Live free or die.
February 9, 2016 11:42 AM Subscribe
New Hampshire votes today in the first primary of the 2016 US Presidential election.
The final polls predict a Republican primary win for Donald Trump, and a Democratic primary win for Bernie Sanders.
Polling is tricky, though, in a state known for its fickle, independent voters. (Or not.) Either way, Thomas Jefferson once moaned that "the organization of this little selfish minority enabled it to overrule the union." So there's that.
Hillary Clinton will look to exceed expectations, as she famously did in 2008 by upsetting then-Sen. Barack Obama here. And the Republican candidates will work to consolidate a crowded field.
The other important thing to know about today? We're just 272 short days away from the general election.
The final polls predict a Republican primary win for Donald Trump, and a Democratic primary win for Bernie Sanders.
Polling is tricky, though, in a state known for its fickle, independent voters. (Or not.) Either way, Thomas Jefferson once moaned that "the organization of this little selfish minority enabled it to overrule the union." So there's that.
Hillary Clinton will look to exceed expectations, as she famously did in 2008 by upsetting then-Sen. Barack Obama here. And the Republican candidates will work to consolidate a crowded field.
The other important thing to know about today? We're just 272 short days away from the general election.
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Playbook Against Bernie Sanders Is a Lot Like Her 2008 Playbook Against Obama
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:46 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:46 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Go Bernie! I'm excited to see the turnout tonight, it seems like the Bernie supporters are really rallying phonebanks and GOTV efforts in a way that is reminiscent of Obama in 2008. Strange to think it's already been 8 years.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 11:48 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 11:48 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The irony of Thomas Jefferson complaining about members of a state "overruling" the union!
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:48 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:48 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Now would be a really great time to get on your facebooks and twitters and yell at your friends and friends of friends to register to vote.
posted by phunniemee at 11:51 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by phunniemee at 11:51 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dump of some interesting election-related links:
Rubio supporters attack people dressed up like robots mocking Rubio
This Is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants
What Clinton said in her paid speeches
But of the 16 candidates running for president, only one pays his interns: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at $10.10 an hour.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:53 AM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
Rubio supporters attack people dressed up like robots mocking Rubio
This Is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants
What Clinton said in her paid speeches
But of the 16 candidates running for president, only one pays his interns: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at $10.10 an hour.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:53 AM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
The irony of Thomas Jefferson complaining about members of a state "overruling" the union!
For this and a whole bunch of other reasons both personal and professional, Thomas Jefferson is definitely in the running for America's Biggest Hypocrite.
posted by Copronymus at 11:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
For this and a whole bunch of other reasons both personal and professional, Thomas Jefferson is definitely in the running for America's Biggest Hypocrite.
posted by Copronymus at 11:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
If Trump wins the general election, this is the only piece of information I'll need.
posted by HuronBob at 11:57 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by HuronBob at 11:57 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Iowa and New Hampshire are the two best states for Sanders, demographically. They're very White. They have a high population of liberal independent voters. All polling says he'll win by a huge margin in New Hampshire.
The question is what will happen next, since a large portion of the Democratic base is non-White. Can he win Nevada? South Carolina? Where there are larger groups of minority voters? That remains to be seen.
The Clinton team is reportedly banking on the idea that "the early contests exaggerate impressions of Sanders’s support, because their electorates are whiter and more liberal than the Democratic Party is overall, meaning that when the full spectrum of Democratic voters begins to weigh in, Clinton will have a substantial advantage."
At least in that aspect, her playbook is not what it was against Obama in '08.
posted by zarq at 11:58 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The question is what will happen next, since a large portion of the Democratic base is non-White. Can he win Nevada? South Carolina? Where there are larger groups of minority voters? That remains to be seen.
The Clinton team is reportedly banking on the idea that "the early contests exaggerate impressions of Sanders’s support, because their electorates are whiter and more liberal than the Democratic Party is overall, meaning that when the full spectrum of Democratic voters begins to weigh in, Clinton will have a substantial advantage."
At least in that aspect, her playbook is not what it was against Obama in '08.
posted by zarq at 11:58 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fox News (always good for a laugh or Twilight Zone moment) actually posted vote totals for the candidates this morning and declared Trump the winner. On the bright side, if these turn out to be the vote totals, you'll know our Democracy is hacked.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
A reminder for those so inclined: you are allowed to take and post ballot selfies in New Hampshire.
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Donald Trump Clearly Doesn't Understand How Dogs Work: "sleepy eyes @chucktodd will be fired like a dog"
posted by sallybrown at 12:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 12:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Donald Trump Clearly Doesn't Understand How Dogs Work
He means they were put down like dogs. He equates firing to killing people. He takes great pleasure and satisfaction in "firing" people - and he will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
He means they were put down like dogs. He equates firing to killing people. He takes great pleasure and satisfaction in "firing" people - and he will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
he will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America
Let's see what the ultra-delegates have to say about that!
posted by thelonius at 12:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's see what the ultra-delegates have to say about that!
posted by thelonius at 12:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for making the new thread!
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, that "like a dog" thing might be the weirdest quirk yet that I've learned about Trump. It's as if a twitter spambot had been granted its wish to become a real boy.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
He means they were put down like dogs.
Unlike humans, dogs don't recognize insults, slurs, or other put-downs. The analogy's still inaccurate.
posted by explosion at 12:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unlike humans, dogs don't recognize insults, slurs, or other put-downs. The analogy's still inaccurate.
posted by explosion at 12:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know if he will be or not, but I'm not feeling as confident about this prediction as I was six months ago, I can tell you that.
If I ever make a prediction about your future, assume it's wrong. If the prediction is a positive one, you have my apologies in advance.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I ever make a prediction about your future, assume it's wrong. If the prediction is a positive one, you have my apologies in advance.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for making the new thread!
You're welcome. It was mostly for selfish reasons, my phone was on the verge of spontaneously cracking.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
You're welcome. It was mostly for selfish reasons, my phone was on the verge of spontaneously cracking.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I want a sweaty TV dog who begs for money!
posted by sallybrown at 12:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 12:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you every tried to employ a dog? In almost every white collar environment, they are horrible employees. They can't read, their typing is like a mishmash of someone banging on a keyboard, and they never, EVER, refill the coffee pot. Almost universally, they get fired. Trump makes a lot of sense.
posted by Atreides at 12:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by Atreides at 12:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Playbook Against Bernie Sanders Is a Lot Like Her 2008 Playbook Against Obama
It's working about as well.
It's a pity, I preferred it when there were two viable candidates, but she is rapidly ruling herself out.
posted by Artw at 12:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's working about as well.
It's a pity, I preferred it when there were two viable candidates, but she is rapidly ruling herself out.
posted by Artw at 12:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Clinton team is reportedly banking on the idea that "the early contests exaggerate impressions of Sanders’s support, because their electorates are whiter and more liberal than the Democratic Party is overall, meaning that when the full spectrum of Democratic voters begins to weigh in, Clinton will have a substantial advantage."
IOW: Vote for Clinton, America's 3rd black president!
posted by clawsoon at 12:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
IOW: Vote for Clinton, America's 3rd black president!
posted by clawsoon at 12:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
@realDonaldTrump You Are Dog Now
posted by Existential Dread at 12:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 12:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I guess firing someone like a dog is when you say to that person "you're fired!" And they look at you a little uncertainly, but pretty sure something good is going to happen, so you sigh and throw the ball for them like you always do, because who can say no to that earnest nose?
That is not a very efficient way to fire anyone.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
That is not a very efficient way to fire anyone.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
Carson: I’m open to being Trump’s VP
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
man 2008 i was all Obama! Obama NH! Yeah!
now I'm like Bill Clinton shut up. Hillary Clinton is that seriously your best game. and no i do not want to get annoyed at my fellow liberals. really, it's snowing and I just want to go to sleep.
I'm old. Or this is a shit election.
posted by angrycat at 12:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
now I'm like Bill Clinton shut up. Hillary Clinton is that seriously your best game. and no i do not want to get annoyed at my fellow liberals. really, it's snowing and I just want to go to sleep.
I'm old. Or this is a shit election.
posted by angrycat at 12:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Carson: I’m open to being Trump’s VP
Oh man! After the election and Trump is soundly defeated, someone needs to make this into a sitcom.
posted by mayonnaises at 12:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Oh man! After the election and Trump is soundly defeated, someone needs to make this into a sitcom.
posted by mayonnaises at 12:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
The dog thing sounds like something @dril would write. @dril for president! Because why not!
posted by sonmi at 12:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sonmi at 12:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
2008: Hope and Change!
2016: Come on you dummies, let's be practical here.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
2016: Come on you dummies, let's be practical here.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
dogs don't recognize insults, slurs, or other put-downs
How many dogs have you owned?
I think of those dog-shaming videos . . . .
posted by spitbull at 12:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
How many dogs have you owned?
I think of those dog-shaming videos . . . .
posted by spitbull at 12:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, that "like a dog" thing might be the weirdest quirk yet that I've learned about Trump. It's as if a twitter spambot had been granted its wish to become a real boy.
Samantha Bee called him a "sentient caps lock button” last night on her new show Full Frontal and it was shocking to me that I hadn't heard that already.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
Samantha Bee called him a "sentient caps lock button” last night on her new show Full Frontal and it was shocking to me that I hadn't heard that already.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
now I'm like Bill Clinton shut up.
I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it again: every time he opens his mouth or is out stumping for her, I am less likely to vote for her. I had to stop following her on twitter today because it was like all-Bill-all-the-time. The thought of him actually being in her administration, which she has hinted at, might make me vote third party in the general.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it again: every time he opens his mouth or is out stumping for her, I am less likely to vote for her. I had to stop following her on twitter today because it was like all-Bill-all-the-time. The thought of him actually being in her administration, which she has hinted at, might make me vote third party in the general.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
They can't read, their typing is like a mishmash of someone banging on a keyboard, and they never, EVER, refill the coffee pot.
This accurately describes at least 50% of my previous human coworkers.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
This accurately describes at least 50% of my previous human coworkers.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
I see a lot of people here convinced that Trump will win the nomination. But I'm not sure what is motivating such certainty. It's a possibility, absolutely, but the numbers don't make it look all the likely. What is it that is creating the impression that it's the most likely outcome. Wishful thinking?
To an interested and relatively informed outsider, it seems like, at this point, Rubio, Cruz and Trump all have some sort of chance of the nomination. What data really persuade anyone that any of the possible narratives will come to pass?
posted by howfar at 12:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
To an interested and relatively informed outsider, it seems like, at this point, Rubio, Cruz and Trump all have some sort of chance of the nomination. What data really persuade anyone that any of the possible narratives will come to pass?
posted by howfar at 12:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why the working class is choosing Trump and Sanders, Mark Thoma, University of Oregon economist
posted by dialetheia at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
who can say no to that earnest nose?
'That Earnest Nose' is the name of my new Jazz Age bildungsroman.
posted by howfar at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
'That Earnest Nose' is the name of my new Jazz Age bildungsroman.
posted by howfar at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Carson: I’m open to being Trump’s VP
To quote emjaybee:
(sighs tiredly) Sure, why not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
To quote emjaybee:
(sighs tiredly) Sure, why not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
i want to go back to the time when deez nutz was winning
those halcyon days of yore
posted by poffin boffin at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
those halcyon days of yore
posted by poffin boffin at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
howfar, I'd read that if it was in the style of Hesse's Narcissus and Goldmund with a sprinkling of Steppenwolf.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016
2008: Hope and Change!
2016: Come on you dummies, let's be practical here.
"Let's be practical" has been the Clinton message in both primaries. And by practical, Clinton too often means "something I could convince Wall Street to support".
I think she was scarred by the neocon and neoliberal backlash from Bill's terms in a way that has coloured her hopefulness ever since.
posted by clawsoon at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
2016: Come on you dummies, let's be practical here.
"Let's be practical" has been the Clinton message in both primaries. And by practical, Clinton too often means "something I could convince Wall Street to support".
I think she was scarred by the neocon and neoliberal backlash from Bill's terms in a way that has coloured her hopefulness ever since.
posted by clawsoon at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
With the advent of Disney's new face-merging technology, and based on their lockstep policies, I'm optimistic about the chances of electing unholy abomination President Crubio.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 12:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
We're just 272 short days away from the general election.
Nothing feels remotely short about them, which is kind of an amazing thing in early February.
And as much as I love Samantha Bee, any gag that requires me to think of Trump as sentient makes me blink too many times to sustain laughter.
I have to spend some time on his Doral property late this month and oh grod please don't let him be there at any point *sob*
posted by phearlez at 12:34 PM on February 9, 2016
Nothing feels remotely short about them, which is kind of an amazing thing in early February.
And as much as I love Samantha Bee, any gag that requires me to think of Trump as sentient makes me blink too many times to sustain laughter.
I have to spend some time on his Doral property late this month and oh grod please don't let him be there at any point *sob*
posted by phearlez at 12:34 PM on February 9, 2016
Well heck, with the new face merging tech, why not just have Ronald run again?
posted by ian1977 at 12:35 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 12:35 PM on February 9, 2016
here is some very important newly released footage from the recent all-candidates debate
posted by poffin boffin at 12:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
who can say no to that earnest nose?
'That Earnest Nose' is the name of my new Jazz Age bildungsroman.
"Ernest's Nose" is the sequal to "Claire's Knee" and it involves a plastic surgeon's unheathy obsession with hale youths in the south of France.
posted by selfnoise at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
'That Earnest Nose' is the name of my new Jazz Age bildungsroman.
"Ernest's Nose" is the sequal to "Claire's Knee" and it involves a plastic surgeon's unheathy obsession with hale youths in the south of France.
posted by selfnoise at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want the next debate to have Rubio poking his head in every so often, saying, "I just want you all to know, good luck, we're all counting on you."
posted by fungible at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
posted by fungible at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
oh man imagine Biden replaced with Carson. It would be four years of no Biden gaffes a la "THIS IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL," no Biden smiles, and Carson napping and saying weird shit about the pyramids
I mean, we would be put out of our misery by WWIII probably in fewer than four years, so that would be the bright side of Trump/Carson
posted by angrycat at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean, we would be put out of our misery by WWIII probably in fewer than four years, so that would be the bright side of Trump/Carson
posted by angrycat at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can I just say this is the second time I've been on television?
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
What data really persuade anyone
Well to be fair Trump is up by an average of around 11 points nationally in every single head to head poll with the other republicans, with only Cruz being particularly close and not seemingly much more likely to break way out in front of Trump. It's tightening, but 10 points over your nearest, equally divisive competitor, with the rest of the field divided among unappealing establishment candidates who are busy damaging each other as fast as they can, and you start to think maybe this will happen.
