels.
As for Sanders' supporters not voting for the Democratic nominee, I'll quote the Senator himself: "No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler. I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:47 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I have to admit I hadn't really thought until this moment about how much attention is paid to the potentially groundbreaking nature of Clinton's presidency but not to the potential for Sanders to be the first non-Christian President. Those are both important milestones.
And Trump as potentially the first Trump-ist president, of course.
posted by Justinian at 6:53 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
And Trump as potentially the first Trump-ist president, of course.
posted by Justinian at 6:53 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am trembling with dread this whole election year, remembering all the leftist purists my circle who voted for Nader, since "Gore was no different than Bush". And then came Rhenquist.
There is a very important difference between that election and this one, which is that Sanders is running within-party. Trust me, the Dem machine would have scuppered him before he even got going if he was truly unelectable. They may yet - never underestimate the ruthlessness of the superdelegates.
posted by gingerest at 7:33 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is a very important difference between that election and this one, which is that Sanders is running within-party. Trust me, the Dem machine would have scuppered him before he even got going if he was truly unelectable. They may yet - never underestimate the ruthlessness of the superdelegates.
posted by gingerest at 7:33 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I get really, really scared by all the fervent BERNIE IS THE BEST OMG I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY UGH bullshit, because if she does end up being the nominee, I'm genuinely worried these short-sighted assholes will screw the rest of us over by not voting because they're just so special and their ideals are just so pure that they can't possibly bring themselves to vote when their heart's not in it or whatever bullshit taking-my-ball-and-going-home excuse is deployed.
I'll vote for whomever the D nominee ends up being, but I have no problem being honest and saying that if it is Clinton my vote will be with serious nose-holding and gritting my teeth. I'm no more worried about Sanderites saying that they won't vote for her than I am there actually being a flood of emigration to Canada after a Republican win. People like to talk tough, but virtually no one will ever follow through.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'll vote for whomever the D nominee ends up being, but I have no problem being honest and saying that if it is Clinton my vote will be with serious nose-holding and gritting my teeth. I'm no more worried about Sanderites saying that they won't vote for her than I am there actually being a flood of emigration to Canada after a Republican win. People like to talk tough, but virtually no one will ever follow through.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 PM on January 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie Sanders, whatever else comes out of this campaign, shows exactly how to change things as a third party. Co-Opt the mainstream party and drag their policy positions where you want them by the strength of your activists and your message.
Hillary's Veep will be no fucking Joe Lieberman, let me tell you.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary's Veep will be no fucking Joe Lieberman, let me tell you.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:36 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sanders pissed me off with his establishment bullshit about Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile Clinton impressed me with her handling of the Benghazi hearing, Flint, and the amount of money she's raised for downticket Democrats so I will probably be voting for her. And I'm a millenial who was all about Obama in 2008.
posted by bgal81 at 7:48 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 7:48 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
than I am there actually being a flood of emigration to Canada after a Republican win.
I am admittedly in the process of making a decision about moving overseas for unrelated reasons, but a Trump win would tip the balance and make that a very easy decision. Rubio or someone I could live with (not at all happy with, but would not be "yes clearly we should pack up our shit and get the hell out since we were considering that anyway").
posted by thefoxgod at 7:52 PM on January 20, 2016
I am admittedly in the process of making a decision about moving overseas for unrelated reasons, but a Trump win would tip the balance and make that a very easy decision. Rubio or someone I could live with (not at all happy with, but would not be "yes clearly we should pack up our shit and get the hell out since we were considering that anyway").
posted by thefoxgod at 7:52 PM on January 20, 2016
> It's an issue of identity politics and privilege. I keep seeing people assign privilege to Bernie because he looks white, but honestly, the majority of the casual racism I see is anti-semitism. Jokes about Jews running the world, casual comments like "I'm not racist but I don't like Jews", and odd-compliments like "you do business like a Jew." On both the west coast and the midwest, it's surprisingly common to assume that everyone is white and then make a jew joke and be surprised when someone is offended. It would be a huge step forward to have another unique voice in the white house, informed by a non WASP upbringing. Bernie is not a WASP, please stop assuming that he is
As a Ashkenazi Jew in the United States, he is both white and a member of an ethnic minority group. He's assigned white privilege because--with a Polish father and a mother of (IIRC) Russian heritage--he is white. I'm not sure to whom you're referring with the presumption that he's a WASP? (I suppose there are people who have just seen his picture and made that assumption, but no-one who is paying any attention to him as a candidate, as his Brooklyn Jewish upbringing is a big part of his story.)
I totally agree that the casual anti-semitism is pervasive, surprisingly unapologetic, and completely gross.
posted by desuetude at 7:54 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
As a Ashkenazi Jew in the United States, he is both white and a member of an ethnic minority group. He's assigned white privilege because--with a Polish father and a mother of (IIRC) Russian heritage--he is white. I'm not sure to whom you're referring with the presumption that he's a WASP? (I suppose there are people who have just seen his picture and made that assumption, but no-one who is paying any attention to him as a candidate, as his Brooklyn Jewish upbringing is a big part of his story.)
I totally agree that the casual anti-semitism is pervasive, surprisingly unapologetic, and completely gross.
posted by desuetude at 7:54 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bernie Sanders, whatever else comes out of this campaign, shows exactly how to change things as a third party. Co-Opt the mainstream party and drag their policy positions where you want them by the strength of your activists and your message.
And all it took was his entire political career to do it! (Contra Dennis Kucinich, who markedly failed to do so.)
posted by Going To Maine at 8:10 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
And all it took was his entire political career to do it! (Contra Dennis Kucinich, who markedly failed to do so.)
posted by Going To Maine at 8:10 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I reliably vote for the least worst choice, especially when the opposition is people like Cruz and Trump who are so bad that I barely even hear people saying "it's all the same" these days. But it's still !@$%& primary season we're supposed to be fighting for our preferred candidate.
posted by atoxyl at 8:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 8:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also the whiteness of Jews is... sorta complicated. For Ashkenazim in the US it was maybe still tenuous in Bernie's youth but way less so now.
posted by atoxyl at 8:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 8:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
> We should really just go to directly electing the Justices.
Bite your tongue.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bite your tongue.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:41 PM on January 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Please don't fuck this up by picking an old white guy making promises that he won't be able to keep.
It's probably unlikely that the old white lady making promises could do much, either, given the same obstructionist legislative branch.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's probably unlikely that the old white lady making promises could do much, either, given the same obstructionist legislative branch.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
> We should really just go to directly electing the Justices.
Bite your tongue.
I know, it's a complete perversion of the system to have the Supreme Court be voted for but...we're doing it anyway. Every time someone complains about a candidate we get, "But the Supreme Court!" Let's just vote for them so we can also vote for Presidents in the future without every election having to come down to nominations.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bite your tongue.
I know, it's a complete perversion of the system to have the Supreme Court be voted for but...we're doing it anyway. Every time someone complains about a candidate we get, "But the Supreme Court!" Let's just vote for them so we can also vote for Presidents in the future without every election having to come down to nominations.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you seen what kind of judges people get in states where they're directly elected, though? That extra layer of vetting by the Executive and Legislative branches really is useful.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:08 PM on January 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:08 PM on January 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
"Trump would definitely be a one-term president, because you can't run for president of a post-apocalyptic hellscape."
Phil Miller for president!
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:15 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Phil Miller for president!
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:15 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know, it's a complete perversion of the system to have the Supreme Court be voted for but...we're doing it anyway.
We're not. We're voting for people who appoint / confirm other people.
If the problem you're trying to address is that there are a lot of mixed concerns when considering candidates -- and justice appointments are one of them -- there's no way to solve this. Short of atomizing government down to direct micropolicy democracy, there will always be mixed concerns.
You think you don't like some of the justices now? Wait until they're elected off of how popular their theories of jurisprudence are in the general public. Think about what you've heard people tell you the constitution says. Running judicial elections like our executive and legislative elections would be a nightmare.
posted by namespan at 9:16 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
We're not. We're voting for people who appoint / confirm other people.
If the problem you're trying to address is that there are a lot of mixed concerns when considering candidates -- and justice appointments are one of them -- there's no way to solve this. Short of atomizing government down to direct micropolicy democracy, there will always be mixed concerns.
You think you don't like some of the justices now? Wait until they're elected off of how popular their theories of jurisprudence are in the general public. Think about what you've heard people tell you the constitution says. Running judicial elections like our executive and legislative elections would be a nightmare.
posted by namespan at 9:16 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, thats how you get Roy Moore. Removed from his post as Chief Justice in Alabama for refusing to obey a federal court ruling, the people of Alabama elected him as Chief Justice again. And what does he do? "Moore again issued an order to lower court judges to enforce a ban on same-sex marriage, despite the fact that the ban had been invalidated by the United States Supreme Court the previous June."
posted by thefoxgod at 9:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 9:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Right. So here's the thing, We've got Hillary & Bernie. They are not perfect. Oddly, neither am I. I will vote for whichever wins the nomination. Whichever. I find it hilarious (see what I did there) that I keep seeing the huge negative response to Hilary (OMG I hate Hilary so much, I hear she eats babies! And I'm totally not a republican!) Followed by fear of the Bern (Dude, every single person who votes for Bernie refuses to EVAR vote for Hilary! I made water in my skivvies!) There is a third democratic candidate people!
OK I was just kidding, there isn't , they just had an extra podium and didn't know what to do with it.
So uh, you know, vote for Bernie.
Or vote for Hilary.
Or end up with Cruz.
Or Trump.
Your choice.
posted by evilDoug at 9:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK I was just kidding, there isn't , they just had an extra podium and didn't know what to do with it.
So uh, you know, vote for Bernie.
Or vote for Hilary.
Or end up with Cruz.
Or Trump.
Your choice.
posted by evilDoug at 9:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It’s interesting how we persist with the theme that Republicans will surely nominate either Cruz or Trump despite the fact that no votes have been cast and there are oodles of candidates. 538 likes their odds for the first few primaries, but it’ll only be in March when things get exciting and we hit the more mainstream (and big!) states. (I realize that this essentially means I’m buying into Nate Silver hype more than Trump or Cruz hype, but I find Silver & his team so much more trustworthy than either of the other two…) Granted, I don’t think anyone here is likely to think fondly of a Rubio or Kasich nomination, but it’s a bit of a different cudgel to wave over peoples’ heads.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 9:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the problem you're trying to address is that there are a lot of mixed concerns when considering candidates -- and justice appointments are one of them -- there's no way to solve this. Short of atomizing government down to direct micropolicy democracy, there will always be mixed concerns.
The problem isn't that there is a mix of concerns, it's that the disposition of the Supreme Court has taken on a massively outsized influence among those concerns when we are supposed to be voting for an executive.
A voter might feel fine with four years of Ted Cruz but not a lifetime government influence of Ted Cruz, but now that voter who may find Hillary otherwise unfit for office is pressured to support her. But really, if we are in an election year where Ted Cruz is going to win, Ted Cruz style judges are going to win anyway! We will end up with the same judges to fill the vacancies.
All of this of course ties in with the perversion of our democratic values which is the two party system which colludes to keep itself in permanent power and dissenting voices on the outside and helps force these black and white no win scenarios. The 40% of the country that doesn't show up...I think there are some candidates some of them would show up for if we didn't subvert democracy to make our only choices the fast acting poison or the slow acting one.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:37 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The problem isn't that there is a mix of concerns, it's that the disposition of the Supreme Court has taken on a massively outsized influence among those concerns when we are supposed to be voting for an executive.
A voter might feel fine with four years of Ted Cruz but not a lifetime government influence of Ted Cruz, but now that voter who may find Hillary otherwise unfit for office is pressured to support her. But really, if we are in an election year where Ted Cruz is going to win, Ted Cruz style judges are going to win anyway! We will end up with the same judges to fill the vacancies.
All of this of course ties in with the perversion of our democratic values which is the two party system which colludes to keep itself in permanent power and dissenting voices on the outside and helps force these black and white no win scenarios. The 40% of the country that doesn't show up...I think there are some candidates some of them would show up for if we didn't subvert democracy to make our only choices the fast acting poison or the slow acting one.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:37 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio still has an outside shot at the nomination if he can effectively portray himself as the not Cruz and not Trump alternative and if he and his Super PAC can eliminate other nominees as quickly as possible.
This basically assumes that Trump and Cruz will split the crazy racist voter group but not be solid enough to decisively win and that Rubio can continue to build momentum into Super Tuesday where perhaps his advantages in terms of electibility will negate the polling advantages of Cruz and Trump. Think of it as the anti-insurgency strategy, stick to areas where you are safe and hope that the other guys will fuck up before they lock in an insurmountable advantage.
Normally that would be a fairly solid position and was the Bush strategy but the reality is just about every nominee still in the race has enough funding to basically ride this clown car til the end and hoping for all the big donors to coalesce around the completely milquetoast Rubio because he is Latino enough to get a higher percentage of the latino vote in the general election is basically akin to holding out hope for a hail mary pass.
At this point in time he'll be hard pressed to finish third in Iowa and second in NH. After that he needs to block anyone else from getting new life in SC and hope that Cruz or Trump don't jump to major lead before super Tuesday. It's not a particularly compelling strategy and honestly the narrative around it "Hey look I'm the least unpalatable candidate" isn't super conducive for GotV operations which are essential during primaries and caucuses when most of the voters are going to be more likely to support one of the two loonies.
posted by vuron at 9:50 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
This basically assumes that Trump and Cruz will split the crazy racist voter group but not be solid enough to decisively win and that Rubio can continue to build momentum into Super Tuesday where perhaps his advantages in terms of electibility will negate the polling advantages of Cruz and Trump. Think of it as the anti-insurgency strategy, stick to areas where you are safe and hope that the other guys will fuck up before they lock in an insurmountable advantage.