Trump vs. Sanders sort of takes your breath away as a possibility.
Sign me up for the "shut Bill Clinton the hell up" crowd. I'm lukewarm at best about Clinton as the most "pragmatic" choice. My heart is with Bernie's values and positions and supporters. I'm going to vote for him in my state primary (I registered dem just to do it) to protest Clinton and my state's dem establishment (Cuomo, and Schumer especially) and signal the progressive expectations I have for Clinton whether she wants to go that way or not. She's guaranteed to win New York, I think. So no harm, no foul. I am still scared that Bernie will be torn apart as a national candidate, weirdly in a way I never was about Obama (whom I supported from the earliest days with passion). But if he's up against Trump that would be a clarifying fire indeed for this country.
But yeah, Bill, go away. Please. Thanks.
posted by spitbull at 12:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Well to be fair Trump is up by an average of around 11 points nationally in every single head to head poll with the other republicans, with only Cruz being particularly close and not seemingly much more likely to break way out in front of Trump. It's tightening, but 10 points over your nearest, equally divisive competitor, with the rest of the field divided among unappealing establishment candidates who are busy damaging each other as fast as they can, and you start to think maybe this will happen.
Trump vs. Sanders sort of takes your breath away as a possibility.
Sign me up for the "shut Bill Clinton the hell up" crowd. I'm lukewarm at best about Clinton as the most "pragmatic" choice. My heart is with Bernie's values and positions and supporters. I'm going to vote for him in my state primary (I registered dem just to do it) to protest Clinton and my state's dem establishment (Cuomo, and Schumer especially) and signal the progressive expectations I have for Clinton whether she wants to go that way or not. She's guaranteed to win New York, I think. So no harm, no foul. I am still scared that Bernie will be torn apart as a national candidate, weirdly in a way I never was about Obama (whom I supported from the earliest days with passion). But if he's up against Trump that would be a clarifying fire indeed for this country.
But yeah, Bill, go away. Please. Thanks.
posted by spitbull at 12:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Fired like a dog? How many dogs have you p0wned?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 12:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
And by the way the reason I think Bernie will be attacked viciously nationally is not because he's "socialist," but because that can be used as a code word for what he also is, which is "Jewish."
Our breath has been taken away by the revelations of the depths of racism and sexism addressed to Obama and Clinton. But the left seems curiously sanguine about the depth of anti-Semitism in large parts of this country.
posted by spitbull at 12:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Our breath has been taken away by the revelations of the depths of racism and sexism addressed to Obama and Clinton. But the left seems curiously sanguine about the depth of anti-Semitism in large parts of this country.
posted by spitbull at 12:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
In almost every white collar environment, [dogs] are horrible employees.
Office dogs raise the productivity of all other employees, and they work for kibble.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Office dogs raise the productivity of all other employees, and they work for kibble.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
2008: Hope and Change!
2016: Come on you dummies, let's be practical here.
2009: Democrats control House and Senate
2017: Republicans nearly certain to control House and fairly likely to control Senate
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
2016: Come on you dummies, let's be practical here.
2009: Democrats control House and Senate
2017: Republicans nearly certain to control House and fairly likely to control Senate
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
neoliberal backlash from Bill's terms
Huh? I thought he was the poster boy for neoliberalism, the pragmatic Democratic response to post-Reagan Revolution America, the guy who pushed NAFTA through and slashed the welfare state and triangulated his way through the overton window.
I mean, there's an argument to be made that it was between that and Carter II, but since when has anyone argued that the Clinton administration wasn't neoliberal?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Huh? I thought he was the poster boy for neoliberalism, the pragmatic Democratic response to post-Reagan Revolution America, the guy who pushed NAFTA through and slashed the welfare state and triangulated his way through the overton window.
I mean, there's an argument to be made that it was between that and Carter II, but since when has anyone argued that the Clinton administration wasn't neoliberal?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
2017: Republicans nearly certain to control House and fairly likely to control Senate
Maybe we could, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe we could try to win some of those elections instead of writing them off and assuming the worst? This is not exactly a winning attitude that Democrats are taking this year. Why not go for another 2008 wave election on the enthusiasm of young and poor people? Obviously gerrymandering makes it difficult to win a lot of congressional seats, but at the very least the Senate is not a foregone conclusion, and I think we could do better than we expect if we didn't try to sell "we have no hope of winning or enacting our agenda" as our campaign slogan.
posted by dialetheia at 12:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Maybe we could, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe we could try to win some of those elections instead of writing them off and assuming the worst? This is not exactly a winning attitude that Democrats are taking this year. Why not go for another 2008 wave election on the enthusiasm of young and poor people? Obviously gerrymandering makes it difficult to win a lot of congressional seats, but at the very least the Senate is not a foregone conclusion, and I think we could do better than we expect if we didn't try to sell "we have no hope of winning or enacting our agenda" as our campaign slogan.
posted by dialetheia at 12:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
I want the next debate to have Rubio poking his head in every so often, saying, "I just want you all to know, good luck, we're all counting on you."
The Rubiobot is now failing the Turing test. The other Republican candidates are only failing the Voight-Kampff.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
The Rubiobot is now failing the Turing test. The other Republican candidates are only failing the Voight-Kampff.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
howfar: I see a lot of people here convinced that Trump will win the nomination. But I'm not sure what is motivating such certainty. It's a possibility, absolutely ... What is it that is creating the impression that it's the most likely outcome. Wishful thinking?
Anecdata: In October last year we were at a collaboration meeting in Montreal, and some of us ended up at the HamBar (yes, exactly what it says) with a vegan in tow. And even then, the 14 of us there were basically stumped by the question - if not Trump, who?
Starting premise: there will, in fact, be a Republican nominee for president, and it will be one of the current candidates. (Two out of 14 people disagreed and said it would be Romney.)
If you agree with the starting premise, where do you go? We had specific arguments against Scott Walker (now moot) and Rand Paul and Santorum (joke) - although if the Republicans fell in line and nominated the previous runner up (like McCain was to W., and Romney was to McCain) then it would be a come-from-behind Santorum nomination.
Christie? Too corrupt, too moderate, Bridgegate, the base distrusts a Northeastern governor.
Kasich? Too moderate, total non-entity, but maybe. He only got 1 vote of 14.
Fiorina? Her best claim to competence is running HP into the ground. And she's a woman. 0/14.
JEB!? The last name dooms him. Too moderate. 1/14.
Marco? Too callow. Too smooth and polished. And the base would never forgive his immigration heresy. Still got 3/14.
Cruz? Everyone hates Cruz. The establishment hates Cruz. Too smart-alecky for his own good. Ugh. 2/14.
Trump? Last man standing. Yeah, he's a liberal in conservatives clothing, but he's rich. He can self-fund. He has name recognition. He's a blowhard, but he can say "You're fired!" and people will lap it up. 5/14.
Not to claim any deep insight or anything like that, but we were genuinely at a loss. And I think the GOP primary so far bears out our confusion then. Sure, it could be Cruz or Rubio, but ... it could come up Trump by a narrow plurality.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Anecdata: In October last year we were at a collaboration meeting in Montreal, and some of us ended up at the HamBar (yes, exactly what it says) with a vegan in tow. And even then, the 14 of us there were basically stumped by the question - if not Trump, who?
Starting premise: there will, in fact, be a Republican nominee for president, and it will be one of the current candidates. (Two out of 14 people disagreed and said it would be Romney.)
If you agree with the starting premise, where do you go? We had specific arguments against Scott Walker (now moot) and Rand Paul and Santorum (joke) - although if the Republicans fell in line and nominated the previous runner up (like McCain was to W., and Romney was to McCain) then it would be a come-from-behind Santorum nomination.
Christie? Too corrupt, too moderate, Bridgegate, the base distrusts a Northeastern governor.
Kasich? Too moderate, total non-entity, but maybe. He only got 1 vote of 14.
Fiorina? Her best claim to competence is running HP into the ground. And she's a woman. 0/14.
JEB!? The last name dooms him. Too moderate. 1/14.
Marco? Too callow. Too smooth and polished. And the base would never forgive his immigration heresy. Still got 3/14.
Cruz? Everyone hates Cruz. The establishment hates Cruz. Too smart-alecky for his own good. Ugh. 2/14.
Trump? Last man standing. Yeah, he's a liberal in conservatives clothing, but he's rich. He can self-fund. He has name recognition. He's a blowhard, but he can say "You're fired!" and people will lap it up. 5/14.
Not to claim any deep insight or anything like that, but we were genuinely at a loss. And I think the GOP primary so far bears out our confusion then. Sure, it could be Cruz or Rubio, but ... it could come up Trump by a narrow plurality.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Douthat: A Party on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown -
Once again, Ted Cruz has an under-appreciated strength in New Hampshire
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do not believe, to quadruple (or whatever) down on my not-Trump predictions, that in this scenario the party leadership would eventually resign itself to the Donald, and especially not given the way he’s running now. But if Rubio drops back into the pack and Kasich emerges as the clear New Hampshire winner on the moderate/establishment flank, setting up a Trump-Cruz battle for South Carolina, then we might be starting to approach a universe with only two genuinely plausible scenarios: Either a contested convention with Trump as some kind of kingmaker, or yes, Republican nominee Ted Cruz.Millman: What I’m Hoping For Out Of New Hampshire - "For all of the above reasons, what I want most of all out of New Hampshire is . . . to stop Marco Rubio."
Once again, Ted Cruz has an under-appreciated strength in New Hampshire
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I noted it at the end of the last longboat thread but I found it super interesting that in one of the most recent polls from New Hampshire, fully 24% of Democratic primary voters in NH said they "would not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances" if she were the nominee (pdf, that question is on the last page). Only 5% said the same for Sanders. It seems like pretty clear evidence that he's reaching voters she would have much more trouble reaching, and in a swing state no less.
posted by dialetheia at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Let's see what the ultra-delegates have to say about that!
And then we have HUGE-delegates and world-class-delegates.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 12:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
And then we have HUGE-delegates and world-class-delegates.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 12:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd like to see Republican answers to the most famous Voight-Kampff test question:
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it cant, not without your help. But youre not helping. Why is that?
posted by explosion at 12:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it cant, not without your help. But youre not helping. Why is that?
posted by explosion at 12:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Well heck, with the new face merging tech, why not just have Ronald run again?
posted by phearlez at 12:53 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by phearlez at 12:53 PM on February 9, 2016
You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it cant, not without your help. But youre not helping. Why is that?
Don't think for one second that that turtle doesn't know exactly what its doing. X3
posted by ian1977 at 12:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
Don't think for one second that that turtle doesn't know exactly what its doing. X3
posted by ian1977 at 12:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
Generation Sanders: "For more than a year, my pragmatist friends and colleagues have underestimated the appeal of Bernie Sanders. As a big Sanders win approaches in the New Hampshire primary, they insist that this will be Sanders's last hurrah and urge his supporters to get real and get with the program—which is to unite behind Hillary Clinton as the Democrat best positioned to be nominated and to win in November. Many of my political friends are simply missing the import of the Sanders campaign. ... The age gap in voters who supported Sanders versus Clinton in the Iowa Caucuses was the greatest recorded in political history. It is likely to be repeated in New Hampshire. This is not good news for Clinton or for those who insist on her inevitability. "
posted by dialetheia at 12:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Well heck, with the new face merging tech, why not just have Ronald run again?
too liberal
posted by entropicamericana at 12:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
too liberal
posted by entropicamericana at 12:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Jeb Bush and the Gentleman Politician Death Spiral (in a Single Photo)
A JEB! In Winter (Samantha Bee, Full Frontal)
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
A JEB! In Winter (Samantha Bee, Full Frontal)
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Cruz? Everyone hates Cruz. The establishment hates Cruz. Too smart-alecky for his own good. Ugh. 2/14.
It is astonishing to me that the Republicans hate him so much, given that having a sickly grin and being pale and clammy and toadlike have never been disqualifiers before. I mean, have you seen Cheney? But then, maybe he's fun at parties, what do I know.
Given how tightly Cruz toes the line, I guess I just don't understand why they hate him so much. What is he supposed to be doing that he hasn't done?
posted by emjaybee at 12:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is astonishing to me that the Republicans hate him so much, given that having a sickly grin and being pale and clammy and toadlike have never been disqualifiers before. I mean, have you seen Cheney? But then, maybe he's fun at parties, what do I know.
Given how tightly Cruz toes the line, I guess I just don't understand why they hate him so much. What is he supposed to be doing that he hasn't done?
posted by emjaybee at 12:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
But the left seems curiously sanguine about the depth of anti-Semitism in large parts of this country.
Yeah, either way we'll be at the dubious mercy of either a horde of shrieking antisemites or a horde of shrieking MRAs this year.
yippie
posted by poffin boffin at 12:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yeah, either way we'll be at the dubious mercy of either a horde of shrieking antisemites or a horde of shrieking MRAs this year.
yippie
posted by poffin boffin at 12:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
It is astonishing to me that the Republicans hate him so much, given that having a sickly grin and being pale and clammy and toadlike have never been disqualifiers before. I mean, have you seen Cheney? But then, maybe he's fun at parties, what do I know.
It's more about the fact that he puts his own short-term self-interest ahead of the party and his colleagues at every available opportunity. But he is also very personally off-putting, too. Maybe it's his facial expressions: Neurologist explains why it's hard to look at Cruz's creepy, 'unsettling' face.
posted by dialetheia at 1:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's more about the fact that he puts his own short-term self-interest ahead of the party and his colleagues at every available opportunity. But he is also very personally off-putting, too. Maybe it's his facial expressions: Neurologist explains why it's hard to look at Cruz's creepy, 'unsettling' face.
posted by dialetheia at 1:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
seriously, do you all remember how fucking great 2008 was?
posted by angrycat at 1:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it cant, not without your help. But youre not helping. Why is that?
The only tortoises crossing the desert entered this country illegally. Tortoise flipping is a valid tactic to detain tortoises until Tortoise Control Agents show up. I promise that, if elected president, I will build a very low wall along the border.
posted by nathan_teske at 1:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
The only tortoises crossing the desert entered this country illegally. Tortoise flipping is a valid tactic to detain tortoises until Tortoise Control Agents show up. I promise that, if elected president, I will build a very low wall along the border.
posted by nathan_teske at 1:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Maybe we could, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe we could try to win some of those elections instead of writing them off and assuming the worst?
I don't disagree, but given these options I think I'd sort my preference as follows:
Sanders + Democratic Congress
Clinton + Democratic Congress
Clinton + split/Republican Congress
Sanders + split/Republican Congress
So if I were voting today I think I'd probably minmax and vote for Clinton. (This differs from 2008 where I preferred Obama to Clinton regardless of the composition of Congress.)
Also, keep in mind there'll be at least 3 months (and realistically 5-7) after the nominee is selected in which to excite the base, regardless of the nominee.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't disagree, but given these options I think I'd sort my preference as follows:
Sanders + Democratic Congress
Clinton + Democratic Congress
Clinton + split/Republican Congress
Sanders + split/Republican Congress
So if I were voting today I think I'd probably minmax and vote for Clinton. (This differs from 2008 where I preferred Obama to Clinton regardless of the composition of Congress.)
Also, keep in mind there'll be at least 3 months (and realistically 5-7) after the nominee is selected in which to excite the base, regardless of the nominee.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
You know what I love, love, love, can't stop being happy about?
Watching tools like Ross Douthat and David Brooks squirm.
Give it up, dudes. YOUR PARTY HAS LEFT THE STATION, destination Looneyville. You. Are. Moderate. Democrats. Now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
Watching tools like Ross Douthat and David Brooks squirm.
Give it up, dudes. YOUR PARTY HAS LEFT THE STATION, destination Looneyville. You. Are. Moderate. Democrats. Now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [53 favorites]
This should be the obligatory soundtrack for every Republican debate and campaign event.
We're BLESSED
posted by Existential Dread at 1:08 PM on February 9, 2016
We're BLESSED
posted by Existential Dread at 1:08 PM on February 9, 2016
It looks like New Hampshire election officials are currently projecting a very large REPUBLICAN turnout, at 262,000 or so... while they are projecting 231,000 Democrats.
I just looked at the outcome in 2008's Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton won that with 112,404 votes, with 39.1% of the total vote. That extrapolates to about 287,478 total Democratic votes... so it looks like they're expecting only about 80% of the turnout for the Democrats this time around.
posted by markkraft at 1:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just looked at the outcome in 2008's Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton won that with 112,404 votes, with 39.1% of the total vote. That extrapolates to about 287,478 total Democratic votes... so it looks like they're expecting only about 80% of the turnout for the Democrats this time around.
posted by markkraft at 1:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
plus if Brooks came out as a moderate Dem think of all the columns and speeches he could give about it. David, come on, your golden ticket!
posted by angrycat at 1:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Almost 400k undeclared though. That's fascinating.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
2009: Democrats control House and Senate
2017: Republicans nearly certain to control House and fairly likely to control Senate
But even with Democrat control of the House and Senate, we still only got the GOP healthcare plan. If we can't even get stuff we want when we control Congress and the Executive, what's the point? This is why many are persuaded by the thought of a "political revolution."
posted by melissasaurus at 1:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
2017: Republicans nearly certain to control House and fairly likely to control Senate
But even with Democrat control of the House and Senate, we still only got the GOP healthcare plan. If we can't even get stuff we want when we control Congress and the Executive, what's the point? This is why many are persuaded by the thought of a "political revolution."
posted by melissasaurus at 1:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
RedOrGreen: Anecdata: In October last year we were at a collaboration meeting in Montreal, and some of us ended up at the HamBar (yes, exactly what it says) with a vegan in tow. And even then, the 14 of us there were basically stumped by the question - if not Trump, who?
This is the greatest comment ever.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is the greatest comment ever.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton + split/Republican Congress
Sanders + split/Republican Congress
I've heard this argument a lot and I don't understand it, but I would like to. Why do people think Clinton, one of the most polarizing figures of the last 30 years, would have an easier time getting Republicans in Congress to work with her? Especially given that Sanders actually has great working relationships with many Republican legislators. And if someone generally prefers Sanders' policies, why wouldn't they want someone in the executive branch who won't be hesitant to use his executive powers? Just nominating a treasury secretary that didn't come straight from the NY Fed or Goldman Sachs would be a huge improvement on Clinton, who won't promise not to nominate a Wall Street insider. Under Dodd-Frank, Sanders would also be able to start breaking up too-big-to-fail banks as part of his regulatory power. I don't believe Clinton would do the same.
posted by dialetheia at 1:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [68 favorites]
Sanders + split/Republican Congress
I've heard this argument a lot and I don't understand it, but I would like to. Why do people think Clinton, one of the most polarizing figures of the last 30 years, would have an easier time getting Republicans in Congress to work with her? Especially given that Sanders actually has great working relationships with many Republican legislators. And if someone generally prefers Sanders' policies, why wouldn't they want someone in the executive branch who won't be hesitant to use his executive powers? Just nominating a treasury secretary that didn't come straight from the NY Fed or Goldman Sachs would be a huge improvement on Clinton, who won't promise not to nominate a Wall Street insider. Under Dodd-Frank, Sanders would also be able to start breaking up too-big-to-fail banks as part of his regulatory power. I don't believe Clinton would do the same.
posted by dialetheia at 1:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [68 favorites]
Link to NH's projected turnout.
Those aren't the projected turnout numbers; that's the number of registered voters by party.
posted by Backslash at 1:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Those aren't the projected turnout numbers; that's the number of registered voters by party.
posted by Backslash at 1:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't see it as unreasonable, head-scratchy, or laugh-worthy if some Democrats are skeptical about hope/change idealism in this election cycle. Obama has done a lot of good recently, and overall I think has had a very successful Presidency, but in other ways, his first term in particular was a hard reality check for a lot of people as far as what idealism looks like when it gets in the White House.
Guantanamo Bay is still open, yes?
I ultimately find the argument which someone in the previous thread said compelling: that '04 showed up that aiming for "electable" over "idealistic" doesn't work. But I don't blame some Democrats for being more skeptical and pointed in 2016 than they were in 2008.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Guantanamo Bay is still open, yes?
I ultimately find the argument which someone in the previous thread said compelling: that '04 showed up that aiming for "electable" over "idealistic" doesn't work. But I don't blame some Democrats for being more skeptical and pointed in 2016 than they were in 2008.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
It is astonishing to me that the Republicans hate him so much, given that having a sickly grin and being pale and clammy and toadlike have never been disqualifiers before. I mean, have you seen Cheney? But then, maybe he's fun at parties, what do I know.
From all reports, Ted Cruz is a jerk and an asshole. Everyone hates him, up to his college room mate. When he ran for the presidency of the American Parliamentary Debate Association, they picked someone else whose one qualification was not being Ted Cruz.
posted by zabuni at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
From all reports, Ted Cruz is a jerk and an asshole. Everyone hates him, up to his college room mate. When he ran for the presidency of the American Parliamentary Debate Association, they picked someone else whose one qualification was not being Ted Cruz.
posted by zabuni at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Wouldn't a bar made of ham go off or be eaten by neighbourhood dogs and such pretty quickly?
posted by biffa at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama has done a lot of good recently, and overall I think has had a very successful Presidency, but in other ways, his first term in particular was a hard reality check for a lot of people as far as what idealism looks like when it gets in the White House.
Many of us who supported Obama in the 08 primary hoped that he could supplant the DLC/Clinton-era Democratic establishment and get the party back to what it was before Clinton's New Democrats took it over. Instead, he took Wall Street donations (something he ran against Clinton in the primary on), went back on his promises to reject revolving door policies, and was forced to hire a lot of Clinton-era people (if only because Democrats were coming out of 8 years in the Bush-admin wilderness and didn't exactly have a deep bench, to give him the benefit of the doubt).
I believe that it's much more possible now, following 8 years of building Democratic power in the White House, that we could build party infrastructure around new people who weren't all involved in the Republican triangulation/capitulation strategy of the Clinton administration. I also think that Sanders would be much more serious about not hiring on the exact same set of people as Clinton would have hired, which was something Obama couldn't do.
posted by dialetheia at 1:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
Many of us who supported Obama in the 08 primary hoped that he could supplant the DLC/Clinton-era Democratic establishment and get the party back to what it was before Clinton's New Democrats took it over. Instead, he took Wall Street donations (something he ran against Clinton in the primary on), went back on his promises to reject revolving door policies, and was forced to hire a lot of Clinton-era people (if only because Democrats were coming out of 8 years in the Bush-admin wilderness and didn't exactly have a deep bench, to give him the benefit of the doubt).
I believe that it's much more possible now, following 8 years of building Democratic power in the White House, that we could build party infrastructure around new people who weren't all involved in the Republican triangulation/capitulation strategy of the Clinton administration. I also think that Sanders would be much more serious about not hiring on the exact same set of people as Clinton would have hired, which was something Obama couldn't do.
posted by dialetheia at 1:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
Wouldn't a bar made of ham go off or be eaten by neighbourhood dogs and such pretty quickly?
"No, we just bring in some alligators to chase off the dogs."
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"No, we just bring in some alligators to chase off the dogs."
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Clinton wins the nomination, she wins the general. Her time in office will closely resemble Obama's.
If Sanders wins the nomination, he will lose the general to any Republican candidate except Trump or Carson.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
If Sanders wins the nomination, he will lose the general to any Republican candidate except Trump or Carson.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
their typing is like a mishmash of someone banging on a keyboard
Oviously your interview process is broken: To identify excellent typists in the canine demographic, look for those extolling the virtues of "ham bars".
posted by smidgen at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2016
Oviously your interview process is broken: To identify excellent typists in the canine demographic, look for those extolling the virtues of "ham bars".
posted by smidgen at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2016
And by the way the reason I think Bernie will be attacked viciously nationally is not because he's "socialist," but because that can be used as a code word for what he also is, which is "Jewish."
Ironic, considering that in its early days socialism as a movement embraced antisemitism and accused Jews of being evil capitalists.
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ironic, considering that in its early days socialism as a movement embraced antisemitism and accused Jews of being evil capitalists.
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Clinton wins the nomination, she wins the general. Her time in office will closely resemble Obama's.
If Sanders wins the nomination, he will lose the general to any Republican candidate except Trump or Carson.
Cite? Sanders polls better against the GOP opponents at this point. And should Clinton be nominated, she's going to have a very hard time retaining Sanders' voters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
If Sanders wins the nomination, he will lose the general to any Republican candidate except Trump or Carson.
Cite? Sanders polls better against the GOP opponents at this point. And should Clinton be nominated, she's going to have a very hard time retaining Sanders' voters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
So, curious:
Those of you who think that Sanders could work with Congress, how does that square with single payer and free college? I mean great that he has good working relationships, but I have a hard time believing that Sanders is all, 'ah yes, when I push through my plan for free college, I will have senate allies X, Y, and Z to support me, all cooperative members of the GOP.'
I mean, my thing here is this: if you're supporting his policy proposals, how do you think he's going to get them through Congress? Serious question.
Because if the answer is, "there's no chance" I don't really see the benefit of a Sanders vote.
posted by angrycat at 1:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Those of you who think that Sanders could work with Congress, how does that square with single payer and free college? I mean great that he has good working relationships, but I have a hard time believing that Sanders is all, 'ah yes, when I push through my plan for free college, I will have senate allies X, Y, and Z to support me, all cooperative members of the GOP.'
I mean, my thing here is this: if you're supporting his policy proposals, how do you think he's going to get them through Congress? Serious question.
Because if the answer is, "there's no chance" I don't really see the benefit of a Sanders vote.
posted by angrycat at 1:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
If we can't even get stuff we want when we control Congress and the Executive, what's the point?
Keep a Supreme Court balance that won't completely hand over control of the economy to big corporations?
Preserve an incrementally-better medical system which doesn't kill people who can't afford health insurance?
Maintain the rights of minorities?
Don't burn the planet by smothering it in greenhouse gasses?
Stop the funding of massive tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the poor?
People keep talking about this like there's no downside risk. Make a play for the White House with your Ideologically Purest Candidate, and if they fail, no biggie, we can tolerate 4 or 8 years of a united Republican government and it won't have disastrous consequences for the nation. But we can't. People will die, the only planet we have will heat up beyond repair, the LGBTQ rights we've fought for for the last 20 years will get unrolled in an instant, and we'll probably suffer another recession like the one we are slowly climbing out of.
Now you're probably thinking "But fucking over the country extra hard and irreparably destroying the environment is exactly the thing that will make the sheeple wake up!". Sure. Please dial your time machine to 2000-2008 and tell us how that theory worked out.
If the GOP takes the White House and maintains the Senate and House, you can bet your bottom dollar the filibuster is going to get nuked from orbit. Who's left to stand up for leftist values at that point? No one. No one to stop the juggernaut of Republican legislation.
Please remember that the only the stopping the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the effective death of Roe v Wade, the return of DOMA, the return of banning gays from the military, the Republican dream of no taxes for the rich and no services for the poor, is Obama's veto pen.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [67 favorites]
Keep a Supreme Court balance that won't completely hand over control of the economy to big corporations?
Preserve an incrementally-better medical system which doesn't kill people who can't afford health insurance?
Maintain the rights of minorities?
Don't burn the planet by smothering it in greenhouse gasses?
Stop the funding of massive tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the poor?
People keep talking about this like there's no downside risk. Make a play for the White House with your Ideologically Purest Candidate, and if they fail, no biggie, we can tolerate 4 or 8 years of a united Republican government and it won't have disastrous consequences for the nation. But we can't. People will die, the only planet we have will heat up beyond repair, the LGBTQ rights we've fought for for the last 20 years will get unrolled in an instant, and we'll probably suffer another recession like the one we are slowly climbing out of.
Now you're probably thinking "But fucking over the country extra hard and irreparably destroying the environment is exactly the thing that will make the sheeple wake up!". Sure. Please dial your time machine to 2000-2008 and tell us how that theory worked out.
If the GOP takes the White House and maintains the Senate and House, you can bet your bottom dollar the filibuster is going to get nuked from orbit. Who's left to stand up for leftist values at that point? No one. No one to stop the juggernaut of Republican legislation.
Please remember that the only the stopping the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the effective death of Roe v Wade, the return of DOMA, the return of banning gays from the military, the Republican dream of no taxes for the rich and no services for the poor, is Obama's veto pen.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [67 favorites]
There is no cite. He'll lose, period, in a Swift Boatean fashion. You say "socialist" and the Republican turnout will be overwhelming.
Every pundit and pollster secretly knows this and won't say it.
Fifty percent of the electorate remains red. Young people don't vote as much as the old. Feel the Bern all you want. He'll lose. This is as immutable as gravity.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Every pundit and pollster secretly knows this and won't say it.
Fifty percent of the electorate remains red. Young people don't vote as much as the old. Feel the Bern all you want. He'll lose. This is as immutable as gravity.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Why do people think Clinton, one of the most polarizing figures of the last 30 years, would have an easier time getting Republicans in Congress to work with her? Especially given that Sanders actually has great working relationships with many Republican legislators.