Normally that would be a fairly solid position and was the Bush strategy but the reality is just about every nominee still in the race has enough funding to basically ride this clown car til the end and hoping for all the big donors to coalesce around the completely milquetoast Rubio because he is Latino enough to get a higher percentage of the latino vote in the general election is basically akin to holding out hope for a hail mary pass.
At this point in time he'll be hard pressed to finish third in Iowa and second in NH. After that he needs to block anyone else from getting new life in SC and hope that Cruz or Trump don't jump to major lead before super Tuesday. It's not a particularly compelling strategy and honestly the narrative around it "Hey look I'm the least unpalatable candidate" isn't super conducive for GotV operations which are essential during primaries and caucuses when most of the voters are going to be more likely to support one of the two loonies.
posted by vuron at 9:50 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
A voter might feel fine with four years of Ted Cruz but not a lifetime government influence of Ted Cruz
If you made it a choice between the current method and eight years of a Ted Cruz presidency selecting a lifetime of judges vs direct democratic elections, I'd have to think about it a little bit to be sure, but I'd probably still pick the current method, which has the merit of filtering candidates through a senate confirmation process (and, generally, selected from a judicial bench, which is also filtered through the confirmation process).
If the problem is the span of influence, then a more limited term is probably a better fitted solution.
posted by namespan at 9:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you made it a choice between the current method and eight years of a Ted Cruz presidency selecting a lifetime of judges vs direct democratic elections, I'd have to think about it a little bit to be sure, but I'd probably still pick the current method, which has the merit of filtering candidates through a senate confirmation process (and, generally, selected from a judicial bench, which is also filtered through the confirmation process).
If the problem is the span of influence, then a more limited term is probably a better fitted solution.
posted by namespan at 9:55 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
You could theorycraft up some stuff, for instance minimum requirements of time served on the federal bench to be eligible. But really it's just me venting frustration with the current system because this will never in any way happen, no need for me to derail on it further.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:59 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:59 PM on January 20, 2016
I have had a few friends and relatives indicate that they'd never vote for Hillary even if she was the Democratic nominee. My brother-in-law says that he would vote against her to teach the DNC a lesson because he thinks that they're conspiring to make Sanders lose.
This is the part where I repeat:
Use your vote to select candidates. Use any other part of the political process to send a message.
Do not use your vote to send a message. Votes are terrible carriers for messages.
posted by namespan at 9:59 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is the part where I repeat:
Use your vote to select candidates. Use any other part of the political process to send a message.
Do not use your vote to send a message. Votes are terrible carriers for messages.
posted by namespan at 9:59 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
There is a third democratic candidate people!
OK I was just kidding, there isn't , they just had an extra podium and didn't know what to do with it.
Excuse me! That is a really horrible and undeserved slam on candidate...um...guy. Yeah. that Candidate Guy.
So vote for Hillary.
Or vote for Bernie
Or vote for that Candidate Guy.
posted by happyroach at 10:02 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
OK I was just kidding, there isn't , they just had an extra podium and didn't know what to do with it.
Excuse me! That is a really horrible and undeserved slam on candidate...um...guy. Yeah. that Candidate Guy.
So vote for Hillary.
Or vote for Bernie
Or vote for that Candidate Guy.
posted by happyroach at 10:02 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't give a fuck this election. Just don't vote for one of the right wing crazies, please. Sanders would be cool, but he seems to be popular with assholes who hate women on the left. Clinton--well, she voted for a terrible war and still seems to relish using power as much and in the same ways as any asshole dude would. The republican side is obviously a nightmare show. Whatever. I'm fucked, regardless. Vote your consciences. Doesn't matter. We're already dead anyway. We didn't stop global warming in time. Might as well all just give up. Seems to be the hip new trend. I'm giving up, as soon as I can figure out how. But I'll still vote for whoever doesn't have an R next to their name first.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 10:20 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I’m giving up, as soon as I can figure out how.
If that’s your sentiment, I’m pretty sure you’re at least 90% of the way there.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
If that’s your sentiment, I’m pretty sure you’re at least 90% of the way there.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:23 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, if you knew why, you'd be impressed I'm only at 90%.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:33 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 10:33 PM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
nadawi: "you're using a single pull quote to mock a teenager? congratulations."
One thing I quickly learned when I was a teenager commenting on online message boards decades ago was that if I wanted my opinions to be taken seriously, I had to behave like the adults around me. (CompuServe was from a more civilized time.) I couldn't simply act my age and just fall back on the excuse that I was a teenager—or if I did do that, then the grownups were entitled to discount me.
So, too, with this blogger. Either she gets her opinions taken seriously, or she can be regarded as "just a teenager," but not both. And if it's the former (as it ought to be), what she says is indeed open to criticism and mockery, even if it's just a single quote in a single article. If you're offering your political opinions to the New York Times voluntarily, then your age is not at issue.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:44 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
One thing I quickly learned when I was a teenager commenting on online message boards decades ago was that if I wanted my opinions to be taken seriously, I had to behave like the adults around me. (CompuServe was from a more civilized time.) I couldn't simply act my age and just fall back on the excuse that I was a teenager—or if I did do that, then the grownups were entitled to discount me.
So, too, with this blogger. Either she gets her opinions taken seriously, or she can be regarded as "just a teenager," but not both. And if it's the former (as it ought to be), what she says is indeed open to criticism and mockery, even if it's just a single quote in a single article. If you're offering your political opinions to the New York Times voluntarily, then your age is not at issue.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:44 PM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
dudes who relish being dicks to teen girls engaging in feminism is just as boring now as it was in 1994.
posted by nadawi at 10:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:49 PM on January 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
In fairness, ill-informed teenagers are also just as boring now as they were in 1994.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:52 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:52 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
anyone read her site? anything else she's written? or just the one pull quote in a pretty shit article? what are we getting out of attacking her?
posted by nadawi at 10:54 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 10:54 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh nothing, I’m just snarkin’ about teenagers and their opinions. I do think that that was a pretty meh quote, though. Anyhoo, this is the blog, if folks want to keep up with the young folks.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:00 PM on January 20, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:00 PM on January 20, 2016
nadawi: "dudes who relish being dicks to teen girls engaging in feminism is just as boring now as it was in 1994."
Did you just call me a "dick"?
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 11:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Did you just call me a "dick"?
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 11:29 PM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
no.
posted by nadawi at 12:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 12:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can someone please explain what the White Water scandal was all about ?
posted by Narrative_Historian at 12:57 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by Narrative_Historian at 12:57 AM on January 21, 2016
Some kind of thing about a fraudulent loan on a real estate deal or something. It was an actual crime, just not one that actually involved the Clintons doing anything illegal.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Narrative Historian:
The Whitewater scandal has to do with the Clinton's degree and awareness of the fraudulent practice of Jim McDougal, who ran a crooked S&L scheme. They were partners in a real estate development scheme that fell through. McDougal used money falsely taken from his S&L to prop up the development. Though cleared by the FBI, many conservatives believe that the Clintons were using the Whitewater corporation as a slush fund for kickbacks to McDougal, which were then used to grease palms throughout Arkansas.
TL, DR: Clinton's did business through the 70s and 80s with a corrupt Southern politician who committed S&L fraud.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 1:07 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Whitewater scandal has to do with the Clinton's degree and awareness of the fraudulent practice of Jim McDougal, who ran a crooked S&L scheme. They were partners in a real estate development scheme that fell through. McDougal used money falsely taken from his S&L to prop up the development. Though cleared by the FBI, many conservatives believe that the Clintons were using the Whitewater corporation as a slush fund for kickbacks to McDougal, which were then used to grease palms throughout Arkansas.
TL, DR: Clinton's did business through the 70s and 80s with a corrupt Southern politician who committed S&L fraud.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 1:07 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I always figured it was Hillary claiming a class 5 when it was really a class 4 or maybe even 3.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 2:22 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by special agent conrad uno at 2:22 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can someone please explain what the White Water scandal was all about ?
Hillary and Bill were white water rafting and Hillary let a puppy drown.
posted by biffa at 4:50 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary and Bill were white water rafting and Hillary let a puppy drown.
posted by biffa at 4:50 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices? I don't think the "lifetime appointment = political neutrality" argument works anymore. I don't know. I'm just really tired of being strong armed into voting for candidates I can't stand because Supreme Court.
posted by Enemy of Joy at 4:58 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Enemy of Joy at 4:58 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the idea was/is checks and balances. When the country is as polarized as it is now, everybody feels frustrated.
posted by Sir Rinse at 5:19 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Sir Rinse at 5:19 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, take your pick:
"Vote for Hillary because one or two judges might retire and that could change the balance of the Supreme Court."
or
"Vote for Hillary because one or two judges might retire AND three others are hitting their term limit so the fate of all you hold dear is in the balance" at regular intervals.
posted by delfin at 5:30 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Vote for Hillary because one or two judges might retire and that could change the balance of the Supreme Court."
or
"Vote for Hillary because one or two judges might retire AND three others are hitting their term limit so the fate of all you hold dear is in the balance" at regular intervals.
posted by delfin at 5:30 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
How about imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices?
Not gonna happen and won't solve anything, as it'll become a race to deal with the term limited judge
I don't think the "lifetime appointment = political neutrality" argument works anymore. I don't know. I'm just really tired of being strong armed into voting for candidates I can't stand because Supreme Court.
It's not a perfect world, but you have choices. So choose what's best for everyone.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:32 AM on January 21, 2016
Not gonna happen and won't solve anything, as it'll become a race to deal with the term limited judge
I don't think the "lifetime appointment = political neutrality" argument works anymore. I don't know. I'm just really tired of being strong armed into voting for candidates I can't stand because Supreme Court.
It's not a perfect world, but you have choices. So choose what's best for everyone.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:32 AM on January 21, 2016
It is kind of frustrating that we have gotten eight years of Obama and still not tipped the balance at all, just held firm with some great appointments. I don't want to be morbid, but lifetime apointments kind of go there, but when are the conservative justices gonna start keeling over? Is Scalia really a lich? I don't want to discriminate against the undead, but it seems like a lifetime term for one is in violation of the spirit of the constitution at least.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:33 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:33 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is kind of frustrating that we have gotten eight years of Obama and still not tipped the balance at all, just held firm with some great appointments.
There are now 3 female justices, so I'm counting that as win.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
There are now 3 female justices, so I'm counting that as win.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm just really tired of being strong armed into voting for candidates I can't stand because Supreme Court.
Can you give me a better reason to vote for one candidate for president over another? We've all seen what kind of damage that this current court has done and still can do. Do you really want a court with more justices like Scalia or Thomas?
posted by octothorpe at 5:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you give me a better reason to vote for one candidate for president over another? We've all seen what kind of damage that this current court has done and still can do. Do you really want a court with more justices like Scalia or Thomas?
posted by octothorpe at 5:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.
I'm ok with nine too, especially if they're black.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:57 AM on January 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm ok with nine too, especially if they're black.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:57 AM on January 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
It makes total pragmatic sense to nominate women exclusively because they have a longer average life expectancy. I would not be at all surprised to see a 9 woman court a century from now once the Republicans catch on to that.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:59 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 5:59 AM on January 21, 2016
Remember, term limits and lifetime appointments are not mutually incompatible.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm ok with nine too, especially if they're black.
Next season sit-com on the CW network: The Supreme Sistahs
posted by theorique at 6:06 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Next season sit-com on the CW network: The Supreme Sistahs
posted by theorique at 6:06 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I don't actually know what year Clinton flopped reevaluated her position but the point is the same.)
I'm late to the party here and haven't read any comments past this one, but this drives me up the wall. Can we please put to bed, at least on Metafilter, the use of "flip-flopping" as a political attack? It is an inherently conservative attitude that only hurts progressive causes.
Clinton, like all politicians, is a human like the rest of us. Like all humans, she can grow and change after learning new things. Does it suck that she didn't endorse marriage equality much sooner? Yeah, absolutely. But at least she fucking did.
Implicit in accusations of flip-flopping is an ideological purity test that does a lot of damage in American politics. Fear of being called flip-floppers prevents politicians from ever evolving on any sort of issue, from ever admitting any sort of mistake, even if they genuinely have changed their minds about something positive like deciding to endorse gay marriage, or genuinely believe they've made a mistake and were wrong in the past.
I want leaders who can fucking learn from the past, who can grow and change and become better people. Leave the flip-flopping accusations for conservatives; they're the ones that thing change is bad. Progressives should want people to learn to be more accepting and enlightened. Accusations of flip-flopping chill the ability for people to publicly do so.
posted by Caduceus at 6:39 AM on January 21, 2016 [24 favorites]
I'm late to the party here and haven't read any comments past this one, but this drives me up the wall. Can we please put to bed, at least on Metafilter, the use of "flip-flopping" as a political attack? It is an inherently conservative attitude that only hurts progressive causes.
Clinton, like all politicians, is a human like the rest of us. Like all humans, she can grow and change after learning new things. Does it suck that she didn't endorse marriage equality much sooner? Yeah, absolutely. But at least she fucking did.
Implicit in accusations of flip-flopping is an ideological purity test that does a lot of damage in American politics. Fear of being called flip-floppers prevents politicians from ever evolving on any sort of issue, from ever admitting any sort of mistake, even if they genuinely have changed their minds about something positive like deciding to endorse gay marriage, or genuinely believe they've made a mistake and were wrong in the past.
I want leaders who can fucking learn from the past, who can grow and change and become better people. Leave the flip-flopping accusations for conservatives; they're the ones that thing change is bad. Progressives should want people to learn to be more accepting and enlightened. Accusations of flip-flopping chill the ability for people to publicly do so.
posted by Caduceus at 6:39 AM on January 21, 2016 [24 favorites]
Next season sit-com on the CW network: The Supreme Sistahs
Madea Explores Issues of Constitutional Relevancy
posted by delfin at 6:50 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Madea Explores Issues of Constitutional Relevancy
posted by delfin at 6:50 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here is Politifact, just adding to make sure we are grounded in the right history, not making any argument at this time:
Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.