I don't think Clinton would have an easy time getting Republicans to work with her. But the same goes for Sanders. I mean, what's he going to do, convince Rand Paul to support a $15 minimum wage because they have a great working relationship? No matter how this election ends up, we're not about to enter a new age of bipartisan cooperation.
I do, however, believe a President Clinton would have an easier time selling her policy proposals within her own party. Centrist Democrats in swing states aren't going to touch a Democratic Socialist platform with a 538-foot pole.
posted by duffell at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't think Clinton would have an easy time getting Republicans to work with her. But the same goes for Sanders. I mean, what's he going to do, convince Rand Paul to support a $15 minimum wage because they have a great working relationship? No matter how this election ends up, we're not about to enter a new age of bipartisan cooperation.
I do, however, believe a President Clinton would have an easier time selling her policy proposals within her own party. Centrist Democrats in swing states aren't going to touch a Democratic Socialist platform with a 538-foot pole.
posted by duffell at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Because if the answer is, "there's no chance" I don't really see the benefit of a Sanders vote.
Because you don't negotiate against yourself. Ask for what you want, not what you think you might get.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Because you don't negotiate against yourself. Ask for what you want, not what you think you might get.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Every pundit and pollster secretly knows this and won't say it.
I don't think that's true. Nor do I think you are properly estimating the amount of crap the Republicans are going to throw at Hillary Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't think that's true. Nor do I think you are properly estimating the amount of crap the Republicans are going to throw at Hillary Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
(Note: I don't support much of Clinton's proposed centrist platform; that's just how I see the lay of the land.)
posted by duffell at 1:29 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by duffell at 1:29 PM on February 9, 2016
I mean, my thing here is this: if you're supporting his policy proposals, how do you think he's going to get them through Congress? Serious question.
How is Clinton? She doesn't even have a real health care plan. I know he isn't going to sweep into office and instantly enact health care legislation. But a) he would have a pretty tremendous mandate if he actually won against all odds - it would be hard to deny that the country supported his policies - and b) he will at least make the argument that we should do it, which is a lot more than I can say for Hillary "single payer will never ever ever happen" Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
How is Clinton? She doesn't even have a real health care plan. I know he isn't going to sweep into office and instantly enact health care legislation. But a) he would have a pretty tremendous mandate if he actually won against all odds - it would be hard to deny that the country supported his policies - and b) he will at least make the argument that we should do it, which is a lot more than I can say for Hillary "single payer will never ever ever happen" Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
The age gap in voters who supported Sanders versus Clinton in the Iowa Caucuses was the greatest recorded in political history.
It's crazy how it's not just that he's popular, but he's broken all kinds of records: Age gap, a few fundraising records, attendance...
Behold the Hambar.
Does anyone remember the Mefite who got a whole prosciutto for his birthday? I wonder how that ham is doing.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2016
It's crazy how it's not just that he's popular, but he's broken all kinds of records: Age gap, a few fundraising records, attendance...
Behold the Hambar.
Does anyone remember the Mefite who got a whole prosciutto for his birthday? I wonder how that ham is doing.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2016
Iowa and New Hampshire are the two best states for Sanders, demographically. They're very White. They have a high population of liberal independent voters. All polling says he'll win by a huge margin in New Hampshire.
The question is what will happen next, since a large portion of the Democratic base is non-White. Can he win Nevada? South Carolina? Where there are larger groups of minority voters? That remains to be seen.
I’m not accusing you specifically of this, but man, I have found the "common wisdom" around racial demographics and this Democratic primary extremely objectionable. It’s one thing to note that polls have found strong support for Clinton among black voters, but most of what I see in the media all but implies that black voters are essentially automata who for Reasons are completely unswayable from Clinton. It bothers me that mainstream sources have taken demographic analysis and run with it as determinism.
posted by threeants at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
The question is what will happen next, since a large portion of the Democratic base is non-White. Can he win Nevada? South Carolina? Where there are larger groups of minority voters? That remains to be seen.
I’m not accusing you specifically of this, but man, I have found the "common wisdom" around racial demographics and this Democratic primary extremely objectionable. It’s one thing to note that polls have found strong support for Clinton among black voters, but most of what I see in the media all but implies that black voters are essentially automata who for Reasons are completely unswayable from Clinton. It bothers me that mainstream sources have taken demographic analysis and run with it as determinism.
posted by threeants at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
He'll lose, period, in a Swift Boatean fashion. You say "socialist" and the Republican turnout will be overwhelming.
That's why Barack Obama never got elected in 2008, and then never got elected again in 2012.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [81 favorites]
That's why Barack Obama never got elected in 2008, and then never got elected again in 2012.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [81 favorites]
Please remember that the only the stopping the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the effective death of Roe v Wade, the return of DOMA, the return of banning gays from the military, the Republican dream of no taxes for the rich and no services for the poor, is Obama's veto pen.
Well said.
This should be shouted from the rooftops.
posted by zarq at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Well said.
This should be shouted from the rooftops.
posted by zarq at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Nor do I think you are properly estimating the amount of crap the Republicans are going to throw at Hillary Clinton.
You can't possibly be suggesting that Sanders is more likely to survive the crap thrown at him than Clinton could survive the crap thrown at her.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
You can't possibly be suggesting that Sanders is more likely to survive the crap thrown at him than Clinton could survive the crap thrown at her.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The other thing I'd like to know re: downticket races is how Hillary Clinton expects to get high turnout to get any of those people elected when nearly 90% of young voters support Sanders, not her. Enthusiasm and turnout is how Democrats win elections, not convincing David Brooks, and all of the enthusiasm is with Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 1:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it cant, not without your help. But youre not helping. Why is that?
Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people,
But I've got the pistols, so I'll keep the pesos --
Yeah, that seems fair.
posted by Herodios at 1:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people,
But I've got the pistols, so I'll keep the pesos --
Yeah, that seems fair.
posted by Herodios at 1:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
>
Holy shit guys, The Card Cheat is Bill Clinton!
posted by XMLicious at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
This guy's chances of being elected U.S. President are only better than mine because I'm Constitutionally ineligible to run.
Holy shit guys, The Card Cheat is Bill Clinton!
posted by XMLicious at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You can't possibly be suggesting that Sanders is more likely to survive the crap thrown at him than Clinton could survive the crap thrown at her.
Well, at least he's not currently under investigation by the FBI, with rumors swirling about his indictment for failing to protect state secrets.
posted by dialetheia at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Well, at least he's not currently under investigation by the FBI, with rumors swirling about his indictment for failing to protect state secrets.
posted by dialetheia at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Ironic, considering that in its early days socialism as a movement embraced antisemitism and accused Jews of being evil capitalists.
Like that monstrous antisemite Karl Marx? What.
posted by howfar at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Like that monstrous antisemite Karl Marx? What.
posted by howfar at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Well, at least he's not currently under investigation by the FBI, with rumors swirling about his indictment for failing to protect state secrets.
on the other hand how will he effectively blackmail anyone
posted by poffin boffin at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
on the other hand how will he effectively blackmail anyone
posted by poffin boffin at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's why Barack Obama never got elected in 2008, and then never got elected again in 2012.
Obama was elected in the most unusual circumstances in modern history, a coalition that won't be repeated soon, against a looming Great Depression and wars caused almost solely by Republicans. Obama won again in 2012 because Romney made 2-3 utterly tone deaf statements.
It's not a great track record, sorry.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Obama was elected in the most unusual circumstances in modern history, a coalition that won't be repeated soon, against a looming Great Depression and wars caused almost solely by Republicans. Obama won again in 2012 because Romney made 2-3 utterly tone deaf statements.
It's not a great track record, sorry.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
yo cool papa bell since you got that crystal ball how about you memail me the next powerball numbers kthxbai
posted by entropicamericana at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
Many of us who supported Obama in the 08 primary hoped that he could supplant the DLC/Clinton-era Democratic establishment and get the party back to what it was before Clinton's New Democrats took it over. Instead, he took Wall Street donations (something he ran against Clinton in the primary on), went back on his promises to reject revolving door policies, and was forced to hire a lot of Clinton-era people [...]
[...] I also think that Sanders would be much more serious about not hiring on the exact same set of people as Clinton would have hired, which was something Obama couldn't do.
Right. Obama campaigned on one vision, and then the reality he was forced to deal with was different, and now as a result some Democrats are skeptical of the 2008 "hope change" mantra. The pressures that forced him or made him decide to compromise his vision haven't disappeared over the past 8 years. I don't think Sanders will be free from many of those same pressures.
I'm not saying he would repeat Obama's mistakes - Bernie has much more experience in the legislature, for one - but I DO think it's fair to have a "once bitten, twice shy" mentality towards campaign promises that presidential candidates make regarding things that are actually the jurisdiction of Congress, for example.
If this means the voting population is more demanding about hearing the specifics of policy proposals from all candidates, I think that skepticism may be to the benefit of everyone. In any regards, it is a natural consequence of past elections and I don't find it surprising.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
[...] I also think that Sanders would be much more serious about not hiring on the exact same set of people as Clinton would have hired, which was something Obama couldn't do.
Right. Obama campaigned on one vision, and then the reality he was forced to deal with was different, and now as a result some Democrats are skeptical of the 2008 "hope change" mantra. The pressures that forced him or made him decide to compromise his vision haven't disappeared over the past 8 years. I don't think Sanders will be free from many of those same pressures.
I'm not saying he would repeat Obama's mistakes - Bernie has much more experience in the legislature, for one - but I DO think it's fair to have a "once bitten, twice shy" mentality towards campaign promises that presidential candidates make regarding things that are actually the jurisdiction of Congress, for example.
If this means the voting population is more demanding about hearing the specifics of policy proposals from all candidates, I think that skepticism may be to the benefit of everyone. In any regards, it is a natural consequence of past elections and I don't find it surprising.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You say "socialist" and the Republican turnout will be overwhelming.
Hahaha, unlike when you say "Hillary Clinton"? She's one of the most viscerally hated figures in conservative history besides Obama.
posted by dialetheia at 1:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
Hahaha, unlike when you say "Hillary Clinton"? She's one of the most viscerally hated figures in conservative history besides Obama.
posted by dialetheia at 1:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
Feel the Bern all you want. He'll lose. This is as immutable as gravity.
Thanks for the reminder to give yet another contribution to Bernie!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 1:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
Thanks for the reminder to give yet another contribution to Bernie!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 1:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
I know he isn't going to sweep into office and instantly enact health care legislation. But a) he would have a pretty tremendous mandate if he actually won against all odds - it would be hard to deny that the country supported his policies - and b) he will at least make the argument that we should do it, which is a lot more than I can say for Hillary "single payer will never ever ever happen" Clinton.
The way I see it is, Sanders won't be able to single-handedly do these things. BUT. Maybe, just maybe if he changes the dialogue and keeps shining a light on corruption, we can get some actual progressives elected in the midterms, and begin to actually change things.
I know it's an idealistic vision, but I think a lot of people need some of that right now.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
The way I see it is, Sanders won't be able to single-handedly do these things. BUT. Maybe, just maybe if he changes the dialogue and keeps shining a light on corruption, we can get some actual progressives elected in the midterms, and begin to actually change things.
I know it's an idealistic vision, but I think a lot of people need some of that right now.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
yo cool papa bell since you got that crystal ball how about you memail me the next powerball numbers kthxbai
I hereby say, if anyone wants to throw my words back at me on Nov. 2, I will retire from MeFi. Call it a "loser leaves town" match.
See you at the polls!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I hereby say, if anyone wants to throw my words back at me on Nov. 2, I will retire from MeFi. Call it a "loser leaves town" match.
See you at the polls!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because you don't negotiate against yourself. Ask for what you want, not what you think you might get.
I--don't get this. I want free college. I want single payer. But I don't think we don't have single payer because Obama is in the pocket of Big Pharma. I think we don't have it because the electorate won't support it.
I'm a cynical chick in her mid forties. I work at a community college in a poor urban area. I was a Legal Services lawyer before that. I WANT TO BELIEVE that Sanders could prevail and help people I work for, help me as I'm only a few economic notches above my former clients/current students.
So I guess help me believe this? Because I'm really, for the record here, down with Cool Papa Bell: a Sanders nom is a hell of a risk.
posted by angrycat at 1:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
I--don't get this. I want free college. I want single payer. But I don't think we don't have single payer because Obama is in the pocket of Big Pharma. I think we don't have it because the electorate won't support it.
I'm a cynical chick in her mid forties. I work at a community college in a poor urban area. I was a Legal Services lawyer before that. I WANT TO BELIEVE that Sanders could prevail and help people I work for, help me as I'm only a few economic notches above my former clients/current students.
So I guess help me believe this? Because I'm really, for the record here, down with Cool Papa Bell: a Sanders nom is a hell of a risk.
posted by angrycat at 1:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
That's why Barack Obama never got elected in 2008, and then never got elected again in 2012.
Out of curiosity, did either candidate or President Obama ever refer to himself as a socialist? I don't remember him doing so.
Sanders initially didn't want to call himself a socialist. Back in the '80s the media started using it to describe him. He's since embraced the label.
I sincerely love the quote at the end of the article:
posted by zarq at 1:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Out of curiosity, did either candidate or President Obama ever refer to himself as a socialist? I don't remember him doing so.
Sanders initially didn't want to call himself a socialist. Back in the '80s the media started using it to describe him. He's since embraced the label.
In a speech he gave at the National Committee for Independent Political Action in New York City on June 22, 1989, reprinted in the December 1989 issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review: “In Vermont, everybody knows that I am a socialist and that many people in our movement, not all, are socialists. And as often as not — and this is an interesting point that is the honest-to-God truth — what people will say is, ‘I don’t really know what socialism is, but if you’re not a Democrat or a Republican, you’re OK with me.’ That’s true. And I think there has been too much of a reluctance on the part of progressives and radicals to use the word ‘socialism.’”Bet it matters. Especially if and when the Republican tv ads start airing.
I sincerely love the quote at the end of the article:
13. In an interview with the Des Moines Register this month: “If you look at the issues — you don’t have to worry about the word ‘socialist’ — just look at what I’m talking about. If you go out and ask the American people: Is it right that the middle class continues to disappear while there has been a massive transfer of wealth from working families to the top one-tenth of 1 percent? Trillions of dollars in the last 30 years have flowed from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. And the American people say, ‘No, that’s not right.’ And if you ask the American people: Do you think it’s right that despite an explosion of technology and an increase in worker productivity, the average worker is working longer hours for low wages? They say no. And what the American people are saying pretty loudly and clearly is they want an economy that works for ordinary Americans. For working people. Not an economy where almost all of the income and all of the wealth is going to the top 1 percent. That’s what we have now.”
posted by zarq at 1:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh, that makes more sense. I thought it was odd that a Hamilton-themed bar would be in Montreal.
posted by ckape at 1:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ckape at 1:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Watching tools like Ross Douthat and David Brooks squirm.