As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.
It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:58 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.
As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.
It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:58 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Opinion: A flip-flop that should be viewed negatively is one that is based on appealing to the voters based on polls. One that should be viewed positively is one based on an evolution of personal understanding of an issue. Hillary's evolution on these issues from 1996 on shows signs of both sorts of changes occuring along the way, in my opinion.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:02 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:02 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Madea Explores Issues of Constitutional Relevancy
That would have to be: "Tyler Perry's 'Madea Explores Issues of Constitutional Relevancy'". Guy loves to put his name on everything he produces.
posted by theorique at 7:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
That would have to be: "Tyler Perry's 'Madea Explores Issues of Constitutional Relevancy'". Guy loves to put his name on everything he produces.
posted by theorique at 7:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be fair, Sanders opposed same sex marriage for Vermont as recently as 2006:
Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”)posted by octothorpe at 7:18 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Opinion: A flip-flop that should be viewed negatively is one that is based on appealing to the voters based on polls. One that should be viewed positively is one based on an evolution of personal understanding of an issue.
Fact: 100% people who try to distinguish between the two will do so with post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:21 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Fact: 100% people who try to distinguish between the two will do so with post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:21 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Political "leadership" is finding a parade and getting in front of it.
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:37 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:37 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
(To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”)
New rule: When a politician says "The fight for X will be too divisive", substitute "I don't really care enough to do X, but the polling shows it as too close to 50/50 for me to ignore entirely."
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
New rule: When a politician says "The fight for X will be too divisive", substitute "I don't really care enough to do X, but the polling shows it as too close to 50/50 for me to ignore entirely."
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
New rule: When a politician says "The fight for X will be too divisive", substitute "I don't really care enough to do X, but the polling shows it as too close to 50/50 for me to ignore entirely."
I don't think there is anything that Senator Sanders doesn't care about.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on January 21, 2016
I don't think there is anything that Senator Sanders doesn't care about.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on January 21, 2016
New rule: When a politician says "The fight for X will be too divisive", substitute "I don't really care enough to do X, but the polling shows it as too close to 50/50 for me to ignore entirely."
You mean like the Democratic Party's entire economic agenda?
To clarify, Vermont had literally JUST passed civil unions when he made that comment, and the legislature had changed such that there were legitimate worries about even that progress being pushed back if the fight were reopened. It's fair to criticize him on it, but I think the context matters.
posted by dialetheia at 7:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
You mean like the Democratic Party's entire economic agenda?
To clarify, Vermont had literally JUST passed civil unions when he made that comment, and the legislature had changed such that there were legitimate worries about even that progress being pushed back if the fight were reopened. It's fair to criticize him on it, but I think the context matters.
posted by dialetheia at 7:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't think there is anything that Senator Sanders doesn't care about.
HIllary Clinton's damn emails.
posted by Etrigan at 7:57 AM on January 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
HIllary Clinton's damn emails.
posted by Etrigan at 7:57 AM on January 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
He might care if there was something actually interesting in them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, the GOP's only female candidate is--and I almost wish that I was making this up--stealing children to use as props in anti-choice rallies. Are there any of them that don't act like comic-book villains?
posted by zombieflanders at 8:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
He might care if there was something actually interesting in them.
Well, as long as we're on the subject of LGBT families...
posted by dialetheia at 8:05 AM on January 21, 2016
Well, as long as we're on the subject of LGBT families...
posted by dialetheia at 8:05 AM on January 21, 2016
I wish I trusted all the Bernie bros to do the same thing if it's not their guy they get to vote for, but... I'm bracing myself to be fucked over pretty severely by my fellow "progressives".
Brogressives!!!!!!!!!11111 Sooner or later "bro-ing" everything is going to come full circle and be seen as problematic (maybe there's already an article) but damnit, bro-ing things to describe bro-y things just works too well. I do love Bernie though because I listened to Thom Hartmann during the entire GWB administration (or whenever he was on) and fellas, "Brunch with Bernie" is a Thom Hartmann show institution that goes back years, where Bernie pontificates like a motherfucker every motherfucking Friday in a way that I'd never expect to hear any other congressperson pontificate (except Kucinich).
Many of them were RON PAUL LOVE-LOTION (that's what it was right?) maniacs too. I remember the first time I pointed out his white supremacist musings (he claimed they were ghostwritten) on a facebook comment feed to several people a few years my junior and I beamed with pride as the distaste registered in their comments. I give them credit, they didn't jump into defensive mode.
Also, sorry for being condescending above if it doesn't get deleted, just giving some shit. Thom Hartmann helped me a lot because I was the "effective millennial" in my IT department for years, and he and MetaFilter gave me a shitload of useful counter-arguments to some of the more "seemingly-impenetrable" arguments that you get from people who "aren't Republicans but always vote conservative" and happen to be well-versed in the rhetoric and decades older. Thanks MetaFilter, Bernie, and Thom Hartmann. And Kucinich should've had Ron Paul's thunda
posted by aydeejones at 8:07 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Brogressives!!!!!!!!!11111 Sooner or later "bro-ing" everything is going to come full circle and be seen as problematic (maybe there's already an article) but damnit, bro-ing things to describe bro-y things just works too well. I do love Bernie though because I listened to Thom Hartmann during the entire GWB administration (or whenever he was on) and fellas, "Brunch with Bernie" is a Thom Hartmann show institution that goes back years, where Bernie pontificates like a motherfucker every motherfucking Friday in a way that I'd never expect to hear any other congressperson pontificate (except Kucinich).
Many of them were RON PAUL LOVE-LOTION (that's what it was right?) maniacs too. I remember the first time I pointed out his white supremacist musings (he claimed they were ghostwritten) on a facebook comment feed to several people a few years my junior and I beamed with pride as the distaste registered in their comments. I give them credit, they didn't jump into defensive mode.
Also, sorry for being condescending above if it doesn't get deleted, just giving some shit. Thom Hartmann helped me a lot because I was the "effective millennial" in my IT department for years, and he and MetaFilter gave me a shitload of useful counter-arguments to some of the more "seemingly-impenetrable" arguments that you get from people who "aren't Republicans but always vote conservative" and happen to be well-versed in the rhetoric and decades older. Thanks MetaFilter, Bernie, and Thom Hartmann. And Kucinich should've had Ron Paul's thunda
posted by aydeejones at 8:07 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The truth is Bernie Sanders can win the nomination and has a far better chance to win the Presidency...no matter what Chris Matthews or Mrs. Greenspan or anyone else at MSNBC thinks you should think.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there substantial overlap between (former) Ron Paul supporters and Bernie supporters?
posted by theorique at 8:13 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by theorique at 8:13 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
i don't know if there is overlap or if it's that some bernie supporters act a lot like some ron paul supporters. i can say that until i spent some time listening to bernie instead of listening to his loudest twitter/reddit supporters i thought he was of the same ilk as ron paul.
posted by nadawi at 8:17 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 8:17 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
About 96% of former Ron Paul supporters are now diehard Hillary voters.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:20 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 8:20 AM on January 21, 2016
Cite?
posted by Going To Maine at 8:23 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 8:23 AM on January 21, 2016
Is there substantial overlap between (former) Ron Paul supporters and Bernie supporters?
First, what do you mean "former"? GOOGLE IT.
Second, based on my theory about the over-representation of brogressive populism on the Internets, I don't think it's substantial, but you wouldn't know that reading blogs and comment sections. Some of it could just be conservatarian types faking support for Sanders that wouldn't actually manifest itself in them voting for him or any Democrat, and some of it could just be that their flavors of populism end up sounding the same to those who don't belong to either tribe, but enough people have noticed the similarities that it's a thing whether or not the people involved think it's a thing.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:26 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
First, what do you mean "former"? GOOGLE IT.
Second, based on my theory about the over-representation of brogressive populism on the Internets, I don't think it's substantial, but you wouldn't know that reading blogs and comment sections. Some of it could just be conservatarian types faking support for Sanders that wouldn't actually manifest itself in them voting for him or any Democrat, and some of it could just be that their flavors of populism end up sounding the same to those who don't belong to either tribe, but enough people have noticed the similarities that it's a thing whether or not the people involved think it's a thing.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:26 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
New rule: When a politician says "The fight for X will be too divisive", substitute "I don't really care enough to do X, but the polling shows it as too close to 50/50 for me to ignore entirely."
And I can roll with that. What bugs me are some of the Berniebros who will light up anyone who says Sanders' proposals (like his health care plan) aren't feasible because of our shitty congress. Apparently, pointing out the Republican grip on the House is just clinging to the "status quo" and giving into the "politics of fear".
Oh, but when it comes to same-sex marriage in Vermont then it's too fragile to take on. The ACA isn't but gay marriage in his tiny, solidly blue state? Crazy talk! And when it's reparations, well that's just impossible. Sadly, between the above and his comments on PP and HRC, a real pattern is emerging and it looks like Sanders is your typical white liberal dude in every way. No struggle but the class struggle.
(Also, I should probably spend less time at DailyKos as it just makes me angry.)
About 96% of former Ron Paul supporters are now diehard Hillary voters
Strangely enough, going by DailyKos, a lot of the Clinton supporters seem to be diehard Obama people who want her to basically run on Obama's third term.
posted by bgal81 at 8:45 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
And I can roll with that. What bugs me are some of the Berniebros who will light up anyone who says Sanders' proposals (like his health care plan) aren't feasible because of our shitty congress. Apparently, pointing out the Republican grip on the House is just clinging to the "status quo" and giving into the "politics of fear".
Oh, but when it comes to same-sex marriage in Vermont then it's too fragile to take on. The ACA isn't but gay marriage in his tiny, solidly blue state? Crazy talk! And when it's reparations, well that's just impossible. Sadly, between the above and his comments on PP and HRC, a real pattern is emerging and it looks like Sanders is your typical white liberal dude in every way. No struggle but the class struggle.
(Also, I should probably spend less time at DailyKos as it just makes me angry.)
About 96% of former Ron Paul supporters are now diehard Hillary voters
Strangely enough, going by DailyKos, a lot of the Clinton supporters seem to be diehard Obama people who want her to basically run on Obama's third term.
posted by bgal81 at 8:45 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
"The mainstream party doesn't represent me. They compromise all the time instead of sticking to their guns, and constantly concede to the other side. Their preferred candidate is a quisling and I vastly prefer a relative outsider who will take no guff, push for strong actions and transform America."
Is the speaker from the hard left, the hard right, or the floating cloud of purestrain gold on which Paul has a summer home?
(Go by the sentiment, not by the usage of multisyllabic words.)
posted by delfin at 8:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is the speaker from the hard left, the hard right, or the floating cloud of purestrain gold on which Paul has a summer home?
(Go by the sentiment, not by the usage of multisyllabic words.)
posted by delfin at 8:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
it looks like Sanders is your typical white liberal dude in every way. No struggle but the class struggle.
How is that typical, exactly? From where I'm sitting, liberals and Democrats haven't cared much about poor people in decades. Certainly not since before Clinton dismantled welfare.
posted by dialetheia at 8:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
How is that typical, exactly? From where I'm sitting, liberals and Democrats haven't cared much about poor people in decades. Certainly not since before Clinton dismantled welfare.
posted by dialetheia at 8:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
How is that typical, exactly?
It's typical about white straight male progressives as I said.
posted by bgal81 at 9:02 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's typical about white straight male progressives as I said.
posted by bgal81 at 9:02 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, the GOP's only female candidate is--and I almost wish that I was making this up--stealing children to use as props in anti-choice rallies.
Stealing? Give me a break. Those pre-schoolers wanted to be at that rally:
Stealing? Give me a break. Those pre-schoolers wanted to be at that rally:
In answer to a detailed series of questions from the Guardian, a Fiorina spokeswoman said in an emailed statement: “We were happy that these children chose to come to Carly’s event with their adult supervisor.”posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's typical about white straight male progressives as I said.
White straight males control the party and have almost completely abandoned class critiques in favor of taking Wall Street and health insurance corporate money, so no, I still wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Re: all the dismissive "brogressive" stuff, do we not want these guys to vote for the Democratic party or something? Or do we just think that haranguing them about how they owe us their votes while coming up with snide names for them will do the trick? Is there no way to form a coalition with people who don't agree with us about 100% of the details, or who might prioritize our shared goals differently, without showing open contempt for them? It's really not a great look.
posted by dialetheia at 9:14 AM on January 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
White straight males control the party and have almost completely abandoned class critiques in favor of taking Wall Street and health insurance corporate money, so no, I still wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Re: all the dismissive "brogressive" stuff, do we not want these guys to vote for the Democratic party or something? Or do we just think that haranguing them about how they owe us their votes while coming up with snide names for them will do the trick? Is there no way to form a coalition with people who don't agree with us about 100% of the details, or who might prioritize our shared goals differently, without showing open contempt for them? It's really not a great look.
posted by dialetheia at 9:14 AM on January 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
part of forming a coalition has to be speaking honestly about where people are at. i don't think we need to fear that these guys will feel harangued and vote republican because they feel insulted by a pretty tame term. if that's where they are at, they didn't support liberalism in the first place. i am concerned about the places bernie is falling down and how that fits into the ways that women, poc, and gays have often been asked by the party to be patient, to wait until the polls say we should get some humanity already - but more than reservations about bernie, i wish the portion of his supporters who very much seem to feel like that would take a back seat because they're harming perceptions of him. if they want to form a coalition to get this thing done, they'll meet us in the middle somewhere.
posted by nadawi at 9:32 AM on January 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:32 AM on January 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sure, I agree with all of that, I just don't think we need to call them dumb names to speak honestly about where people are at.
posted by dialetheia at 9:38 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 9:38 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think there is anything that Senator Sanders doesn't care about.
He doesn't seem to care about reparations.
I'm gonna skip to Coates's actual point in this article 'cause I see so many people miss it: The issue isn't so much that he's against reparations as that he's so dodgy as to why. Sanders says it won't fly in Congress. This is completely disingenuous, as his entire freakin' platform is stuff that won't fly in Congress. Clinton, to my knowledge, has also dismissed reparations as something that won't pass, but that at least squares with her pragmatism. It doesn't square with Sanders and his pie-in-the-sky proposals. If he's against reparations, that's cool, but he should say why.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:43 AM on January 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
He doesn't seem to care about reparations.
I'm gonna skip to Coates's actual point in this article 'cause I see so many people miss it: The issue isn't so much that he's against reparations as that he's so dodgy as to why. Sanders says it won't fly in Congress. This is completely disingenuous, as his entire freakin' platform is stuff that won't fly in Congress. Clinton, to my knowledge, has also dismissed reparations as something that won't pass, but that at least squares with her pragmatism. It doesn't square with Sanders and his pie-in-the-sky proposals. If he's against reparations, that's cool, but he should say why.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:43 AM on January 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, so there's a difference between not caring about something and opposing something, right?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:47 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:47 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there no way to form a coalition with people who don't agree with us about 100% of the details, or who might prioritize our shared goals differently, without showing open contempt for them? It's really not a great look.
There is a real problem that the Democratic Party has been losing white men since LBJ. At this point the best we can hope for (and what is actually happening) is a managed transition from white guys to women, minorities, and LGBT voters.
Interestingly enough, in 2008 Obama managed to pull 41% of white male voters which hasn't happened since Carter in 1976. But, that went back down to 35% in 2012. And it looks like it'll probably continue in 2016 because 64% of white guys have an unfavorable view of Hillary.
posted by FJT at 9:55 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is a real problem that the Democratic Party has been losing white men since LBJ. At this point the best we can hope for (and what is actually happening) is a managed transition from white guys to women, minorities, and LGBT voters.
Interestingly enough, in 2008 Obama managed to pull 41% of white male voters which hasn't happened since Carter in 1976. But, that went back down to 35% in 2012. And it looks like it'll probably continue in 2016 because 64% of white guys have an unfavorable view of Hillary.
posted by FJT at 9:55 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is completely disingenuous, as his entire freakin' platform is stuff that won't fly in Congress.
People make a mistake to see Sanders as all "pie in the sky" about everything, though. He's not Dennis Kucinich. His platform is stuff that won't fly in Congress (because of corporate money, in his opinion), but which is nonetheless supported fairly broadly by Americans - universal health care, raising the minimum wage, and free college tuition are all actually quite popular when you ask about support for those policies. Just because it's politically infeasible doesn't mean it's completely pie-in-the-sky - if anything, the infeasibility of his platform in the current Congress underscores his point about the brokenness of our political system, since most of it his proposed policies are actually quite popular with regular people.
At this point the best we can hope for (and what is actually happening) is a managed transition from white guys to women, minorities, and LGBT voters.
I guess I just fundamentally disagree that we should just give up altogether on reaching poor white men. We were able to reach many of them in 2008, even! Why write them off altogether? I'm not saying anyone should go out of their way to court white dudes' votes, but it doesn't make sense to completely give up on them as a group. Robert Reich even had a good piece about this today.
posted by dialetheia at 10:01 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
People make a mistake to see Sanders as all "pie in the sky" about everything, though. He's not Dennis Kucinich. His platform is stuff that won't fly in Congress (because of corporate money, in his opinion), but which is nonetheless supported fairly broadly by Americans - universal health care, raising the minimum wage, and free college tuition are all actually quite popular when you ask about support for those policies. Just because it's politically infeasible doesn't mean it's completely pie-in-the-sky - if anything, the infeasibility of his platform in the current Congress underscores his point about the brokenness of our political system, since most of it his proposed policies are actually quite popular with regular people.
At this point the best we can hope for (and what is actually happening) is a managed transition from white guys to women, minorities, and LGBT voters.
I guess I just fundamentally disagree that we should just give up altogether on reaching poor white men. We were able to reach many of them in 2008, even! Why write them off altogether? I'm not saying anyone should go out of their way to court white dudes' votes, but it doesn't make sense to completely give up on them as a group. Robert Reich even had a good piece about this today.
posted by dialetheia at 10:01 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Re: all the dismissive "brogressive" stuff, do we not want these guys to vote for the Democratic party or something?
I think you're assuming a lot about who the label is aimed at, and whether the targets were ever "gettable" Democratic votes in the first place. Your general argument that there's a risk of friendly fire with the use of these derisive terms is well-taken, but some of us have calculated that the usefulness of it in highlighting contradictions and exposing bad-faith arguments is such that there's a positive expected value.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think you're assuming a lot about who the label is aimed at, and whether the targets were ever "gettable" Democratic votes in the first place. Your general argument that there's a risk of friendly fire with the use of these derisive terms is well-taken, but some of us have calculated that the usefulness of it in highlighting contradictions and exposing bad-faith arguments is such that there's a positive expected value.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
All the brogressive stuff is actually smart. When your centrist candidate ends up losing by alienating left-wing voters, it's smart to have your scapegoats lined up and ready to blame beforehand.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:15 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:15 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
whether the targets were ever "gettable" Democratic votes in the first place.
Well, right now it sure seems to be aimed at people who are campaigning tirelessly in the Democratic primary and who consider themselves progressives. That seems gettable to me.
posted by dialetheia at 10:17 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Well, right now it sure seems to be aimed at people who are campaigning tirelessly in the Democratic primary and who consider themselves progressives. That seems gettable to me.
posted by dialetheia at 10:17 AM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
then they'll vote democrat. the fear that these men will be nagged out of the party seems overblown to me.
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, right now it sure seems to be aimed at people who are campaigning tirelessly in the Democratic primary and who consider themselves progressives. That seems gettable to me.
As near as I can tell, the invocation that set you off was palomar's "Bernie bro" here, later conflated with "brogressive" by MysticMCJ. palomar's comment, when read in its entirety, is clearly expressing contempt for anyone who would support Bernie in the primary and then stay home or support another candidate in the general were Bernie not the nominee. I think that's a pretty narrow definition of the term, and it's one that I agree deserves derision.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:27 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
As near as I can tell, the invocation that set you off was palomar's "Bernie bro" here, later conflated with "brogressive" by MysticMCJ. palomar's comment, when read in its entirety, is clearly expressing contempt for anyone who would support Bernie in the primary and then stay home or support another candidate in the general were Bernie not the nominee. I think that's a pretty narrow definition of the term, and it's one that I agree deserves derision.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:27 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
because they feel insulted by a pretty tame term.
To adapt a recently FPP-ed article:
If you call someone a “[brogressive]” and their immediate response is “I’m not a [brogressive]”, maybe instead of telling them that “‘I’m not a [brogressive]’ is something only a [brogressive] would say” you should reflect on how you just called someone something they don’t want people to call them, and then you should stop talking for at least several minutes if not years.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
To adapt a recently FPP-ed article:
If you call someone a “[brogressive]” and their immediate response is “I’m not a [brogressive]”, maybe instead of telling them that “‘I’m not a [brogressive]’ is something only a [brogressive] would say” you should reflect on how you just called someone something they don’t want people to call them, and then you should stop talking for at least several minutes if not years.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:49 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
i don't think i've ever used the term. don't call people what they don't want to be called is mostly a good idea, however broadly defining a group of people as a thing is very different than calling a person that thing as an insult. regardless, if someone votes for trump or doesn't vote at all because they were called a brogressive, well, i question their dedication to the causes they claim to care about.
posted by nadawi at 10:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:59 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
hold up, I deserve derision because I don't have a whole lot of love in my heart for the kind of person who campaigns ardently for one candidate in a primary, and then refuses to participate any further in the democratic process if their preferred candidate is no longer in the running? In this situation, where I'm saying that taking one's ball and going home is a thing people have threatened to do and it scares me, I'M the one who deserves to be shit on?
Wow, dude. Wow.
posted by palomar at 11:00 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, dude. Wow.
posted by palomar at 11:00 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
hold up, I deserve derision
If this response was aimed at me, let me clarify that I was saying the "Bernie or GTFO" stance you're against is one that deserves derision. I am 100% on your side here.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
If this response was aimed at me, let me clarify that I was saying the "Bernie or GTFO" stance you're against is one that deserves derision. I am 100% on your side here.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that wasn't clear, it read like you were saying my stance deserves derision. Thanks for clearing that up.
posted by palomar at 11:05 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by palomar at 11:05 AM on January 21, 2016
I'm dropping it after this comment, but for the record the Bernie Bros/brogressive thing has been all over twitter and liberal forums for months, and not just applied to hardliners and obnoxious people. Many people are using it to imply that supporters are inherently sexist for supporting Sanders. And I'm not concern-trolling about them leaving the party in a huff (that's the brogressive-people building that straw man, actually), I'm saying that it's just needlessly antagonistic and kind of shitty. To me it's the difference between calling-out and calling-in; I think most (not all!) people who can get behind Sanders' "sooo super radical leftist" platform are probably close enough allies that we could try calling-in when they're wrong instead of automatically calling-out with hostile nicknames.
posted by dialetheia at 11:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
The "brogressive thing" pre-dates Bernie's candidacy by quite some time, so, again, I think there's some unhelpful conflation going on here.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:07 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:07 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. At this point maybe let's step back out of this little spiral on "brogressives" and back out to the bigger picture?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:21 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:21 AM on January 21, 2016
I'm not a diehard for either democratic candidate but I do think it's a bit absurd to discuss Sanders' failings with a focus on what people are saying on Reddit rather than his platform and his campaign as compared to those of Clinton. Criticize the man himself all you want.
I think he does attract Ron Paul types who identify with a crotchety white "outsider." But while that contingent probably contains some "gettable" votes the ones who would honestly never vote for Clinton now would... you know, probably not vote for Clinton regardless of who else was running.
posted by atoxyl at 11:35 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think he does attract Ron Paul types who identify with a crotchety white "outsider." But while that contingent probably contains some "gettable" votes the ones who would honestly never vote for Clinton now would... you know, probably not vote for Clinton regardless of who else was running.
posted by atoxyl at 11:35 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do think it's a bit absurd to discuss Sanders' failings with a focus on what people are saying on Reddit
If it were just Reddit, it could be ignored. I think the fact that they swarm to attack whoever is seen being a threat to Sanders - #BLM, PP, HumanRightsCampaign, various unions, Ta-Nehisi Coates - is the issue. Especially on Twitter and Facebook.
As for tfa, which is behind a paywall, Bill is a pretty good example of the grossness of male privilege when it comes to sex and I'm glad that things have changed enough that we can discuss why his relationship with Lewinsky was wrong on his part without going into a slut-shaming, sex-shaming route.
That said, Paula Jones had credibility issues as she said there was a distinguishing birthmark on his genitalia which went against Lewinsky's testimony. As we know for certain Lewinsky has seen it...
Willey had her claims refuted by Tripp (who admittedly then later supported her when it was time to sell a book), her own friend, and herself going by her multiple phone calls with Clinton afterwards.
Broaddrick's story is more disturbing. I think that the aforemention allegations and the influence of the Republicans on Broaddrick coming forward have colored my opinion on this story, unfair as that is. Conversely, the only reason I won't dismiss her claim is because I do think when people come forward to say they have been raped, they should be believed.
And having to go through that research and thought, I think "Clinton fatigue" might be a more real cause for concern for the Democrats than any of the "scandals".
posted by bgal81 at 12:29 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
If it were just Reddit, it could be ignored. I think the fact that they swarm to attack whoever is seen being a threat to Sanders - #BLM, PP, HumanRightsCampaign, various unions, Ta-Nehisi Coates - is the issue. Especially on Twitter and Facebook.
As for tfa, which is behind a paywall, Bill is a pretty good example of the grossness of male privilege when it comes to sex and I'm glad that things have changed enough that we can discuss why his relationship with Lewinsky was wrong on his part without going into a slut-shaming, sex-shaming route.
That said, Paula Jones had credibility issues as she said there was a distinguishing birthmark on his genitalia which went against Lewinsky's testimony. As we know for certain Lewinsky has seen it...
Willey had her claims refuted by Tripp (who admittedly then later supported her when it was time to sell a book), her own friend, and herself going by her multiple phone calls with Clinton afterwards.
Broaddrick's story is more disturbing. I think that the aforemention allegations and the influence of the Republicans on Broaddrick coming forward have colored my opinion on this story, unfair as that is. Conversely, the only reason I won't dismiss her claim is because I do think when people come forward to say they have been raped, they should be believed.
And having to go through that research and thought, I think "Clinton fatigue" might be a more real cause for concern for the Democrats than any of the "scandals".
posted by bgal81 at 12:29 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
she's owned lock, stock, and barrel by the interests that Sanders seems prepared to fight at every turn.
On the other hand, Trump is those same interests.
posted by ymgve at 12:43 PM on January 21, 2016
On the other hand, Trump is those same interests.
posted by ymgve at 12:43 PM on January 21, 2016
64% of white guys have an unfavorable view of Hillary.
Well, shit, I have an unfavorable view of Clinton but I'd still vote for her twice if they let me.
posted by Justinian at 2:01 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, shit, I have an unfavorable view of Clinton but I'd still vote for her twice if they let me.
posted by Justinian at 2:01 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton, to my knowledge, has also dismissed reparations as something that won't pass, but that at least squares with her pragmatism. It doesn't square with Sanders and his pie-in-the-sky proposals. If
Which of Hillary's pragmatic progressive proposals do you expect this congress to pass?
-
The brogressive thing is grating to me because there is a rather contentious discussion going on right now about why young women are more likely to support Sanders than older women. It seems dismissive of those women to call Sanders supporters bro. I mean you can call it a gender neutral term but it's, ya know, not one.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:17 PM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Which of Hillary's pragmatic progressive proposals do you expect this congress to pass?