Exhibit A: In case anyone hasn't made their RDA for facepalm: David Brooks, I Miss Barack Obama (slNYT)
posted by sapere aude at 1:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exhibit A: In case anyone hasn't made their RDA for facepalm: David Brooks, I Miss Barack Obama (slNYT)
posted by sapere aude at 1:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I keep thinking that Jeremy Corbyn's savaging in the press, even from papers which should be sympathetic to him, is just a preview of what Sanders-as-nominee would endure. An all out attack even from the center-left outlets.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by honestcoyote at 1:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Out of curiosity, did either candidate or President Obama ever refer to himself as a socialist? I don't remember him doing so.
The right wing has been screaming OBAMA = SOCIALIST for the last 8 years.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
The right wing has been screaming OBAMA = SOCIALIST for the last 8 years.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Part of me is also scared of what the country looks like after 4 years of Clinton. Yes, those 4 years will be better than 4 years of the GOP. And the possible SCOTUS appointments during that time will endure for years to come. But, if Clinton wins, the progressive/ideological wing of the party is dead, and I don't think it will come back for at least a generation. The GOP will continue to move to the right, but there will be minimal pull of the Dems to the left. That, to me, means that in 4 years, the GOP has an even better chance of winning the presidency and with someone possibly even more reprehensible than Cruz or Trump.
Is anyone else thinking about this? I feel like I haven't seen many articles about what Sanders vs. Clinton means for 2020.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Is anyone else thinking about this? I feel like I haven't seen many articles about what Sanders vs. Clinton means for 2020.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Especially given that Sanders actually has great working relationships with many Republican legislators.
The linked article was paywalled, so I couldn't read the whole thing. But the headline seemed to indicate that the main point was that Republicans liked Sanders; as already pointed out, the fact that they like him doesn't mean they'll support his policies. Meanwhile, the subheading seems to tout his VA reform bill, which is hardly a far-left masterstroke.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:42 PM on February 9, 2016
The linked article was paywalled, so I couldn't read the whole thing. But the headline seemed to indicate that the main point was that Republicans liked Sanders; as already pointed out, the fact that they like him doesn't mean they'll support his policies. Meanwhile, the subheading seems to tout his VA reform bill, which is hardly a far-left masterstroke.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:42 PM on February 9, 2016
Out of curiosity, did either candidate or President Obama ever refer to himself as a socialist? I don't remember him doing so.
I told this story in the last thread but I'd like to tell it again, since the socialism question is obviously a big one. So my partner and I live in Montana. Not exactly a liberal hotbed. He was talking to one of his co-workers about health care. She's middle-aged, married, a few kids, grew up here in Montana, has barely left the state, voted Republican her whole life, accepted all the BS from the 90s about "socialized health care", etc.
She told him - totally unprompted - that she thought she might vote for Sanders because she's so goddamned tired of not being able to get decent affordable health insurance. She had the same list of baffling, awful ordeals that most working-class people have about health care, and she told him that if socialism is what it takes to get decent health care, well, then, she guesses she just might be a socialist! And she repeated a ton of the 90s socialized health care framing back to him, but in a way that justified her voting for Sanders. She hunts and added that he also didn't want to take her guns away, so it wasn't as bad as voting for a Democrat usually is.
I'm not going to over-extrapolate from that anecdote, but I think people are finally getting so fed up with the way things are that they are willing to accept other solutions at this point. They may regret tagging Medicare For All as socialist, because it has really softened the reaction to the socialist label among older folks I've talked to - even (and maybe especially) for those who swallowed the socialized health care framing hook, line and sinker.
I keep thinking that Jeremy Corbyn's savaging in the press, even from papers which should be sympathetic to him, is just a preview of what Sanders-as-nominee would endure. An all out attack even from the center-left outlets.
Sure. Corbyn still won, though.
posted by dialetheia at 1:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
I told this story in the last thread but I'd like to tell it again, since the socialism question is obviously a big one. So my partner and I live in Montana. Not exactly a liberal hotbed. He was talking to one of his co-workers about health care. She's middle-aged, married, a few kids, grew up here in Montana, has barely left the state, voted Republican her whole life, accepted all the BS from the 90s about "socialized health care", etc.
She told him - totally unprompted - that she thought she might vote for Sanders because she's so goddamned tired of not being able to get decent affordable health insurance. She had the same list of baffling, awful ordeals that most working-class people have about health care, and she told him that if socialism is what it takes to get decent health care, well, then, she guesses she just might be a socialist! And she repeated a ton of the 90s socialized health care framing back to him, but in a way that justified her voting for Sanders. She hunts and added that he also didn't want to take her guns away, so it wasn't as bad as voting for a Democrat usually is.
I'm not going to over-extrapolate from that anecdote, but I think people are finally getting so fed up with the way things are that they are willing to accept other solutions at this point. They may regret tagging Medicare For All as socialist, because it has really softened the reaction to the socialist label among older folks I've talked to - even (and maybe especially) for those who swallowed the socialized health care framing hook, line and sinker.
I keep thinking that Jeremy Corbyn's savaging in the press, even from papers which should be sympathetic to him, is just a preview of what Sanders-as-nominee would endure. An all out attack even from the center-left outlets.
Sure. Corbyn still won, though.
posted by dialetheia at 1:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
It looks like New Hampshire election officials are currently projecting a very large REPUBLICAN turnout,
I'm hoping it's because like me, a lot of registered Republicans are seeing Trump's poll numbers and saying Fuck. That. If Trump loses here, he's pretty much done. No way will he take the South.
posted by corb at 1:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm hoping it's because like me, a lot of registered Republicans are seeing Trump's poll numbers and saying Fuck. That. If Trump loses here, he's pretty much done. No way will he take the South.
posted by corb at 1:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Honestly I don't give a single fuck if either Clinton or Sanders fulfill any of their campaign promises so long as in the next 8 years they just build on what Obama has already done wrt healthcare and prevent any fucking woman-loathing white supremacists from giving us new SCOTUS nominations.
my bar is as low as it's gonna get folks, the other choices literally involve armbands for muslims and gay latino death camps and wire hanger abortions nationwide and a sentient ham in a wig cheering a crowd of people beating up a black man live on tv
and by god if you tantrum yourself into splitting the vote by going independent because your fave didn't get the nom then you're fucking dead to me
posted by poffin boffin at 1:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [170 favorites]
my bar is as low as it's gonna get folks, the other choices literally involve armbands for muslims and gay latino death camps and wire hanger abortions nationwide and a sentient ham in a wig cheering a crowd of people beating up a black man live on tv
and by god if you tantrum yourself into splitting the vote by going independent because your fave didn't get the nom then you're fucking dead to me
posted by poffin boffin at 1:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [170 favorites]
Exhibit A: In case anyone hasn't made their RDA for facepalm: David Brooks, I Miss Barack Obama (slNYT)
I read this this morning and facepalmed so hard I have fingerprints on the inside of my skull.
JUST ADMIT THAT YOU'RE A LAME ASS BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT YOU DOUCHEBAG!
God I hate David Brooks.
posted by Aizkolari at 1:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I read this this morning and facepalmed so hard I have fingerprints on the inside of my skull.
JUST ADMIT THAT YOU'RE A LAME ASS BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT YOU DOUCHEBAG!
God I hate David Brooks.
posted by Aizkolari at 1:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
But I don't think we don't have single payer because Obama is in the pocket of Big Pharma. I think we don't have it because the electorate won't support it.
The majority of the country - 58% - supports Medicare for All. It's not so much that Obama was in the pocket of big pharma as it was the entire legislature and many of his advisors (see: Howard Dean, now a health insurance lobbyist).
posted by dialetheia at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
The majority of the country - 58% - supports Medicare for All. It's not so much that Obama was in the pocket of big pharma as it was the entire legislature and many of his advisors (see: Howard Dean, now a health insurance lobbyist).
posted by dialetheia at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
and by god if you tantrum yourself into splitting the vote by going independent because your fave didn't get the nom then you're fucking dead to me
True shit.
posted by Aizkolari at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
True shit.
posted by Aizkolari at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Like that monstrous antisemite Karl Marx? What.
Among others.
A hundred years ago, an outspoken socialist politician would most likely have run on an anti-semitic platform. Without even bothering to disguise who they were ranting against.
Now, the most prominent, popular socialist Presidential candidate in the United States is Jewish. And the people who attack him for being a socialist will probably use it as a code word for "Jew."
posted by zarq at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Among others.
A hundred years ago, an outspoken socialist politician would most likely have run on an anti-semitic platform. Without even bothering to disguise who they were ranting against.
Now, the most prominent, popular socialist Presidential candidate in the United States is Jewish. And the people who attack him for being a socialist will probably use it as a code word for "Jew."
posted by zarq at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find myself not as aroused, excited, by the doings in New Hampshire, perhaps because the juices still flowing from Super Bowl--be still my beating heart. I have glanced at the comments and since I saw no reference to this, I thought it might be of a little interest. Seems Mrs. C. remains a bit slippery.
posted by Postroad at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
600-pound pig escapes from NH farm, tries to go vote
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:44 PM on February 9
If the pig in that picture weighs 600 pounds, he must be made of solid cast iron.
posted by crazylegs at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:44 PM on February 9
If the pig in that picture weighs 600 pounds, he must be made of solid cast iron.
posted by crazylegs at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
did either candidate or President Obama ever refer to himself as a socialist? I don't remember him doing so.
No, I believe he referred to himself as an African-American.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
No, I believe he referred to himself as an African-American.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Now, the most prominent, popular socialist Presidential candidate in the United States is Jewish. And the people who attack him for being a socialist will probably use it as a code word for "Jew."
They called Obama all kinds of appalling, horrible things and he still got elected, though.
posted by dialetheia at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
They called Obama all kinds of appalling, horrible things and he still got elected, though.
posted by dialetheia at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The right wing has been screaming OBAMA = SOCIALIST for the last 8 years.
They've attacked lots of candidates for lots of things. This is not what I asked.
posted by zarq at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
They've attacked lots of candidates for lots of things. This is not what I asked.
posted by zarq at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
he would have a pretty tremendous mandate if he actually won against all odds - it would be hard to deny that the country supported his policies -
Obama won with a gigantic gap in electoral votes and popular votes both in 2008 and 2012. He got a very contentious (and underwhelming to many people) health care plan through in his first term ONLY because the Dems for a while controlled both houses of Congress. Now they are minority in both, and there is nothing that shows that will change in any way for the next president's term. There's a small chance that a strong Dem candidate may bring in some new Dem senators, but it's a pretty strong bet that if a Dem wins the Presidency, they will be dealing with a (hostile) GOP Congress.
Why on Earth should we assume that a GOP Congress which should still look a lot like the current one will be willing to compromise and work with Bernie Sanders on just about anything that doesn't have to do with gun policy? Raising taxes? Good luck. Single payer? You mean before or after they vote for the 10,000th time to repeal Obamacare? Free education? Yeah right.
I'm not saying that I don't like Bernie's ideas. I do, I would love a lot of what he is suggesting. But Obama had a legitimate big time mandate TWICE and didn't get to do very much of anything that he promised due to the Congress.
If you want to vote for Bernie Sanders because you like his ideas, that's fine and honorable. But please don't kid yourselves... if you think anything of any substance will come out of his proposals, I'm sure Trump will have some walls he would love to sell you.
posted by tittergrrl at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Obama won with a gigantic gap in electoral votes and popular votes both in 2008 and 2012. He got a very contentious (and underwhelming to many people) health care plan through in his first term ONLY because the Dems for a while controlled both houses of Congress. Now they are minority in both, and there is nothing that shows that will change in any way for the next president's term. There's a small chance that a strong Dem candidate may bring in some new Dem senators, but it's a pretty strong bet that if a Dem wins the Presidency, they will be dealing with a (hostile) GOP Congress.
Why on Earth should we assume that a GOP Congress which should still look a lot like the current one will be willing to compromise and work with Bernie Sanders on just about anything that doesn't have to do with gun policy? Raising taxes? Good luck. Single payer? You mean before or after they vote for the 10,000th time to repeal Obamacare? Free education? Yeah right.
I'm not saying that I don't like Bernie's ideas. I do, I would love a lot of what he is suggesting. But Obama had a legitimate big time mandate TWICE and didn't get to do very much of anything that he promised due to the Congress.
If you want to vote for Bernie Sanders because you like his ideas, that's fine and honorable. But please don't kid yourselves... if you think anything of any substance will come out of his proposals, I'm sure Trump will have some walls he would love to sell you.
posted by tittergrrl at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Can we not call Hillary Clinton "Mrs. C"?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ironic, considering that in its early days socialism as a movement embraced antisemitism and accused Jews of being evil capitalists.
Are you legit ignorant of the virulent ubiquity of antisemitism in 19th and 20th centuries, the involvement of Jews with socialist and communist causes, and the recurring pattern from Marx's age on down to today of slurring Jews as communists and vice versa? Or are you just trolling?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Are you legit ignorant of the virulent ubiquity of antisemitism in 19th and 20th centuries, the involvement of Jews with socialist and communist causes, and the recurring pattern from Marx's age on down to today of slurring Jews as communists and vice versa? Or are you just trolling?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Here's some actual data on peoples' attitudes toward socialism. Millenials actually have a higher opinion of socialism than capitalism, and Democrats are evenly split. Overall, there might be more support than you'd expect. These numbers are all from June 2015, before Sanders started to gain steam and move democratic socialism into the mainstream.
posted by dialetheia at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Rubio supporters attack people dressed up like robots mocking Rubio
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:53 PM on February 9
Dressed as a robot? He's wearing a fucking cardboard box. If that's the best robot he can do, he deserves to get pushed over in the snow.
posted by crazylegs at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:53 PM on February 9
Dressed as a robot? He's wearing a fucking cardboard box. If that's the best robot he can do, he deserves to get pushed over in the snow.
posted by crazylegs at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
JUST ADMIT THAT YOU'RE A LAME ASS BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT YOU DOUCHEBAG!
I hate Books plenty too, and he's long outlived his usefulness as a columnist, but isn't is possible, even likely, that the rest of the GOP has moved way right and Brooks is one of the few who didn't wholeheartedly jump on the crazy train? Maybe, and I hate to think it, we're not giving him quite enough credit.
posted by zachlipton at 1:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hate Books plenty too, and he's long outlived his usefulness as a columnist, but isn't is possible, even likely, that the rest of the GOP has moved way right and Brooks is one of the few who didn't wholeheartedly jump on the crazy train? Maybe, and I hate to think it, we're not giving him quite enough credit.
posted by zachlipton at 1:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dressed as a robot? He's wearing a fucking cardboard box. If that's the best robot he can do, he deserves to get pushed over in the snow.
The Broken Robot Jerk is available to all.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:51 PM on February 9, 2016
The Broken Robot Jerk is available to all.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:51 PM on February 9, 2016
Can we not call Hillary Clinton "Mrs. C"?
Mrs. C is Richie's and Joanie's mom, and the only one allowed to call the Fonz 'Arthur'.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Mrs. C is Richie's and Joanie's mom, and the only one allowed to call the Fonz 'Arthur'.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
It would be deliciously ironic if the right's false labeling and incessant repetition of "Obama is socialist" causes independent voters to be comfortable with socialism. Because nothing alarming has occurred under the previous "socialist regime".
posted by 6ATR at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by 6ATR at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
They've attacked lots of candidates for lots of things. This is not what I asked.
Um, ok. Point is, they've been using the word SOCIALISM so much that it's reached a Boy Who Cried Wolf level. The word has lost its sting among people who aren't already right wingers.
On preview, see dialethia's link.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Um, ok. Point is, they've been using the word SOCIALISM so much that it's reached a Boy Who Cried Wolf level. The word has lost its sting among people who aren't already right wingers.
On preview, see dialethia's link.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Can we not call Hillary Clinton "Mrs. C"?
Eyyyyyyyyyyy!
posted by Trochanter at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Eyyyyyyyyyyy!
posted by Trochanter at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
David Brooks: Useless, But Not A Monster
There, I gave him credit
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
There, I gave him credit
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
If Trump loses here, he's pretty much done.
Trump can self-finance. He can stay in the race as long as he's willing to throw money at it, no matter how badly he does in the primaries.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016
Trump can self-finance. He can stay in the race as long as he's willing to throw money at it, no matter how badly he does in the primaries.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think Vermin Supreme will do better this year than he has in any previous election.
I mean this guy, not Trump.
posted by charred husk at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean this guy, not Trump.
posted by charred husk at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you want to vote for Bernie Sanders because you like his ideas, that's fine and honorable. But please don't kid yourselves... if you think anything of any substance will come out of his proposals, I'm sure Trump will have some walls he would love to sell you.
So again, why should I expect anything different from Clinton? At least Sanders will use his executive power to regulate the banks instead of just taking their money and appointing another Wall Street insider treasury secretary.
posted by dialetheia at 1:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
So again, why should I expect anything different from Clinton? At least Sanders will use his executive power to regulate the banks instead of just taking their money and appointing another Wall Street insider treasury secretary.
posted by dialetheia at 1:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Can we be a little nicer than "you're dead to me if you vote for [this person]"?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
To be honest, the Right isn't attacking Sanders, because honestly, nobody thinks that Sanders will be able to accomplish much in office. He's like the Ned Stark of American politics right now.
posted by corb at 1:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Xharl/Cultist 2016: release us from our flesh prisons
posted by poffin boffin at 1:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Every pundit and pollster secretly knows this and won't say it.
You lost me with the suggestion that pundits have any thoughts they're unwilling to share.
posted by phearlez at 1:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
You lost me with the suggestion that pundits have any thoughts they're unwilling to share.
posted by phearlez at 1:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
The right isn't attacking Sanders because they're perfectly happy to let him chip away at Clinton during the primary season. Why undercut that?
If he wins the nomination, their baleful demon eye will swivel towards him, and things will get ugly fast.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
If he wins the nomination, their baleful demon eye will swivel towards him, and things will get ugly fast.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
I'd just be curious to see what happens when somebody doesn't run and hide when she/he gets called a socialist.
I'm still ticked that we let them steal "liberal" from the left. Cowardice.
posted by Trochanter at 1:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm still ticked that we let them steal "liberal" from the left. Cowardice.
posted by Trochanter at 1:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
The right isn't attacking Sanders yet for two reasons:
1) They still believe Clinton will be the nominee so they are still attacking her.
2) They are hoping for a bitter primary fight to alienate Sanders supporters, so they don't want to attack Sanders (yet) in the hopes that he continues to do well.
posted by Justinian at 1:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
1) They still believe Clinton will be the nominee so they are still attacking her.
2) They are hoping for a bitter primary fight to alienate Sanders supporters, so they don't want to attack Sanders (yet) in the hopes that he continues to do well.
posted by Justinian at 1:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
The right is still after Obama.
posted by sweetkid at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
Because she doesn't have inspiring policies. Now, Elizabeth Warren? That would be inspiring.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [49 favorites]
Because she doesn't have inspiring policies. Now, Elizabeth Warren? That would be inspiring.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [49 favorites]
3) They believe Sanders will be easier to beat, so they want to help his chances.
posted by crazy with stars at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by crazy with stars at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
I think it's the candidate who's not inspiring, to be honest. It would look like Black Friday at the polling places if Elizabeth Warren ran.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think it's the candidate who's not inspiring, to be honest. It would look like Black Friday at the polling places if Elizabeth Warren ran.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
2) They are hoping for a bitter primary fight to alienate Sanders supporters, so they don't want to attack Sanders (yet) in the hopes that he continues to do well.
They are definitely hoping to pick up Sanders supporters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
They are definitely hoping to pick up Sanders supporters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was inspired after HRC won Iowa. She was described as "shouting" by the pundits and all "she's gotta stop the shouting" but I admire her victories. I would be shouting too.
posted by sweetkid at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
and by god if you tantrum yourself into splitting the vote by going independent because your fave didn't get the nom then you're fucking dead to me
I'm trying to come up with a response to this that is diplomatic but I have to keep deleting everything I write.
So I'll just say this: maybe a little less open hostility would be nice.
posted by Foosnark at 2:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm trying to come up with a response to this that is diplomatic but I have to keep deleting everything I write.
So I'll just say this: maybe a little less open hostility would be nice.
posted by Foosnark at 2:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
man, it's kinda rough in here huh?
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 2:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 2:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Brooks admits to the public at large that he's no longer a Republican, then he loses that sweet NPR Friday afternoon commentator job where he gets to tell the nation that Republicans aren't that bad, and they'll definitely come back around to sanity any day now.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
I don't think I have the energy to completely re-engage in the exact same arguments that we had last megathread, but I will say this: Nobody can say what will or will not happen in absolutes at this point in the cycle. Reading "___ will never happen" or "___ is guaranteed" is really tiresome, and nobody here can claim to know the future - otherwise, Trump would have never made it this far, or Sanders wouldn't have, or Cruz, or Rubio, or Kasich, or god knows what other thing I've read that "won't happen" here.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
I wish we could let go of this permanent-loser mentality like every right-wing attack is a sure winner and there's nothing we could ever do to counter it. It's self-defeating, makes us look weak and wishy-washy to voters, and keeps us triangulating against ourselves. We should speak out for what we believe in, not triangulate before we even get to the negotiating table.
posted by dialetheia at 2:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [35 favorites]
Out of curiosity, did either candidate or President Obama ever refer to himself as a socialist? I don't remember him doing so.
It's weird that no one can answer this without talking about the electability of socialists or some other anecdotes or talking about how Obama is black and not just answering the question, but keep cutting and pasting it.
However, though I am citeless I feel pretty confident that he wouldn't have called himself a socialist.
posted by sweetkid at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
If someone can explain to me WHY Trump would want to be President, then I might get concerned about it but it's ridiculous. He doesn't want it.
posted by agregoli at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Why on Earth should we assume that a GOP Congress which should still look a lot like the current one will be willing to compromise and work with Bernie Sanders on just about anything that doesn't have to do with gun policy? Raising taxes? Good luck. Single payer? You mean before or after they vote for the 10,000th time to repeal Obamacare? Free education? Yeah right.
So given all that, hostile congress and all, your choices are a) a survivor who has been at the epicentre of political polarization for 25 years, but only really been part of it for a couple of terms, and b) someone who has dealt with the political forces for 30 years on an intimate level?
I'm really not getting why the "why choose a lesser evil" argument is a winner. They've both got a ton of experience. Neither is untested. One has a track record of getting things done in that system, the other of causing her opponents to lose their minds. That's been the history of the last 7 years. Is it the right choice for at least the next four?
posted by bonehead at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
So given all that, hostile congress and all, your choices are a) a survivor who has been at the epicentre of political polarization for 25 years, but only really been part of it for a couple of terms, and b) someone who has dealt with the political forces for 30 years on an intimate level?
I'm really not getting why the "why choose a lesser evil" argument is a winner. They've both got a ton of experience. Neither is untested. One has a track record of getting things done in that system, the other of causing her opponents to lose their minds. That's been the history of the last 7 years. Is it the right choice for at least the next four?
posted by bonehead at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why on Earth should we assume that a GOP Congress which should still look a lot like the current one will be willing to compromise and work with Bernie Sanders on just about anything that doesn't have to do with gun policy? Raising taxes? Good luck. Single payer? You mean before or after they vote for the 10,000th time to repeal Obamacare? Free education? Yeah right.
Hillary Clinton could not possibly have it any easier. The GOP has been hating on her for decades. If she becomes President, that won't magically stop, and if anything, it would get worse.
Whatever advantages that Clinton has over Sanders, being able to "get things done" is not one of them, especially when "getting things done" would mean caving to special interests at the expense of the public.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Hillary Clinton could not possibly have it any easier. The GOP has been hating on her for decades. If she becomes President, that won't magically stop, and if anything, it would get worse.
Whatever advantages that Clinton has over Sanders, being able to "get things done" is not one of them, especially when "getting things done" would mean caving to special interests at the expense of the public.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
"As I see it, to counsel realism when the reality is fucked is to counsel an adherence to fuckery. Under conditions as distressing as these, acquiescence is absurd."
The overwhelming political trend of this election so far, the one that the pundits, both armchair and professional, have been underestimating continuously and staggeringly at every point so far, is how powerfully anti-establishment the electorate is feeling right now. That's why Bernie's doing better than expected, and it's also the reason why Trump hasn't been the silly flash-in-the-pan joke candidate that everyone initially thought he would be. You want my election prediction? Mine is this: Being seen as "the establishment candidate" will be the kiss of death for whichever candidate gets stuck with that label in the general election. Which means if we get Trump vs. Sanders, things could get really hairy.
But while Trump having a real shot at the White House is a terrifying proposition, that anti-establishment zeitgeist is exciting. Hilary's losing ground because she's seen as the political insider, the bought-and-paid-for pro-Wall-Street candidate. All that money, all that fundraising poured in to her campaign from Wall Street, is now an albatross hung around her neck. If Bernie actually manages to win the presidency, he'll have struck a blow for getting the money out of politics all before he's ever even been sworn in. Future political candidates may actually begin to perceive a cost in taking money from deep corporate pockets, they may have to actually consider whether corporate donors will cost them votes, and it'll ultimately be a lot easier for them to say no to that money. Even if only a few political candidates follow Bernie's lead initially, they in turn will open up the debate about corporate money in politics even wider. It's an incremental step but still, to move in that direction at all, that's huge.
Or as Robert Reich puts it:"The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a “recipe for gridlock.”
Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock.
This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system."
posted by mstokes650 at 2:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [44 favorites]
The overwhelming political trend of this election so far, the one that the pundits, both armchair and professional, have been underestimating continuously and staggeringly at every point so far, is how powerfully anti-establishment the electorate is feeling right now. That's why Bernie's doing better than expected, and it's also the reason why Trump hasn't been the silly flash-in-the-pan joke candidate that everyone initially thought he would be. You want my election prediction? Mine is this: Being seen as "the establishment candidate" will be the kiss of death for whichever candidate gets stuck with that label in the general election. Which means if we get Trump vs. Sanders, things could get really hairy.
But while Trump having a real shot at the White House is a terrifying proposition, that anti-establishment zeitgeist is exciting. Hilary's losing ground because she's seen as the political insider, the bought-and-paid-for pro-Wall-Street candidate. All that money, all that fundraising poured in to her campaign from Wall Street, is now an albatross hung around her neck. If Bernie actually manages to win the presidency, he'll have struck a blow for getting the money out of politics all before he's ever even been sworn in. Future political candidates may actually begin to perceive a cost in taking money from deep corporate pockets, they may have to actually consider whether corporate donors will cost them votes, and it'll ultimately be a lot easier for them to say no to that money. Even if only a few political candidates follow Bernie's lead initially, they in turn will open up the debate about corporate money in politics even wider. It's an incremental step but still, to move in that direction at all, that's huge.
Or as Robert Reich puts it:"The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a “recipe for gridlock.”
Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock.
This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system."
posted by mstokes650 at 2:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [44 favorites]
I still have yet to hear how someone under active investigation by the FBI and under threat of indictment is self-evidently electable. I wish somebody arguing Clinton's superior electability would at least acknowledge her terrible favorables and her ongoing scandals (the emails thing, the arms deals/Clinton Foundation thing), which should scare any Democrat.
posted by dialetheia at 2:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
If someone can explain to me WHY Trump would want to be President, then I might get concerned about it but it's ridiculous. He doesn't want it.
Trump is treating this as a popularity contest and loves having his ego stroked.
posted by 6ATR at 2:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump is treating this as a popularity contest and loves having his ego stroked.
posted by 6ATR at 2:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Unable to parse out an actual case for Clinton at this point. The "safe bet" one is rapidly evaporating.
posted by Artw at 2:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
It's inspiring, sure I guess, but Clinton and some of her supporters have directly taken the attitude that women owe her their votes because of their shared gender, and that's incredibly condescending.
There's a lot of young Sanders supporters out there, some voting in their first elections. They are, against all odds, somehow excited by a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist from Vermont because he isn't like everyone else who comes out of the Democratic machine. Some of those supporters, certainly, are women. These are young voters excited about politics in a way we haven't seen in a while. That's a really good thing. To hear that there's a "special place in hell" reserved for them because they're not backing Clinton is horrifying (yes, I'm aware you can interpret Albright's comment a couple of ways).
posted by zachlipton at 2:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
It's inspiring, sure I guess, but Clinton and some of her supporters have directly taken the attitude that women owe her their votes because of their shared gender, and that's incredibly condescending.
There's a lot of young Sanders supporters out there, some voting in their first elections. They are, against all odds, somehow excited by a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist from Vermont because he isn't like everyone else who comes out of the Democratic machine. Some of those supporters, certainly, are women. These are young voters excited about politics in a way we haven't seen in a while. That's a really good thing. To hear that there's a "special place in hell" reserved for them because they're not backing Clinton is horrifying (yes, I'm aware you can interpret Albright's comment a couple of ways).
posted by zachlipton at 2:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
If someone can explain to me WHY Trump would want to be President, then I might get concerned about it but it's ridiculous. He doesn't want it.