-
The brogressive thing is grating to me because there is a rather contentious discussion going on right now about why young women are more likely to support Sanders than older women. It seems dismissive of those women to call Sanders supporters bro. I mean you can call it a gender neutral term but it's, ya know, not one.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:17 PM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
the term isn't gender neutral because from what i've seen the behavior isn't gender neutral. it's certainly not women telling me about how much we need financial abortions in my mentions and i haven't seen women in droves attacking prominent black voices online about bernie's track record on race issues. there are bernie supporters and there are what some are calling brogressives, and they include some of, but not all of, the same people.
posted by nadawi at 2:21 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:21 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the other hand, Trump is those same interests.
The one good thing that might come out of this race is if either Trump or Sanders loses the nomination and runs as an independent and makes at least a decent showing. Because the one thing this race is making abundantly clear is that people on both sides of the aisle are going to feel forced into voting for assholes because of how the Supreme Court nominations might go or what have you. Sanders voters who hate Hillary are going to wind up voting for her anyway in the general. Rubio voters who hate Trump are going to wind up voting for him in the general. And everybody loses by them getting to be monstrous with no checks because 'hey, look at the OTHER guy!' We have desperately needed a third party for decades, but everyone's been leery about voting for one given the Nader results in 2000. Maybe this is the year that brings that about.
posted by corb at 2:22 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The one good thing that might come out of this race is if either Trump or Sanders loses the nomination and runs as an independent and makes at least a decent showing. Because the one thing this race is making abundantly clear is that people on both sides of the aisle are going to feel forced into voting for assholes because of how the Supreme Court nominations might go or what have you. Sanders voters who hate Hillary are going to wind up voting for her anyway in the general. Rubio voters who hate Trump are going to wind up voting for him in the general. And everybody loses by them getting to be monstrous with no checks because 'hey, look at the OTHER guy!' We have desperately needed a third party for decades, but everyone's been leery about voting for one given the Nader results in 2000. Maybe this is the year that brings that about.
posted by corb at 2:22 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
and i haven't seen women in droves attacking prominent black voices online about bernie's track record on race issues.
Oh I saw a massive shit ton of that from Hillary voters in 2008, way more than I'm seeing from the Bernie crowd. Hell, I remember when a prominent Hillary supporter dismissed Obama's campaign as another Jesse Jackson.
Hillary is winning, the losing side always goes more crazy in these things. But the percentage of people we are talking about here are not representative of Sanders voters. The far left is one of the very most reliable voting blocks for Democrats in the general. They fear the right more than anyone.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 PM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh I saw a massive shit ton of that from Hillary voters in 2008, way more than I'm seeing from the Bernie crowd. Hell, I remember when a prominent Hillary supporter dismissed Obama's campaign as another Jesse Jackson.
Hillary is winning, the losing side always goes more crazy in these things. But the percentage of people we are talking about here are not representative of Sanders voters. The far left is one of the very most reliable voting blocks for Democrats in the general. They fear the right more than anyone.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 PM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
We have desperately needed a third party for decades, but everyone's been leery about voting for one given the Nader results in 2000. Maybe this is the year that brings that about.
Soapbox: The voting system in the country is pretty optimal at guaranteeing that a vote for a third party will always cause you pain; that might not have been the design, but it’s certainly the product. While a functioning third party would be good, a voting system that guarantees that a third party vote that doesn't sabotage your own interests is more fundamental.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:44 PM on January 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
Soapbox: The voting system in the country is pretty optimal at guaranteeing that a vote for a third party will always cause you pain; that might not have been the design, but it’s certainly the product. While a functioning third party would be good, a voting system that guarantees that a third party vote that doesn't sabotage your own interests is more fundamental.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:44 PM on January 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
The one good thing that might come out of this race is if either Trump or Sanders loses the nomination and runs as an independent and makes at least a decent showing.
There is no chance of Sanders running as an independent. Not only has he been very consistent about not doing this, I think he does actually care about America and knows that would make it so much easier for the Republican candidate to win. I am sure he thinks Hillary is a better choice than any of the Republicans.
Trump is different because he only cares about Trump, so he'll do whatever is Trumpiest.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:57 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is no chance of Sanders running as an independent. Not only has he been very consistent about not doing this, I think he does actually care about America and knows that would make it so much easier for the Republican candidate to win. I am sure he thinks Hillary is a better choice than any of the Republicans.
Trump is different because he only cares about Trump, so he'll do whatever is Trumpiest.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:57 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
If fear of the other party controlling a court pick is the only thing making people vote for president, then the candidate sucks and doesn't deserve to win. Good candidates don't need to resort to fear mongering. And as long as voters continue to give in to that bullshit election after election after election we'll never get a good one.
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:58 PM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:58 PM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, and Bernie's own words seem to match what I was thinking: "What I did not want to do is run as a third party candidate, take votes away from the Democratic candidate and help elect some right-wing Republican. I did not want responsibility for that. So what I said at the beginning of the campaign is that I was not going to run as an independent. And I say it now, that if I do not win this process I will not run as an independent."
posted by thefoxgod at 3:04 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 3:04 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's obviously fine to call out bad behavior on the part of a certain cadre of Sanders supporters, but I think there's also a weird thing that happens where people then use this to suggest that the Sanders campaign and/or its supporters are intrinsically less compatible with social justice aims than those of HRC or MO, or that SJ types should be embarrassed to be associated with a Sanders candidacy. I think that is exactly 100% wrong and counterproductive.
I think there's also a lot of confirmation bias going on there: if we're going to talk Facebook feeds, mine has plenty of people who support Sanders and are much more excited about his platform than Clinton's, and, at the same time, who are pressuring and encouraging his campaign to take more courageous stands on important issues like racial injustice.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:04 PM on January 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think there's also a lot of confirmation bias going on there: if we're going to talk Facebook feeds, mine has plenty of people who support Sanders and are much more excited about his platform than Clinton's, and, at the same time, who are pressuring and encouraging his campaign to take more courageous stands on important issues like racial injustice.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:04 PM on January 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
Oh I saw a massive shit ton of that from Hillary voters in 2008, way more than I'm seeing from the Bernie crowd. Hell, I remember when a prominent Hillary supporter dismissed Obama's campaign as another Jesse Jackson.
We discussed Clinton's crazy 2008 supporters. Now we're discussing Bernie's crazy 2016 supporters. Everyone's crazy stans will get a turn!
posted by bgal81 at 3:06 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
We discussed Clinton's crazy 2008 supporters. Now we're discussing Bernie's crazy 2016 supporters. Everyone's crazy stans will get a turn!
posted by bgal81 at 3:06 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sick of these Kasich extremists!
posted by Drinky Die at 3:13 PM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:13 PM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
At this point the best we can hope for (and what is actually happening) is a managed transition from white guys to women, minorities, and LGBT voters.
You know, nothing says that women, minorities, and LGBT voters (hereafter W-M-LGBT) will always - presently, and even more so in the future - support progressive causes, politically or otherwise. If the experience of ethnic Americans (Italian-, German- Polish-, Jewish-) who were raised into the middle class and found themselves moving to the Right is anything to go by, it's easy to envision an America with less prejudice regarding W-M-LGBT which is just as supportive of economic inequality ("they're just lazy - after all, I and my family are proof that anyone can succeed in today's America" works just as well with tomorrow's Rodriguezes as with todays O'Reillys and Limbaughs), or structural violence abroad ("we must protect the most multicultural and egalitarian nation on Earth from nasty foreigners who envy us) or other forms of prejudices ("religion/political views" aren't an identity, they're a choice, so fuck those un-American weirdos").
The idea that W-M-LGBT are somehow inherently liberal/Left is the idiot mirror image of the symbiotic notion that white men are always Right. Historically, groups which become more mainstream tend to become (surprise surprise) more content with the status quo, and more willing to accept unpleasant measures to maintain it, since those measures target (by definition) other people, no longer themselves. This is, of course, no argument against pushing for a more egalitarian nation in which W-M-LGBT are fully accepted, but the idea of a "transition" from white guys to W-M-LGBT - in which we can make America safe for liberal ideas by just plopping down nine black women in the Supreme Court (because black is magic, cancels out ALL THE BADS) is frankly stupid.
A world in which W-M-LGBT have equal opportunities to those presently enjoyed by white guys today is a world full of Barack Obamas and Elizabeth Warrens, and Hillary Clintons, sure. And Carly Fioras. And Ben Carsons, and Herman Cains. That isn't to say it isn't better, in the same way that the world I live in today is better than the one in which Irish Catholics got beaten to death on the streets of New York for being "papists". But it's really kind of tiring to find to same sort of essentialist, present-tense insistence that we can eliminate society's problems by just switching out the personnel that you see in the context of, say, age ("the old folks will all die off, and the young folks will be more liberal! That's why the past forty years since Woodstock have been a continuous curve upwards towards egalitarianism and economic equality!").
Eventually, you're going to have to argue with the other side. White guys today, W-M-LGBT folks tomorrow. If fifty years from now I turn on Fox News and see someone named Rodriguez foaming at the mouth about all these Chinese/Nigerian/Russian immigrants coming over here, taking our jobs, not learning proper Spanglish, well, that will be progress in a certain sense, and a sense that matters deeply to millions of Americans, just as having O'Reilly and Limbaugh up there on the big screen probably means a lot to Irish-Americans old enough to remember Before. But I'll also know that we could have done better, and didn't. Because it was easier to trust that the peculiar political configurations of our time would last forever.
Because this is just the configuration of our time, and a very peculiar one at that. Reich's article attached above touches on this - why the white working class was lost by the Democrats, and by implication why they didn't lose the W-M-LGBT vote. The Democrats lost the white working class because they didn't do a damn thing for it, and in all honesty would have probably lost the W-M-LGBT vote as well and for the same reason if there was anywhere else for the W-M-LGBT vote to go. The African-American vote was solidly Republican up through the late 50s for precisely this reason - it wasn't that Republican pols were necessarily all that interested in doing more than cosmetic alterations with regards to American race politics, its that the alternative, Dixiecrat-dominated, was unthinkable.
The Left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party (which most folks around here view as the only truly acceptable Democrats, so fine, we'll go with that) is presently an uncomfortable bolted-on alliance between a relatively small group of folks (including a fair number of W-M-LGBT folks, certainly) who hold traditionally "Left-wing" beliefs (capitalism is inherently and unsalvagably flawed, socialism/anarchism/deep ecology/whatsis is a possible and better alternative, representative democracy encodes poisonous power hierarchies and requires modification in more truly democratic directions, political egalitarianism is a fraud at best in the presence of social or economic disparities, etc.) and a much, much larger group of people who are in the same boat because, and only because, the other boat has battened down the hatches, rolled out the guns and made it quite clear that they'd rather go to the bottom than let W-M-LGBT folks anywhere near.
What happens if that configuration changes? The Republican Party is presently in the grips of insane levels of bigotry and phobia, but it's entirely possible that a rising tide of "mainstreamed" W-M-LGBT voters either force open the gates or break off the remaining moderate Republicans to form their own party (resulting in something like the Labour-Liberal Democrat-Conservative configuration in Great Britain), or simply, having succeeded in escaping the ghetto of institutionalized prejudice, settle down to a happy moderate centrist Democratic Party with the Left, no longer needed, kicked unceremoniously out the door. Or leaving it in a snit, whatever.
It reminds me a lot of the "win the presidency, who cares about Congress" model that I've spent waaay too much time bitching about on Metafilter already - an attempt to make an easy end run around the hard slog of actually converting a citizenry to progressive ideas. We don't need to talk to those people - we can just trust to demographics, or to History, or to the magic November victory to ensure that things will trundle on in the right direction.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:20 PM on January 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
You know, nothing says that women, minorities, and LGBT voters (hereafter W-M-LGBT) will always - presently, and even more so in the future - support progressive causes, politically or otherwise. If the experience of ethnic Americans (Italian-, German- Polish-, Jewish-) who were raised into the middle class and found themselves moving to the Right is anything to go by, it's easy to envision an America with less prejudice regarding W-M-LGBT which is just as supportive of economic inequality ("they're just lazy - after all, I and my family are proof that anyone can succeed in today's America" works just as well with tomorrow's Rodriguezes as with todays O'Reillys and Limbaughs), or structural violence abroad ("we must protect the most multicultural and egalitarian nation on Earth from nasty foreigners who envy us) or other forms of prejudices ("religion/political views" aren't an identity, they're a choice, so fuck those un-American weirdos").
The idea that W-M-LGBT are somehow inherently liberal/Left is the idiot mirror image of the symbiotic notion that white men are always Right. Historically, groups which become more mainstream tend to become (surprise surprise) more content with the status quo, and more willing to accept unpleasant measures to maintain it, since those measures target (by definition) other people, no longer themselves. This is, of course, no argument against pushing for a more egalitarian nation in which W-M-LGBT are fully accepted, but the idea of a "transition" from white guys to W-M-LGBT - in which we can make America safe for liberal ideas by just plopping down nine black women in the Supreme Court (because black is magic, cancels out ALL THE BADS) is frankly stupid.
A world in which W-M-LGBT have equal opportunities to those presently enjoyed by white guys today is a world full of Barack Obamas and Elizabeth Warrens, and Hillary Clintons, sure. And Carly Fioras. And Ben Carsons, and Herman Cains. That isn't to say it isn't better, in the same way that the world I live in today is better than the one in which Irish Catholics got beaten to death on the streets of New York for being "papists". But it's really kind of tiring to find to same sort of essentialist, present-tense insistence that we can eliminate society's problems by just switching out the personnel that you see in the context of, say, age ("the old folks will all die off, and the young folks will be more liberal! That's why the past forty years since Woodstock have been a continuous curve upwards towards egalitarianism and economic equality!").