Tbh I think he just wants to furiously masturbate to his own publicity. I would very much like to not have this mental image in my head and would pay good money to have it professionally removed.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Tbh I think he just wants to furiously masturbate to his own publicity. I would very much like to not have this mental image in my head and would pay good money to have it professionally removed.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I still have yet to hear how someone under active investigation by the FBI and under threat of indictment is self-evidently electable.
She's not. If this FBI thing is serious, her candidacy is a waste of our time and money.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2016
She's not. If this FBI thing is serious, her candidacy is a waste of our time and money.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2016
Yes, duh. Why would he want the actual JOB of the Presidency? We are under zero threat of Trump rule.
posted by agregoli at 2:09 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by agregoli at 2:09 PM on February 9, 2016
If someone can explain to me WHY Trump would want to be President, then I might get concerned about it but it's ridiculous. He doesn't want it.
Trump is treating this as a popularity contest and loves having his ego stroked.
He'd Palin out of there so fucking fast the moment it seemed boring or demanding. But he could still do a lot of damage before that.
(also risk of actual Palin as VP)
posted by Artw at 2:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is treating this as a popularity contest and loves having his ego stroked.
He'd Palin out of there so fucking fast the moment it seemed boring or demanding. But he could still do a lot of damage before that.
(also risk of actual Palin as VP)
posted by Artw at 2:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
It's pretty wild. There are a lot of feminist reasons not to support her, though (welfare reform is a big one). In New Hampshire, a recent poll showed that 87% of women under 34 intended to vote for Sanders, compared to an abysmal 9% for Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 2:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's pretty wild. There are a lot of feminist reasons not to support her, though (welfare reform is a big one). In New Hampshire, a recent poll showed that 87% of women under 34 intended to vote for Sanders, compared to an abysmal 9% for Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 2:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
god who would he even pick as his VP
prolly that Shkreli shitstain
posted by poffin boffin at 2:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
prolly that Shkreli shitstain
posted by poffin boffin at 2:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Maybe we could, and I'm just spitballing here, maybe we could try to win some of those elections instead of writing them off and assuming the worst? This is not exactly a winning attitude that Democrats are taking this year.
You're absolutely right, we shouldn't be defeatist and assume Democrats would be unable to win a significant number of downticket...
The other thing I'd like to know re: downticket races is how Hillary Clinton expects to get high turnout to get any of those people elected when nearly 90% of young voters support Sanders, not her.
Oh, never mind. Defeatism it is, then.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're absolutely right, we shouldn't be defeatist and assume Democrats would be unable to win a significant number of downticket...
The other thing I'd like to know re: downticket races is how Hillary Clinton expects to get high turnout to get any of those people elected when nearly 90% of young voters support Sanders, not her.
Oh, never mind. Defeatism it is, then.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're in Manhattan walking along on the sidewalk when all of the sudden you look down, and you see an uninsured man. He's crawling toward you. You repealed the ACA. The man has cancer, his tumor growing unchecked. He tries to seek help, but he can't afford it, not without your legislative help. But youre not helping. Why is that?
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Trump/Shkreli 2016 - "Let's Plead the Fifth Again!"
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wish somebody arguing Clinton's superior electability would at least acknowledge her terrible favorables and her ongoing scandals (the emails thing, the arms deals/Clinton Foundation thing), which should scare any Democrat.
Say what you will about the Clintons, scandals whether real or imagined have never stood in the way of political success for either of them.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Say what you will about the Clintons, scandals whether real or imagined have never stood in the way of political success for either of them.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, never mind. Defeatism it is, then.
How so? What's her plan? I'd love to hear it.
posted by dialetheia at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2016
How so? What's her plan? I'd love to hear it.
posted by dialetheia at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2016
1. Liberals have for the last 25 years had > 90% support for Democratic presidential candidates, which is a more consistent track record than Conservatives for Republicans over the same period.
2. The extended primary for 2008 led to one of the best years for Democrats across the slate, largely because Democrats organized in races they historically ceded to Republicans by offering only token opposition or no opposition at all.
3. Honestly, I don't see much of a Republican strategy at all this year.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
2. The extended primary for 2008 led to one of the best years for Democrats across the slate, largely because Democrats organized in races they historically ceded to Republicans by offering only token opposition or no opposition at all.
3. Honestly, I don't see much of a Republican strategy at all this year.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
compromise and work with Bernie Sanders on just about anything that doesn't have to do with gun policy?
If these predications about Bernie and Hillary working with Congress are true, then this might actually be the only area we could gain any ground, period, no matter which one won.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:14 PM on February 9, 2016
If these predications about Bernie and Hillary working with Congress are true, then this might actually be the only area we could gain any ground, period, no matter which one won.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:14 PM on February 9, 2016
god who would he even pick as his VP
one of his children
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
one of his children
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
come-from-behind Santorum
*big sigh*
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
*big sigh*
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
I think it is, to many people, and anyone who doesn't understand that is very much underestimating this race. People criticize her for being too conventional... well, maybe instead of electing more men at every level of government, we can actually elect a fair share of women and then there would be lots of progressive women presidential candidates to choose between instead of another race with bucketloads of men and one woman.
People disparage anyone who votes for a candidate "just because she's a woman" but if we're serious about wanting viable female candidates for leadership, at some point we all need to be voting on gender. If not in this election, then in other elections.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think it is, to many people, and anyone who doesn't understand that is very much underestimating this race. People criticize her for being too conventional... well, maybe instead of electing more men at every level of government, we can actually elect a fair share of women and then there would be lots of progressive women presidential candidates to choose between instead of another race with bucketloads of men and one woman.
People disparage anyone who votes for a candidate "just because she's a woman" but if we're serious about wanting viable female candidates for leadership, at some point we all need to be voting on gender. If not in this election, then in other elections.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Among others.
Taking Hannan's "analysis" of On the Jewish Question seriously is pretty dangerous. The essay is a defence of Jewish political emancipation. It is couched in terms that are horrific in this age, but it is impossible to describe it as antisemitic in a meaningful sense, in the context of its age. That doesn't excuse its language, but it doesn't support the view that the left (or Marx) was antisemitic
A hundred years ago, an outspoken socialist politician would most likely have run on an anti-semitic platform. Without even bothering to disguise who they were ranting against.
There was antisemetism in some political campaigning on the left in the early 20th century. But I have never seen any reason to favour the idea that it was more prevalent here than anywhere else. Antisemitism was rife, everywhere. The left has no excuse for partaking, but associating antisemitism with the left is, I'd suggest, wholly unsupported by the facts of history.
posted by howfar at 2:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Taking Hannan's "analysis" of On the Jewish Question seriously is pretty dangerous. The essay is a defence of Jewish political emancipation. It is couched in terms that are horrific in this age, but it is impossible to describe it as antisemitic in a meaningful sense, in the context of its age. That doesn't excuse its language, but it doesn't support the view that the left (or Marx) was antisemitic
A hundred years ago, an outspoken socialist politician would most likely have run on an anti-semitic platform. Without even bothering to disguise who they were ranting against.
There was antisemetism in some political campaigning on the left in the early 20th century. But I have never seen any reason to favour the idea that it was more prevalent here than anywhere else. Antisemitism was rife, everywhere. The left has no excuse for partaking, but associating antisemitism with the left is, I'd suggest, wholly unsupported by the facts of history.
posted by howfar at 2:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
NEW: 2/3 of New Hampshire GOP voters favor temporarily banning Muslims who are not US citizens from entry, per preliminary exit poll results
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2016
Ok, so, if infinite potential equals infinite outcomes, with each possibility as likely as any other, then here is my official prediction slash ideal manifest timeline:
Ted Cruz secures GOP nomination. Trump, claiming foul-play, runs an independent campaign. This pits key Republican demographics* against each other in an ugly fracas.
Sanders takes the Dem nom, runs with Warren as VP, and wins big, having earned the landslide support of POC voters with a strong and unequivocal stance to end inequality and police violence. Clinton and Bloomberg make a lot of noise about running a spoiler campaign together, but drop out after taking acid and disappearing into the wilderness.
*the psychotically racist and the psychotically religious
I humbly posit that this eventuality is as likely as any other, and I'll bookmark this post so I can check back next year when this insane rigamarole is concluded.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ted Cruz secures GOP nomination. Trump, claiming foul-play, runs an independent campaign. This pits key Republican demographics* against each other in an ugly fracas.
Sanders takes the Dem nom, runs with Warren as VP, and wins big, having earned the landslide support of POC voters with a strong and unequivocal stance to end inequality and police violence. Clinton and Bloomberg make a lot of noise about running a spoiler campaign together, but drop out after taking acid and disappearing into the wilderness.
*the psychotically racist and the psychotically religious
I humbly posit that this eventuality is as likely as any other, and I'll bookmark this post so I can check back next year when this insane rigamarole is concluded.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
if we're serious about wanting viable female candidates for leadership, at some point we all need to be voting on gender.
Wait, so I was supposed to vote for Sarah Palin?
posted by dialetheia at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Wait, so I was supposed to vote for Sarah Palin?
posted by dialetheia at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
god who would he even pick as his VP
prolly that Shkreli shitstain
Martin Shkreli is too much of a buffoon to be a shitstain. AP suggests "bonerfart."
posted by duffell at 2:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
prolly that Shkreli shitstain
Martin Shkreli is too much of a buffoon to be a shitstain. AP suggests "bonerfart."
posted by duffell at 2:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only tortoises crossing the desert entered this country illegally. Tortoise flipping is a valid tactic to detain tortoises until Tortoise Control Agents show up. I promise that, if elected president, I will build a very low wall along the border.
Build a turtle fence!
posted by knuckle tattoos at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Build a turtle fence!
posted by knuckle tattoos at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's amazing to me that the possibility (probability?) that we will elect our first woman commander-in-chief this year is not incredibly inspiring to more people.
You want us to get excited about a woman president? Elect someone exciting.
posted by crazylegs at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You want us to get excited about a woman president? Elect someone exciting.
posted by crazylegs at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Wait, so I was supposed to vote for Sarah Palin?
I see you only read one sentence in my 4-sentence-long comment. Here's an earlier sentence, copied for your convenience:
maybe instead of electing more men at every level of government, we can actually elect a fair share of women and then there would be lots of progressive women presidential candidates to choose between
i.e. stop making coy comments like this and go elect some female representatives and senators, so that when someone asks why you don't elect any women presidents, you can't just say "oh well the only choice was Sarah Palin so I guess I'm off the hook!"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I see you only read one sentence in my 4-sentence-long comment. Here's an earlier sentence, copied for your convenience:
maybe instead of electing more men at every level of government, we can actually elect a fair share of women and then there would be lots of progressive women presidential candidates to choose between
i.e. stop making coy comments like this and go elect some female representatives and senators, so that when someone asks why you don't elect any women presidents, you can't just say "oh well the only choice was Sarah Palin so I guess I'm off the hook!"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
If anyone needs a break, this is kinda fun: Party, Gender, Whiskey: How Campaigns
Place Ads to Reach New Hampshire Voters
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016
Place Ads to Reach New Hampshire Voters
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016
I wonder if Trump would hold an Apprentice-style competition for the VP spot.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
How so? What's her plan? I'd love to hear it.
For getting people to vote Democratic in downticket races? How is that her personal responsibility?
If you're going to absurdly insist that the presidential nominee is personally responsible for getting people to vote in downticket races, then what's Sanders's plan, for that matter? (N.B.: "Sanders currently polls better than Clinton among young voters" is a statistic, not a plan.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
For getting people to vote Democratic in downticket races? How is that her personal responsibility?
If you're going to absurdly insist that the presidential nominee is personally responsible for getting people to vote in downticket races, then what's Sanders's plan, for that matter? (N.B.: "Sanders currently polls better than Clinton among young voters" is a statistic, not a plan.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
You want us to get excited about a woman president? Elect someone exciting.
Knowles-Carter/Cox 2016
posted by poffin boffin at 2:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Knowles-Carter/Cox 2016
posted by poffin boffin at 2:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
I won't throw around death-wishes metaphorical or otherwise, but I completely grok where they come from.
I can say that I will be completely disgusted with a splitting of the democratic vote, because that's when we get WATCH THE FUCK OUT for MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SHIT.
I don't want to insult people, but at the same time I believe individual voters have a responsibility for the health of the republic. I think that some Nader voters were irresponsible and share an amount of blame for the Bush years. I worry that Sanders voters will not be responsible with their votes (i.e., not voting if Sanders is not the nom or throwing away their votes in some other way).
posted by angrycat at 2:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can say that I will be completely disgusted with a splitting of the democratic vote, because that's when we get WATCH THE FUCK OUT for MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SHIT.
I don't want to insult people, but at the same time I believe individual voters have a responsibility for the health of the republic. I think that some Nader voters were irresponsible and share an amount of blame for the Bush years. I worry that Sanders voters will not be responsible with their votes (i.e., not voting if Sanders is not the nom or throwing away their votes in some other way).
posted by angrycat at 2:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I voted for Hilary Clinton. She became my senator. I wrote her six letters asking her not to approve use of force in Iraq. She said she had special knowledge.
Never again.
posted by lumpenprole at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
Never again.
posted by lumpenprole at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [50 favorites]
one of his children
Which one?
This one: Piteous Soul Trump Jr. Bemoans the Trials Of Being a Billionaire's Son?
Or this one: Donald Trump’s Son Compares Waterboarding to Frat Parties - "No different than what happens on college campuses in frat houses every day"?
posted by Room 641-A at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016
Which one?
This one: Piteous Soul Trump Jr. Bemoans the Trials Of Being a Billionaire's Son?
Or this one: Donald Trump’s Son Compares Waterboarding to Frat Parties - "No different than what happens on college campuses in frat houses every day"?
posted by Room 641-A at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016
Knowles-Carter/Cox 2016
stop making me want things
posted by sweetkid at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Judge irked by State Dept.'s delay in releasing rest of Clinton's emails: Contreras signaled that he was not inclined to grant State's request that the deadline for a release of all remaining pages of Clinton's emails be extended until the end of this month. However, he did not immediately set a new deadline for State to complete its work on the Clinton messages.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
They called Obama all kinds of appalling, horrible things and he still got elected, though.
Obama was elected twice by a core constituency of minority voters, specifically African-American voters, who turned out in record numbers to support him. In 2012, a higher percentage of African-Americans than Whites voted in a presidential election for the first time in history.
Even if every Jewish person of voting age in the United States voted for Sanders, that wouldn't clinch the election for him. There aren't enough of us.