Eventually, you're going to have to argue with the other side. White guys today, W-M-LGBT folks tomorrow. If fifty years from now I turn on Fox News and see someone named Rodriguez foaming at the mouth about all these Chinese/Nigerian/Russian immigrants coming over here, taking our jobs, not learning proper Spanglish, well, that will be progress in a certain sense, and a sense that matters deeply to millions of Americans, just as having O'Reilly and Limbaugh up there on the big screen probably means a lot to Irish-Americans old enough to remember Before. But I'll also know that we could have done better, and didn't. Because it was easier to trust that the peculiar political configurations of our time would last forever.
Because this is just the configuration of our time, and a very peculiar one at that. Reich's article attached above touches on this - why the white working class was lost by the Democrats, and by implication why they didn't lose the W-M-LGBT vote. The Democrats lost the white working class because they didn't do a damn thing for it, and in all honesty would have probably lost the W-M-LGBT vote as well and for the same reason if there was anywhere else for the W-M-LGBT vote to go. The African-American vote was solidly Republican up through the late 50s for precisely this reason - it wasn't that Republican pols were necessarily all that interested in doing more than cosmetic alterations with regards to American race politics, its that the alternative, Dixiecrat-dominated, was unthinkable.
The Left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party (which most folks around here view as the only truly acceptable Democrats, so fine, we'll go with that) is presently an uncomfortable bolted-on alliance between a relatively small group of folks (including a fair number of W-M-LGBT folks, certainly) who hold traditionally "Left-wing" beliefs (capitalism is inherently and unsalvagably flawed, socialism/anarchism/deep ecology/whatsis is a possible and better alternative, representative democracy encodes poisonous power hierarchies and requires modification in more truly democratic directions, political egalitarianism is a fraud at best in the presence of social or economic disparities, etc.) and a much, much larger group of people who are in the same boat because, and only because, the other boat has battened down the hatches, rolled out the guns and made it quite clear that they'd rather go to the bottom than let W-M-LGBT folks anywhere near.
What happens if that configuration changes? The Republican Party is presently in the grips of insane levels of bigotry and phobia, but it's entirely possible that a rising tide of "mainstreamed" W-M-LGBT voters either force open the gates or break off the remaining moderate Republicans to form their own party (resulting in something like the Labour-Liberal Democrat-Conservative configuration in Great Britain), or simply, having succeeded in escaping the ghetto of institutionalized prejudice, settle down to a happy moderate centrist Democratic Party with the Left, no longer needed, kicked unceremoniously out the door. Or leaving it in a snit, whatever.
It reminds me a lot of the "win the presidency, who cares about Congress" model that I've spent waaay too much time bitching about on Metafilter already - an attempt to make an easy end run around the hard slog of actually converting a citizenry to progressive ideas. We don't need to talk to those people - we can just trust to demographics, or to History, or to the magic November victory to ensure that things will trundle on in the right direction.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:20 PM on January 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
You know, nothing says that women, minorities, and LGBT voters (hereafter W-M-LGBT) will always - presently, and even more so in the future - support progressive causes
Democrats are in more trouble than they think. And changing demographics won’t save them.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:30 PM on January 21, 2016
Democrats are in more trouble than they think. And changing demographics won’t save them.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:30 PM on January 21, 2016
He doesn't seem to care about reparations.
I didn't know all these liberal Hillary Clinton supporters were for reparations. Was that always the secret phase two after welfare reform?
But, less flippantly, one can listen to a critique of Coates' article by Adolph Reed (starts at 7:50). Reed also wrote about reparations fifteen years ago, but the arguments are strikingly similar.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:32 PM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I didn't know all these liberal Hillary Clinton supporters were for reparations. Was that always the secret phase two after welfare reform?
But, less flippantly, one can listen to a critique of Coates' article by Adolph Reed (starts at 7:50). Reed also wrote about reparations fifteen years ago, but the arguments are strikingly similar.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:32 PM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Democrats are in more trouble than they think. And changing demographics won’t save them. (Headline: The Democrats Are Doomed)
Slightly off-topic: is it me, or is Vox more addicted to clickbait headlines than Buzzfeed, The Daily Beast, and Salon combined?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:41 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Slightly off-topic: is it me, or is Vox more addicted to clickbait headlines than Buzzfeed, The Daily Beast, and Salon combined?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:41 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, link headline. Nonetheless, I stand by my dumb statement.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: Nonetheless, I stand by my dumb statement.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:43 PM on January 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:43 PM on January 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh I saw a massive shit ton of that from Hillary voters
you said it's insulting the term brogressive isn't gender neutral because bernie voters aren't gender neutral. i said brogressives describe a group of people some who are bernie supporters and some who aren't and it's not all of the bernie supporters, but the specific thing we're discussing and how it's working out is that most of them are men. if you want to take that out of context to then yell about hillary in 2008 - ok? i was a strong obama supporter and i thought the whole "we're not voting for the black man and you're all sexists" from her supporters to be really awful and it's one reason that before i started liking bernie i didn't actually like either candidate that we'll likely be choosing from.
unless something huge shifts, i'll be voting for bernie in the primaries and whoever makes it on the dem side in the general. if you want to twist my words to be anti-bernie, that's on you, but that's not what i've been saying.
posted by nadawi at 4:01 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
you said it's insulting the term brogressive isn't gender neutral because bernie voters aren't gender neutral. i said brogressives describe a group of people some who are bernie supporters and some who aren't and it's not all of the bernie supporters, but the specific thing we're discussing and how it's working out is that most of them are men. if you want to take that out of context to then yell about hillary in 2008 - ok? i was a strong obama supporter and i thought the whole "we're not voting for the black man and you're all sexists" from her supporters to be really awful and it's one reason that before i started liking bernie i didn't actually like either candidate that we'll likely be choosing from.
unless something huge shifts, i'll be voting for bernie in the primaries and whoever makes it on the dem side in the general. if you want to twist my words to be anti-bernie, that's on you, but that's not what i've been saying.
posted by nadawi at 4:01 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah I lost track of that conversation, sorry.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:05 PM on January 21, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 4:05 PM on January 21, 2016
If the experience of ethnic Americans (Italian-, German- Polish-, Jewish-) who were raised into the middle class and found themselves moving to the Right is anything to go by, it's easy to envision an America with less prejudice regarding W-M-LGBT which is just as supportive of economic inequality
It's a good theory that we all eventually join the mainstream and will just become a kind of mirror universe, except with more diversity but I don't completely buy it. First, it wasn't as difficult for different European groups because there was alway a class worse than them to oppress over: African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Chinese. All of those oppressed groups were in America just as if not as long as the European groups, but none has really joined the white mainstream in the history of the US.
Second, this doesn't take into count specific historical or cultural experiences groups have in the United States. For example, Cubans and Mexicans are both Hispanics but they have staunchly different political viewpoints regarding undocumented immigration.
Third, and this feeds partly into the last point, I think this wave of migration is different than previous ones because technology and travel have made it easier to kind of live in between cultures. More immigrants can talk to relatives, send money, and even watch television and read the newspapers from back home. Thus, their political viewpoints are not just going to mirror the American mainstream exactly, nor do they have to capitulate to the white mainstream in order to get accepted.
Now, I definitely don't think any of this spells a complete victory for the progressive cause, nor do I think we can just take it easy and let the demographics do the work. I do think that it will lead to a shift in the Overton window, making it easier to talk about such ideas (and eliminate bad ones) and lead to gradual change. I also think it may create a slightly more tolerant and acceptable citizenry, that at the very least is more likely to decently treat people as human beings.
And I'll add what I've said applies mainly to minorities, since I don't know enough about the experience of women and LGBT folks to even make an educated guess.
posted by FJT at 5:25 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a good theory that we all eventually join the mainstream and will just become a kind of mirror universe, except with more diversity but I don't completely buy it. First, it wasn't as difficult for different European groups because there was alway a class worse than them to oppress over: African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Chinese. All of those oppressed groups were in America just as if not as long as the European groups, but none has really joined the white mainstream in the history of the US.
Second, this doesn't take into count specific historical or cultural experiences groups have in the United States. For example, Cubans and Mexicans are both Hispanics but they have staunchly different political viewpoints regarding undocumented immigration.
Third, and this feeds partly into the last point, I think this wave of migration is different than previous ones because technology and travel have made it easier to kind of live in between cultures. More immigrants can talk to relatives, send money, and even watch television and read the newspapers from back home. Thus, their political viewpoints are not just going to mirror the American mainstream exactly, nor do they have to capitulate to the white mainstream in order to get accepted.
Now, I definitely don't think any of this spells a complete victory for the progressive cause, nor do I think we can just take it easy and let the demographics do the work. I do think that it will lead to a shift in the Overton window, making it easier to talk about such ideas (and eliminate bad ones) and lead to gradual change. I also think it may create a slightly more tolerant and acceptable citizenry, that at the very least is more likely to decently treat people as human beings.
And I'll add what I've said applies mainly to minorities, since I don't know enough about the experience of women and LGBT folks to even make an educated guess.
posted by FJT at 5:25 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
so no one likes HRC? amiright?
posted by shockingbluamp at 5:42 PM on January 21, 2016
posted by shockingbluamp at 5:42 PM on January 21, 2016
so no one likes HRC? amiright?
Well, polls show lots of people like both Clinton and Sanders. Especially Democrats (the vast majority like both of them). So... no?
posted by thefoxgod at 5:45 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, polls show lots of people like both Clinton and Sanders. Especially Democrats (the vast majority like both of them). So... no?
posted by thefoxgod at 5:45 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am kind of wondering if this is something people say to their friends because for someone no one likes, she is still doing well in the polls.
posted by bgal81 at 5:45 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bgal81 at 5:45 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let’s not go confusing MetaFilter, an internet discussion forum where generally left-leaning people scrap about things, with reality, where generally people don’t give a toot.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:47 PM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 5:47 PM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
And even here there are Clinton supporters. And while a few do really seem to hate/dislike Clinton, there are others who prefer Sanders but don't have strong negative feelings for Hillary. And VERY few who won't vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination. Any talk about her having big problems on the left in the general just seems wildly misplaced and more of a Republican fantasy than anything else.
(I'm a Clinton supporter, although if Sanders were to be nominated thats fine and I'd happily support him in the general. I align closer to her in general, but the differences between them are minor compared to the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:52 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
(I'm a Clinton supporter, although if Sanders were to be nominated thats fine and I'd happily support him in the general. I align closer to her in general, but the differences between them are minor compared to the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in 2016).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:52 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nate Silver's number seem to suggest that while Sanders has the lead among white Democratic voters, especially millenials, Clinton holds an enormous lead in the black vote, which is necessary to win primaries in the South, so he anticipates she will in fact be the nominee. Metafilter skews somewhat white, which could explain the disparity.
posted by corb at 5:53 PM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 5:53 PM on January 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Interesting data point: of likely voters in the Iowa Democratic primary, 43% identify as socialist and 38% identify as capitalist
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:15 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:15 PM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rejecting Bourgeois Feminism, Roqayah Chamseddine:
Clinton’s acceptance of campaign donations from private prison lobbyists, one of which “is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit”, is rarely discussed as being harmful to women. ... The rate of growth of women in prison has climbed 646% from 1980 to 2010, compared to a 419% increase for men, and in 2010 there were 112,000 women in state and federal prison and 205,000 women overall in prison or jail. ...posted by dialetheia at 6:55 PM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
In line with mainstream liberal feminist’s rejection of internationalism is their position on Hillary’s ‘send them back‘ immigration policy. During an interview with Christiane Amanpour, the former Secretary of State said that unaccompanied minors, many of whom are fleeing unimaginable violence, should be “sent back”. “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she said. ...
Humanitarian imperialism, or the use of human rights to sell war and occupation, is a fundamental portion of Clinton’s foreign policy. In March 2015 it was reported that Saudi Arabia would receive nearly $30 billion worth of advanced fighter jets— a sale that was allegedly necessitated and referred to as “a top priority” by Hillary Clinton, personally. To call these actions sanctimonious would be an understatement. Time and time again, Clinton has been at the forefront of the greater US drive for war and intervention, from Iraq to Afghanistan, and beyond. And so, if women’s rights are human rights then why further the military industrial complex, whose greatest victims both during and after periods of war are women?
How about these for slogans:
UTOPIA NOW!
PERFECT LEADERS NOW!
EVERYBODY EXACTLY LIKE ME NOW!
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:42 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
UTOPIA NOW!
PERFECT LEADERS NOW!
EVERYBODY EXACTLY LIKE ME NOW!
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:42 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shit, man, I'd settle for not needing to hold my nose while voting for the Not Republican in November. As it stands, though, the two Democratic front-runners both stink.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:25 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 8:25 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
it wasn't as difficult for different European groups because there was alway a class worse than them to oppress over: African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Chinese. All of those oppressed groups were in America just as if not as long as the European groups, but none has really joined the white mainstream in the history of the US.
For what it's worth, in articles about diversity in the tech industry, it's pretty clear that a lot of commenters count Chinese-American staff as white. (Though that might be a case of wanting the punchiest possible figures/narratives.)
posted by anonymisc at 8:32 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
For what it's worth, in articles about diversity in the tech industry, it's pretty clear that a lot of commenters count Chinese-American staff as white. (Though that might be a case of wanting the punchiest possible figures/narratives.)
posted by anonymisc at 8:32 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
As it stands, though, the two Democratic front-runners both stink.
There's a centrist moderate and a quasi-socialist leftist. What exactly are you holding out hope for if neither of those come remotely close to your preference?
posted by Justinian at 11:37 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's a centrist moderate and a quasi-socialist leftist. What exactly are you holding out hope for if neither of those come remotely close to your preference?
posted by Justinian at 11:37 PM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, in articles about diversity in the tech industry, it's pretty clear that a lot of commenters count Chinese-American staff as white. (Though that might be a case of wanting the punchiest possible figures/narratives.)
There are lots of people of East and South Asian descent the "tech" workforce. They are significantly underrepresented in (especially upper) management however. Many commenters on racial issues in the tech industry absolutely understand this and get it right. Many commenters on racial issues in the tech industry are Asian themselves. I do however share your reaction when certain other commenters say stuff about the whiteness of the tech industry without acknowledging exactly what the situation is.
posted by atoxyl at 12:43 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are lots of people of East and South Asian descent the "tech" workforce. They are significantly underrepresented in (especially upper) management however. Many commenters on racial issues in the tech industry absolutely understand this and get it right. Many commenters on racial issues in the tech industry are Asian themselves. I do however share your reaction when certain other commenters say stuff about the whiteness of the tech industry without acknowledging exactly what the situation is.
posted by atoxyl at 12:43 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think there is anything that Senator Sanders doesn't care about.
He doesn't seem to care about reparations.
Neither does Obama. Your typicalwhite liberal dude in every way.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:31 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
He doesn't seem to care about reparations.
Neither does Obama. Your typical
posted by Drinky Die at 1:31 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie's latest one-minute ad. Looking for America? [SLYT]
posted by Sir Rinse at 3:40 AM on January 22, 2016
posted by Sir Rinse at 3:40 AM on January 22, 2016
There's a centrist moderate and a quasi-socialist leftist. What exactly are you holding out hope for if neither of those come remotely close to your preference?
My personal take is that Clinton is an unappealing opportunist but can win a national election, while Sanders has some integrity but wouldn't win nationally because of obvious issues. It would have been a much more interesting primary if Biden or someone else strong had stepped in, but obviously that didn't happen. I don't feel interested enough in the two of them to support either in the primary, and in the general I'll vote for the "not republican," which almost certainly will be Clinton.
In other words, there are a lot of reasons to be unexcited that go beyond "centrist moderate" or "semi-socialist" -- there is actually great ideological spread in this campaign, but much less appealing personalities. I'm not a republican and obviously won't be voting in that primary, but those choices aren't great either for similar reasons -- excellent ideological diversity, but terrible people to choose from.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:55 AM on January 22, 2016
My personal take is that Clinton is an unappealing opportunist but can win a national election, while Sanders has some integrity but wouldn't win nationally because of obvious issues. It would have been a much more interesting primary if Biden or someone else strong had stepped in, but obviously that didn't happen. I don't feel interested enough in the two of them to support either in the primary, and in the general I'll vote for the "not republican," which almost certainly will be Clinton.
In other words, there are a lot of reasons to be unexcited that go beyond "centrist moderate" or "semi-socialist" -- there is actually great ideological spread in this campaign, but much less appealing personalities. I'm not a republican and obviously won't be voting in that primary, but those choices aren't great either for similar reasons -- excellent ideological diversity, but terrible people to choose from.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:55 AM on January 22, 2016
I don't think the polling supports the idea that Bernie is unelectable in the general, considering the likely opponents.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:37 AM on January 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:37 AM on January 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think Bernie is unelectable, though he's certainly less electable than Hillary. I don't necessarily even disagree with his politics. I just think he'd be an awful President, because that role requires a lot of qualities he simply doesn't have.
Essentially, Bernie is a big ideas guy, and while superficially the presidency is about big ideas, in practice it's about getting stuff done. Obama was a guy who got stuff done with a relentlessly hostile Congress. Bernie will talk a good game, but he's not a guy who can actually get stuff done. Being substantially left of his own party is only part of the reason for that, because he also just doesn't seem like a person who knows how to make deals, which is how stuff gets done in Washington.
Hilary is a right-centrist who knows how to get things done but doesn't seem to have any particularly coherent agenda beyond "become President". Which is why, of course, she's such a perfect avatar of the Democratic establishment, which similarly has no goal beyond gaining power and holding on to it.
Hillary is way too hawkish for my taste, but she's also more cool-headed. Bernie comes off as a hot head, but he at least doesn't seem itchy to have a go at Iran. Both are totally in the pocket of Israel, and wouldn't it be nice to have a liberal candidate some day whose Mideast policy wasn't totally beholden to the extreme right-wing of Israeli politics? I think that would be nice. I know I won't see it in my lifetime, but it'd be nice. As it is, both of them support Israel's occupation of Palestine, and fuck that.
Obama has many of the same problems as both of them, but he was able to combine his idealism with a knowledge of how to make deals without giving up too much to the other side. While I disagree with his continued use of drone strikes and his support for the occupation of Palestine, he at least is skilled in the art of deescalation. Hillary was part of that as Secretary of State, but I'm not sure she would be able to bring that to the Presidency given her establishment-politician habit of telling different things to different groups like they can't all hear what she's saying. Bernie does not strike me as a guy who even knows what "deescalation" means, despite the fact that he's ostensibly anti-war. (Deescalation means more than just not escalating a situation.)
Most of all, though. Most of all, I just want one fucking "leftist" candidate who treats racial justice as a major issue and not a fucking distraction.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:32 AM on January 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Essentially, Bernie is a big ideas guy, and while superficially the presidency is about big ideas, in practice it's about getting stuff done. Obama was a guy who got stuff done with a relentlessly hostile Congress. Bernie will talk a good game, but he's not a guy who can actually get stuff done. Being substantially left of his own party is only part of the reason for that, because he also just doesn't seem like a person who knows how to make deals, which is how stuff gets done in Washington.
Hilary is a right-centrist who knows how to get things done but doesn't seem to have any particularly coherent agenda beyond "become President". Which is why, of course, she's such a perfect avatar of the Democratic establishment, which similarly has no goal beyond gaining power and holding on to it.
Hillary is way too hawkish for my taste, but she's also more cool-headed. Bernie comes off as a hot head, but he at least doesn't seem itchy to have a go at Iran. Both are totally in the pocket of Israel, and wouldn't it be nice to have a liberal candidate some day whose Mideast policy wasn't totally beholden to the extreme right-wing of Israeli politics? I think that would be nice. I know I won't see it in my lifetime, but it'd be nice. As it is, both of them support Israel's occupation of Palestine, and fuck that.
Obama has many of the same problems as both of them, but he was able to combine his idealism with a knowledge of how to make deals without giving up too much to the other side. While I disagree with his continued use of drone strikes and his support for the occupation of Palestine, he at least is skilled in the art of deescalation. Hillary was part of that as Secretary of State, but I'm not sure she would be able to bring that to the Presidency given her establishment-politician habit of telling different things to different groups like they can't all hear what she's saying. Bernie does not strike me as a guy who even knows what "deescalation" means, despite the fact that he's ostensibly anti-war. (Deescalation means more than just not escalating a situation.)
Most of all, though. Most of all, I just want one fucking "leftist" candidate who treats racial justice as a major issue and not a fucking distraction.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:32 AM on January 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Look, seriously. Clinton or Sanders, in the end what matters is that Trump and everything he represents gets trounced.
But as far as this FPP is concerned, Hilary was fucked over back in the 90's; there's no position she could have taken that wouldn't have been pulled apart. But she didn't rape anyone and she didn't cheat on her partner so won't it be good if everyone now just decides to judge her on things that she has done, not what she didn't do?
posted by h00py at 6:26 AM on January 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
But as far as this FPP is concerned, Hilary was fucked over back in the 90's; there's no position she could have taken that wouldn't have been pulled apart. But she didn't rape anyone and she didn't cheat on her partner so won't it be good if everyone now just decides to judge her on things that she has done, not what she didn't do?
posted by h00py at 6:26 AM on January 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
The bar is higher than it was 25 years ago. Enabling is not OK.
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:07 AM on January 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:07 AM on January 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is an honest question for people who know more than me about how these questions should in general be appropriately answered and/or the extent of the evidence for the accusations in question. Is Hillary's present day position on these issues correct or in need of more thinking and adjustment?
At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman asked Hillary Clinton, “You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, and/or Paula Jones? Should we believe them, as well?"
Clinton responded, “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
posted by Drinky Die at 7:15 AM on January 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman asked Hillary Clinton, “You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, and/or Paula Jones? Should we believe them, as well?"
Clinton responded, “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
posted by Drinky Die at 7:15 AM on January 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Neither does Obama. Your typical white liberal dude in every way.
There are positions and statements Sanders can make as someone that looks white that Obama couldn't say as someone that looks black. And this was in 2008, at the heels of the whole Reverend Wright thing.
posted by FJT at 8:50 AM on January 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are positions and statements Sanders can make as someone that looks white that Obama couldn't say as someone that looks black. And this was in 2008, at the heels of the whole Reverend Wright thing.
posted by FJT at 8:50 AM on January 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, there are things that Clinton could do to repair her feminist cred, but she just won't do them, because they would also be damaging to her political hopes, which in part rests on the enormous political machine created around her husband. What she would need to do is say, "I apologize for having tried to smear women making sexual assault allegations against my husband. Patriarchy affects us all in different ways, and I regret my actions of the time. I welcome dialogue with the affected women."
But she's not going to do that, because she still playing the same 1980s feminist games, that rely on her being "just like a man." She can't act as a woman for fear of losing the votes of men who are threatened by women. And that's why ultimately she's no great feminist hope- because she will always do and say the safe thing at the time, no more and no less than the men who are her counterparts.
posted by corb at 9:13 AM on January 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
But she's not going to do that, because she still playing the same 1980s feminist games, that rely on her being "just like a man." She can't act as a woman for fear of losing the votes of men who are threatened by women. And that's why ultimately she's no great feminist hope- because she will always do and say the safe thing at the time, no more and no less than the men who are her counterparts.
posted by corb at 9:13 AM on January 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
While that statement might be nice, I think it's impossible for her to make it. I mean, the size of that reversal alone would damn her.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:55 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 9:55 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
the size of that reversal alone would damn her
Damn her? Or redeem her. Ennoble her. Humanize her.
posted by Sir Rinse at 10:05 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Damn her? Or redeem her. Ennoble her. Humanize her.
posted by Sir Rinse at 10:05 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Damn her? Or redeem her. Ennoble her. Humanize her.
Probably torpedo her chances for being elected President, which has been the most important thing in the world for her during the past decade or so, and probably earlier.
posted by theorique at 10:18 AM on January 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Probably torpedo her chances for being elected President, which has been the most important thing in the world for her during the past decade or so, and probably earlier.
posted by theorique at 10:18 AM on January 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
which in part rests on the enormous political machine created around her husband.
Wait, did Hillary Clinton secretly marry Barack Obama, and does Michelle know about this?
Bill Clinton is a political titan, but most people who owed him or the Clintons more generally favors have already settled their accounts. Yes, Hillary still has some 1990s veterans on her senior staff and presumably many others scattered around the country, but Barack Obama and his people own the party machinery right now.
The notion that Hillary's political ambitions are a significant factor in her expression of feminism doesn't withstand any level of scrutiny. Her feminism is what it is -- stuck in the past, evolving ever-so-slowly around the margins, etc. -- but political ambition has very little to do with it. She's not saying these kind of hypothetical statements because she really doesn't believe them, not because she's scared that feminists would punish her electorally.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:25 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, did Hillary Clinton secretly marry Barack Obama, and does Michelle know about this?
Bill Clinton is a political titan, but most people who owed him or the Clintons more generally favors have already settled their accounts. Yes, Hillary still has some 1990s veterans on her senior staff and presumably many others scattered around the country, but Barack Obama and his people own the party machinery right now.
The notion that Hillary's political ambitions are a significant factor in her expression of feminism doesn't withstand any level of scrutiny. Her feminism is what it is -- stuck in the past, evolving ever-so-slowly around the margins, etc. -- but political ambition has very little to do with it. She's not saying these kind of hypothetical statements because she really doesn't believe them, not because she's scared that feminists would punish her electorally.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:25 AM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tom Junod on his recent piece on Hillary Clinton:The Candidate We Love to Hate and Hate to Love [the piece itself is paywalled, links inside]
EC: There’s a line in the second profile, “She will never be president unless something terrible happens.” I guess something terrible happened?posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:32 AM on January 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
TJ: Huh. Wow. You know I haven’t looked at that piece in a really long time. The thing that happened was that an astonishing amount of the country, white people in general, decided that its first black president was essentially illegitimate. That Obama’s presidency has been so divisive for so many people.
Now she is coming as something else entirely. She’s not a uniter in any way. That’s something you never hear on the stump with her—that she’s going to bridge gaps and bind wounds. You never hear that. The thing that makes this election so climactic is that it has become a winner-take-all situation. It’s not like we’re going to reach across the aisle and share with our Republican brothers, which was Obama’s line. Now it’s We’re going to beat these people. And you hear that from both sides.
EC: She told you more than once in the latest article, “I have to win.”
TJ: And the other side feels the same way.
Hillary Clinton angers Iowa fans who waited hours for five-minute speech. [slGuardian]
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:45 PM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:45 PM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Damn her? Or redeem her. Ennoble her. Humanize her.
Oh, bull. It would give further ammunition to people who don’t believe that she’s “human” that she is indeed two-faced about her presentation. And “redeem” her? That’s buying into the narrative that she believes she wronged those folks - if she’s thought -and thinks- she was doing the right thing, there’s nothing to redeem. It would make her seem like a hypocrite, frankly, and there’s nothing ennobling about that.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:09 PM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, bull. It would give further ammunition to people who don’t believe that she’s “human” that she is indeed two-faced about her presentation. And “redeem” her? That’s buying into the narrative that she believes she wronged those folks - if she’s thought -and thinks- she was doing the right thing, there’s nothing to redeem. It would make her seem like a hypocrite, frankly, and there’s nothing ennobling about that.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:09 PM on January 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bloomberg, Sensing an Opening, Revisits a Potential White House Run. [NYT]
His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side.
Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus to his presidential aspirations.
Mr. Bloomberg, 73, has already taken concrete steps toward a possible campaign, and has indicated to friends and allies that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his fortune on it, according to people briefed on his deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his plans. He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:37 PM on January 23, 2016
His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side.
Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus to his presidential aspirations.
Mr. Bloomberg, 73, has already taken concrete steps toward a possible campaign, and has indicated to friends and allies that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his fortune on it, according to people briefed on his deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his plans. He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:37 PM on January 23, 2016
Hillary Clinton is the physical embodiment of the Bitch Eating Crackers at this point. Everyone has made up their minds on her, and everything either reinforces their opinion or doesn't count.
posted by Etrigan at 12:47 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 12:47 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, stop it with the everyone. Look, if Trump is the KOPs' choice, I'm applying the Hillary sticker myself. She came to Flint in 1992. Held a private thing with the students. They held the news thing at my house. I went to the Torch Bar and Hilary could not join them alas, Her husband was running for president. I still have the newsclip on VHS. The excitement and energy was palatable. It wasn't so much for Bill as for her.
Back then we had a modicum of respect and those were ok years.
I don't see that energy. I don't see that respect, I personally blame Newt but that's the point. That energy was blunted then and now, the whole show seems curtained and apt. I don't trust her but I don't trust anyone running for president, it's like built in.
Trump keeps on the Kar, Hillary will become president. I'll call that now.
posted by clavdivs at 3:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Back then we had a modicum of respect and those were ok years.
I don't see that energy. I don't see that respect, I personally blame Newt but that's the point. That energy was blunted then and now, the whole show seems curtained and apt. I don't trust her but I don't trust anyone running for president, it's like built in.
Trump keeps on the Kar, Hillary will become president. I'll call that now.
posted by clavdivs at 3:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
"She’s not a uniter in any way. That’s something you never hear on the stump with her—that she’s going to bridge gaps and bind wounds. You never hear that. The thing that makes this election so climactic is that it has become a winner-take-all situation. It’s not like we’re going to reach across the aisle and share with our Republican brothers, which was Obama’s line. Now it’s We’re going to beat these people."
That's entirely practical given that there is apparently no way in hell that anyone's going to "unite" over anything. That straight up is impossible and not going to happen.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:10 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's entirely practical given that there is apparently no way in hell that anyone's going to "unite" over anything. That straight up is impossible and not going to happen.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:10 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election
Anybody want to guess how all this is going to play out?
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:08 PM on January 24, 2016
Anybody want to guess how all this is going to play out?
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:08 PM on January 24, 2016
Hillary's feminism isnt some anachrinism. Equal pay, reproductive freedom, universal pre-k, expanded parental leave, lbgt equality, defending title 9, and the Supreme Court court are not settled issues or things millenial feminists should take for granted.
posted by humanfont at 12:31 PM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 12:31 PM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wait, did Hillary Clinton secretly marry Barack Obama, and does Michelle know about this?
What? I thought everyone knew that Hillary devoured Michelle's soul, and is wearing her skin. Didn't you read the Breitbart article on this? Or was it in the Huffington Post?
posted by happyroach at 3:53 PM on January 24, 2016
What? I thought everyone knew that Hillary devoured Michelle's soul, and is wearing her skin. Didn't you read the Breitbart article on this? Or was it in the Huffington Post?
posted by happyroach at 3:53 PM on January 24, 2016
Sanders: Clinton is running a ‘desperate’ campaign that lacks excitement [WaPo]
Sanders opens his rallies by ticking through the latest polls — an uncharacteristic touch of bravado intended to convince Democrats that he is not only viable in a general election but a stronger standard-bearer against the Republicans than Clinton. He also is attacking Clinton more directly, not only on policy differences but also on personal character, demonstrating that he has both the stomach and the punch for a political brawl — even one against the Clintons and their defenders.
posted by Sir Rinse at 6:38 PM on January 24, 2016
Sanders opens his rallies by ticking through the latest polls — an uncharacteristic touch of bravado intended to convince Democrats that he is not only viable in a general election but a stronger standard-bearer against the Republicans than Clinton. He also is attacking Clinton more directly, not only on policy differences but also on personal character, demonstrating that he has both the stomach and the punch for a political brawl — even one against the Clintons and their defenders.
posted by Sir Rinse at 6:38 PM on January 24, 2016
how are presidential candidates like NFL quarterbacks?
It's time for Democratic primary voters to focus on what they're hiring a president to do - "Success, then, will come from seizing those opportunities when they arise, and making the most of them. It will come from understanding and manipulating the levers of the bureaucracy, from being ruthless about taking incremental wins wherever they can be found, from taking the long view and not overreacting to the hysterical, endless fluctuations in elite DC opinion.
These are dark arts. It's difficult to predict who might master them."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:47 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's time for Democratic primary voters to focus on what they're hiring a president to do - "Success, then, will come from seizing those opportunities when they arise, and making the most of them. It will come from understanding and manipulating the levers of the bureaucracy, from being ruthless about taking incremental wins wherever they can be found, from taking the long view and not overreacting to the hysterical, endless fluctuations in elite DC opinion.
These are dark arts. It's difficult to predict who might master them."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:47 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess it's time to re-watch Primary Colors, focusing on Emma Thompson.
posted by Sir Rinse at 4:41 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sir Rinse at 4:41 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Firebrand feminist writer and academic Camille Paglia" is on the case again! (via):
posted by tonycpsu at 4:03 PM on January 27, 2016
Hillary has unfortunately adopted the Steinem brand of blame-men-first feminism, which defines women as perpetual victims requiring government protections. Hillary’s sometimes impatient or patronizing tone about men, which can perhaps be traced to key aspects of her personal history, may prove costly to her current campaign.Feel that Turd Wave feminism!
[…]
A 1979 photo of Bill and Hillary Clinton arriving at the White House for a dinner honoring the nation’s governors shows her with big, owlish eyeglasses and a mass of nondescript dark hair. Her subsequent fashion and hair transformations, extending through both Clinton presidencies, were astonishing. It was as if Hillary oscillated between her core identity as a gender-neutral social-activist warrior and a florid female persona so foreign to her nature that it sometimes seemed like drag.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:03 PM on January 27, 2016
Good god, that's Paglia column is worse than the Dowd column a few days ago. What the hell?
posted by octothorpe at 4:24 PM on January 27, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 4:24 PM on January 27, 2016
Paglia realized that no one was paying attention to her as she started to fade out of existence.
posted by Etrigan at 5:09 PM on January 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 5:09 PM on January 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's a comment on Reddit that bullet points a take down of the scandals or various negative positions of Clinton. I find it helpful to see them all in one place.
Link.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:30 AM on January 29, 2016
Link.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:30 AM on January 29, 2016
The opposite though? It doesn’t bullet point a “take down” of the scandals: it bullet points a number of the articles listing scandals.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:16 AM on January 29, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:16 AM on January 29, 2016
Hillary Clinton and the audacity of political realism
With less than a week to go before Iowa, Bernie Sanders has pulled even with Clinton in the polls. He has done so without the money, institutional backing, and deep intraparty divisions over Iraq that powered Obama's 2008 win. It is, by any measure, an extraordinary political achievement. But it also clarifies the challenge Clinton faced in 2008, and faces this year.posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:53 AM on January 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
How do you win as a political realist when the reality of politics is this grim?
That explains why I'm for Hillary, because I'm also a pragmatist. And people can't stand my doing that.
Seriously, I have been waiting in limbo for a week about something and unfortunately there's been more and more signs it's not gonna happen for me, but every time I say this to someone they're all, "Don't give up hope yet! They haven't QUITE said no YET!" Like, oh, sure, maybe everyone else in front of me suddenly drops dead over the weekend, there's some hope for you! Everyone just wants to blow hope up my ass so I'll shut up and smile and not worry, I guess, but it's not helping because I can't stick my fingers in my ears and shut my eyes tight and go LALLA LALALALA I HAS HOOOOOOOOOOPE I BELIEVE IN THE FACE OF EVERY SIGN SAYING NOPE.
If people want happy hope drugs like they had in 2008...dude, that shit just doesn't work. You want someone to make you feel good and happy about the world, but it doesn't work. Because reality is gonna KICK YOU IN THE FACE.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:56 PM on January 29, 2016
Seriously, I have been waiting in limbo for a week about something and unfortunately there's been more and more signs it's not gonna happen for me, but every time I say this to someone they're all, "Don't give up hope yet! They haven't QUITE said no YET!" Like, oh, sure, maybe everyone else in front of me suddenly drops dead over the weekend, there's some hope for you! Everyone just wants to blow hope up my ass so I'll shut up and smile and not worry, I guess, but it's not helping because I can't stick my fingers in my ears and shut my eyes tight and go LALLA LALALALA I HAS HOOOOOOOOOOPE I BELIEVE IN THE FACE OF EVERY SIGN SAYING NOPE.
If people want happy hope drugs like they had in 2008...dude, that shit just doesn't work. You want someone to make you feel good and happy about the world, but it doesn't work. Because reality is gonna KICK YOU IN THE FACE.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:56 PM on January 29, 2016
Hillary Clinton: Single-payer healthcare will "never, ever" happen
Just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton stressed to voters in Des Moines just how unfeasible she considers her opponent Bernie Sanders' plan to pursue a single-payer health care system.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:00 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"
She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
No We Can't!
posted by Drinky Die at 9:09 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:09 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sometimes it seems that no matter what Hillary says, she can't be right. If she agreed with Sanders on health care, she's just being a copycat and will renege when convenient. And when she says it's not possible, she's being overly critical of Sanders, I guess?
posted by FJT at 11:21 PM on January 31, 2016
posted by FJT at 11:21 PM on January 31, 2016
Sometimes it seems that no matter what Hillary says, she can't be right
Sometimes?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:58 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sometimes?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:58 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sometimes it seems that no matter what Hillary says, she can't be right.
That's definitely A Thing, but the way she's framing it, like any discussion of universal single-payer has to somehow start with the ACA being repealed, is inviting cries of "Bullshit!"
posted by Etrigan at 6:12 AM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's definitely A Thing, but the way she's framing it, like any discussion of universal single-payer has to somehow start with the ACA being repealed, is inviting cries of "Bullshit!"
posted by Etrigan at 6:12 AM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sometimes it seems that no matter what Hillary says, she can't be right. If she agreed with Sanders on health care, she's just being a copycat and will renege when convenient. And when she says it's not possible, she's being overly critical of Sanders, I guess?
As always with anything Clinton-related, I find it's best to pay attention to what is being said rather than why it's being said. I don't care if she's triangulating, trying to use it as a wedge issue, or whatever -- the fact is she's running against single-payer and for the product of a political compromise. That tells voters a lot about where she'll be on that issue, and it's entirely possible to judge her on that without worrying about what her angle is. It's possible to believe she's unfairly attacked by the media while also believing she's wrong on the issue.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:15 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
As always with anything Clinton-related, I find it's best to pay attention to what is being said rather than why it's being said. I don't care if she's triangulating, trying to use it as a wedge issue, or whatever -- the fact is she's running against single-payer and for the product of a political compromise. That tells voters a lot about where she'll be on that issue, and it's entirely possible to judge her on that without worrying about what her angle is. It's possible to believe she's unfairly attacked by the media while also believing she's wrong on the issue.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:15 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know why people get so fixated on single payer anyway. Germany for example has what appears to be a good healthcare system that gives both universal coverage and consumer choice. Basically, what Obamacare should have been. Making it more like that would be a better choice to me than single-payer...
posted by thefoxgod at 11:59 AM on February 1, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 11:59 AM on February 1, 2016
I don't know why people get so fixated on single payer anyway.
Probably because somewhere between 27 and 33 million people are still uninsured in the richest country in the world, many because they can't afford it. Health care should be a human right.
posted by dialetheia at 12:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably because somewhere between 27 and 33 million people are still uninsured in the richest country in the world, many because they can't afford it. Health care should be a human right.
posted by dialetheia at 12:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably because somewhere between 27 and 33 million people are still uninsured in the richest country in the world,
Which is my point, that has _nothing_ to do with single-payer. Single-payer is simply one of many models that can be used to get universal coverage, and it does not appear to give the best results. Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, etc all have universal coverage without single payer.
The goal should be good universal coverage. Too many people assume that the only model is single-payer, when its just one of many. I think a lot of people say "single payer" when they _mean_ "universal coverage". I'm for the latter but definitely not the former.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which is my point, that has _nothing_ to do with single-payer. Single-payer is simply one of many models that can be used to get universal coverage, and it does not appear to give the best results. Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, etc all have universal coverage without single payer.
The goal should be good universal coverage. Too many people assume that the only model is single-payer, when its just one of many. I think a lot of people say "single payer" when they _mean_ "universal coverage". I'm for the latter but definitely not the former.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
How do you feel about medical debt and bankruptcies? "Roughly 40 percent of Americans owe collectors money for times they were sick," as of 2014. People should not be going to collections for receiving basic health care even when they have insurance coverage.
posted by dialetheia at 1:21 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 1:21 PM on February 1, 2016
"Universal coverage" shouldn't just apply to people -- it should also apply to what's covered.
posted by Etrigan at 1:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 1:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
People should not be going to collections for receiving basic health care even when they have insurance coverage.
Absolutely. Again not a single-payer issue though. Japan is another country that has good health outcomes and universal coverage without single payer. (Even a year after she moved from Japan to the US, my wife still has trouble understanding the American system and _why_ we messed it up so bad....)
The secret is strict government regulation of the insurance and medical industries.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:41 PM on February 1, 2016
Absolutely. Again not a single-payer issue though. Japan is another country that has good health outcomes and universal coverage without single payer. (Even a year after she moved from Japan to the US, my wife still has trouble understanding the American system and _why_ we messed it up so bad....)
The secret is strict government regulation of the insurance and medical industries.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:41 PM on February 1, 2016
« Older "The top hat and the thimble weren’t plot points... | Who here likes pancakes? I love pancakes. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by resurrexit at 1:12 PM on January 20, 2016