By the way, Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh tried to use those voting statistics to stir up anti-Black hatred afterwards. Standard rhetoric was that the minorities were stealing the country away from White people, or some such nonsense.
Did the pundits succeed? Maybe. Hard to say with any certainty. There have been a number of studies (some of the more interesting written or co-authored by Mia Moody-Ramirez over at Baylor, which have noted that anti-Black racism and persecution by White authorities have either worsened severely in the last 8 years (and more specifically in the last 3 or 4) or the level of racism hasn't really changed but has simply become a lot more public and less hidden.
I do take the possibility of antisemitism becoming more overt or more publicly acceptable in this country quite seriously. And no, it wouldn't stop me from voting for Sanders in the general. But yes, I remain convinced that they'll go after him for being Jewish.
posted by zarq at 2:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Obama was elected twice by a core constituency of minority voters, specifically African-American voters, who turned out in record numbers to support him. In 2012, a higher percentage of African-Americans than Whites voted in a presidential election for the first time in history.
Even if every Jewish person of voting age in the United States voted for Sanders, that wouldn't clinch the election for him. There aren't enough of us.
By the way, Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh tried to use those voting statistics to stir up anti-Black hatred afterwards. Standard rhetoric was that the minorities were stealing the country away from White people, or some such nonsense.
Did the pundits succeed? Maybe. Hard to say with any certainty. There have been a number of studies (some of the more interesting written or co-authored by Mia Moody-Ramirez over at Baylor, which have noted that anti-Black racism and persecution by White authorities have either worsened severely in the last 8 years (and more specifically in the last 3 or 4) or the level of racism hasn't really changed but has simply become a lot more public and less hidden.
I do take the possibility of antisemitism becoming more overt or more publicly acceptable in this country quite seriously. And no, it wouldn't stop me from voting for Sanders in the general. But yes, I remain convinced that they'll go after him for being Jewish.
posted by zarq at 2:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
god who would he even pick as his VP
George. George was always the smartest guy in the Trump boardroom. Ivanka is good, too. Like George, she knows which way the Trump wind is blowing, and can back off from good sense accordingly. But George, he could always lead The Donald without him knowing it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
George. George was always the smartest guy in the Trump boardroom. Ivanka is good, too. Like George, she knows which way the Trump wind is blowing, and can back off from good sense accordingly. But George, he could always lead The Donald without him knowing it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gary Busey would be a good VP choice.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
stop making me want things
imagine the inauguration
imagine the afterparty
posted by poffin boffin at 2:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
imagine the inauguration
imagine the afterparty
posted by poffin boffin at 2:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
hard reality check for a lot of people as far as what idealism looks like when it gets in the White House.
I for one was never under the impression that he would face anything but what he faced, and despite being genuinely disappointed that Guantanamo is still open, torturers and banker-thieves still walk free, and war still consumes the Middle East, I consider what he has gotten done quite enough to rank him as the best president of my lifetime, certainly, and to say I do not feel my vote (and money, and campaigning effort) was not earned.
What the right fails to realize is that the level of bigoted, irrational, intransigent opposition that they threw in front of this president will end up driving his legacy far above where it might have landed. The second sentence of his biography will forever read (after "first black president"): " . . . who faced defiant obstruction from the right couched in unabashedly bigoted terms for his entire presidency and yet accomplished more than any liberal president since FDR, if not since Lincoln." He kept a good humored facade the whole time, and he worked around unbelievable ugliness -- and he's not done yet.
I never felt my fondness for him was "naive idealism." My first thought upon hearing him, as did so many, for the first time at the 2004 DNC, was "holy shit, a black progressive candidate who can win because he is smarter and more eloquent and more capable than anyone we've put on the ballot in a generation," not "there goes the leftist leader of my dreams."
I don't excuse his failures, some of which have been matters of priorities set differently than mine, some of which I consider horrific (primarily in Middle East policy and surveillance state stuff). I never thought he was anything but a pragmatist who could inspire people to the patience required for slow, incremental struggle.
There is no such candidate running this year.
Michelle Obama 2020.
posted by spitbull at 2:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
I for one was never under the impression that he would face anything but what he faced, and despite being genuinely disappointed that Guantanamo is still open, torturers and banker-thieves still walk free, and war still consumes the Middle East, I consider what he has gotten done quite enough to rank him as the best president of my lifetime, certainly, and to say I do not feel my vote (and money, and campaigning effort) was not earned.
What the right fails to realize is that the level of bigoted, irrational, intransigent opposition that they threw in front of this president will end up driving his legacy far above where it might have landed. The second sentence of his biography will forever read (after "first black president"): " . . . who faced defiant obstruction from the right couched in unabashedly bigoted terms for his entire presidency and yet accomplished more than any liberal president since FDR, if not since Lincoln." He kept a good humored facade the whole time, and he worked around unbelievable ugliness -- and he's not done yet.
I never felt my fondness for him was "naive idealism." My first thought upon hearing him, as did so many, for the first time at the 2004 DNC, was "holy shit, a black progressive candidate who can win because he is smarter and more eloquent and more capable than anyone we've put on the ballot in a generation," not "there goes the leftist leader of my dreams."
I don't excuse his failures, some of which have been matters of priorities set differently than mine, some of which I consider horrific (primarily in Middle East policy and surveillance state stuff). I never thought he was anything but a pragmatist who could inspire people to the patience required for slow, incremental struggle.
There is no such candidate running this year.
Michelle Obama 2020.
posted by spitbull at 2:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Rubio supporters get physical with protester dressed as a robot
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carolyn or GTFO
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
People criticize her for being too conventional... well, maybe instead of electing more men at every level of government, we can actually elect a fair share of women and then there would be lots of progressive women presidential candidates to choose between instead of another race with bucketloads of men and one woman.
Wouldn't having an overwhelming majority of support from women make this more likely to happen?
posted by Room 641-A at 2:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't having an overwhelming majority of support from women make this more likely to happen?
posted by Room 641-A at 2:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
What kills me in watching the Dem race is that the Clintons are showing the scars and the tactics learned from '90s politics, and this simply isn't that kind of race. They had their biggest run in an all-negative, all-the-time environment and learned to give as good as they got. Yet it seemed pretty clear that they would really have rather stuck to issues instead of than partisan fighting, and that the poisonous tone of politics was a real tragedy.
Now she's up against someone who really is sticking to policy and voting records. The Bernie Bros have put out a lot of jackass things online, but Bernie has unequivocally called that out as crap and said he doesn't want it. I was really glad to see that. And so you have Bernie sticking to the high road and the Clintons going back and forth...and man, they do not look good with the negative attacks on Bernie. Going after his voting record on guns or whatever is fair, but the other stuff? Backfires. Looks petty and desperate, and all the more tragic for it.
I wish someone would tell Hillary (and Bill!) to put away the brass knuckles and low blows and save it for the general if they get that far. That shit will totally fly in the general, 'cause the Republican field is basically all actual monsters, but Hillary vs Bernie just ain't that kind of struggle. Not at all.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
Now she's up against someone who really is sticking to policy and voting records. The Bernie Bros have put out a lot of jackass things online, but Bernie has unequivocally called that out as crap and said he doesn't want it. I was really glad to see that. And so you have Bernie sticking to the high road and the Clintons going back and forth...and man, they do not look good with the negative attacks on Bernie. Going after his voting record on guns or whatever is fair, but the other stuff? Backfires. Looks petty and desperate, and all the more tragic for it.
I wish someone would tell Hillary (and Bill!) to put away the brass knuckles and low blows and save it for the general if they get that far. That shit will totally fly in the general, 'cause the Republican field is basically all actual monsters, but Hillary vs Bernie just ain't that kind of struggle. Not at all.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
Even if every Jewish person of voting age in the United States voted for Sanders, that wouldn't clinch the election for him. There aren't enough of us.
Implausible scenario. Since when have any two Jewish people had fewer than three opinions between them?
posted by acb at 2:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
There was antisemetism in some political campaigning on the left in the early 20th century. But I have never seen any reason to favour the idea that it was more prevalent here than anywhere else. Antisemitism was rife, everywhere. The left has no excuse for partaking, but associating antisemitism with the left is, I'd suggest, wholly unsupported by the facts of history.
You seem to be arguing against several things I haven't actually said.
Or implied.
Or even thought.
posted by zarq at 2:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
You seem to be arguing against several things I haven't actually said.
Or implied.
Or even thought.
posted by zarq at 2:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Implausible scenario. Since when have any two Jewish people had fewer than three opinions between them?
Bravo! :D
posted by zarq at 2:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bravo! :D
posted by zarq at 2:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you're going to absurdly insist that the presidential nominee is personally responsible for getting people to vote in downticket races, then what's Sanders's plan, for that matter? (N.B.: "Sanders currently polls better than Clinton among young voters" is a statistic, not a plan.)
That's what his whole "political revolution" stump speech line is about - bringing people who have given up on the political process back into it by demonstrating that not everyone involved is bought and paid for, that there is still someone advocating for working people and not billionaires. It's one of the biggest planks in his platform if you actually listen to him speak. Clinton, by contrast, is being outfundraised by Bernie Sanders and is not generating anywhere near the enthusiasm that he is. He stands a better chance of delivering high turnout because people are much more excited and motivated about his campaign.
(from that article) "What this campaign is about is not just electing a president, it is transforming America,” the candidate told the crowd of young people, labor and community activists that assembled to march him into the hall where the dinner was to be held. “To do that we need millions of people—people who have given up on the political process, people who are demoralized, people who don’t believe that government listens to them. We need to bring those people together to stand up loudly and clearly and to say ‘Enough is enough.’ This country belongs to all of us, not just wealthy campaign donors."
posted by dialetheia at 2:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
That's what his whole "political revolution" stump speech line is about - bringing people who have given up on the political process back into it by demonstrating that not everyone involved is bought and paid for, that there is still someone advocating for working people and not billionaires. It's one of the biggest planks in his platform if you actually listen to him speak. Clinton, by contrast, is being outfundraised by Bernie Sanders and is not generating anywhere near the enthusiasm that he is. He stands a better chance of delivering high turnout because people are much more excited and motivated about his campaign.
(from that article) "What this campaign is about is not just electing a president, it is transforming America,” the candidate told the crowd of young people, labor and community activists that assembled to march him into the hall where the dinner was to be held. “To do that we need millions of people—people who have given up on the political process, people who are demoralized, people who don’t believe that government listens to them. We need to bring those people together to stand up loudly and clearly and to say ‘Enough is enough.’ This country belongs to all of us, not just wealthy campaign donors."
posted by dialetheia at 2:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
the man of twists and turns: Jeb Bush and the Gentleman Politician Death Spiral (in a Single Photo)
posted by clawsoon at 2:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The election for Bush was over the second that he let Donald Trump mount him and take him, like a lion on the grasslands.This pundit has never actually watched lions fucking, has he?
posted by clawsoon at 2:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or as Robert Reich puts it
Who else was kinda shocked to see Clinton's own Captain NAFTA write this?
posted by phearlez at 2:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who else was kinda shocked to see Clinton's own Captain NAFTA write this?
posted by phearlez at 2:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Maybe we could... try to win some of those elections instead of writing them off and assuming the worst? This is not exactly a winning attitude that Democrats are taking this year. "
The problem is, the Clinton / Sanders race is sucking all the oxygen -- and the money -- out of the room. The longer it lasts, the more $$ the Democrats lose for winning downticket elections.
It absolutely doesn't help that Sanders' campaign considers the DNC -- the largest source of income for these other elections -- as their enemies, which is basically unheard of and very damaging to funding the kind of Congress that both Clinton and Sanders would like to see.
To me, New Hampshire is largely a distraction and a done deal. It will clearly be one of Sanders strongest states -- Nate Silver ranked it as the second most favorable state for Sanders -- but I *really* don't see him getting much of a bounce in either Nevada or South Carolina because of winning the state.
In practical terms, I am thinking it will be a bit closer than what the polls average at, with a strong finish for Clinton, much like it was in 2008... but really, it's *still* likely to be a state Clinton gets slightly more delegates for than Sanders, once you factor in the superdelegates... and that's really what the game is all about.
Nevada could be close, as its a caucus, bit it still leans Clinton. South Carolina though is probably already a Clinton win. The last day to register was yesterday, and absentee ballots have been available for awhile now. That will lock in a large block of voters at about a 20 point margin for Clinton. Sanders has delivered only a speech or two in the whole state. As such, it is *very* unlikely he has had the ability to register his key supporters... and it's a larger state with less time to campaign in.
South Carolina -- and possibly Nevada -- is primarily what voters will remember going into Super Tuesday, and the big states in play are much closer to those two states than Iowa and New Hampshire. Practically every state that Sanders might "win" are Hillary victories, once you factor in superdelegates. And, with Clinton likely to run up the delegates in South Carolina, which has over twice as many as N.H., that's likely to give her a strong lead across the board, which will be near impossible for Sanders to reverse.
Despite Sanders supporter's claims, Clinton's superdelegate support is pretty much locked in. The media is already showing him being down 365 electoral votes. The only thing that might change that fact is if Sanders could decisively beat Clinton in several of the early large states.
He won't do it in Texas, for opposing immigration reform in 2007 and trying to send his nuclear waste across damn near a dozen states to a small latino town on the Rio Grande, despite their pleas. Sierra Blanca was a huge victory for environmentalists and progressives, who stopped this from happening.
He won't do it in Florida, which would hate him for being invited to visit Cuba, trying to meet Castro, and his history of viewing Castro as a hero, fighting "ugly, rich people"... many of whom are now Floridians.
So yeah, it's going to be brutal on Sanders, but that's a good thing for the Democrats, because they need to put forward the strongest ticket possible, and *really* need to get on with unifying the party and supporting down-ticket races.
posted by markkraft at 2:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
The problem is, the Clinton / Sanders race is sucking all the oxygen -- and the money -- out of the room. The longer it lasts, the more $$ the Democrats lose for winning downticket elections.
It absolutely doesn't help that Sanders' campaign considers the DNC -- the largest source of income for these other elections -- as their enemies, which is basically unheard of and very damaging to funding the kind of Congress that both Clinton and Sanders would like to see.
To me, New Hampshire is largely a distraction and a done deal. It will clearly be one of Sanders strongest states -- Nate Silver ranked it as the second most favorable state for Sanders -- but I *really* don't see him getting much of a bounce in either Nevada or South Carolina because of winning the state.
In practical terms, I am thinking it will be a bit closer than what the polls average at, with a strong finish for Clinton, much like it was in 2008... but really, it's *still* likely to be a state Clinton gets slightly more delegates for than Sanders, once you factor in the superdelegates... and that's really what the game is all about.
Nevada could be close, as its a caucus, bit it still leans Clinton. South Carolina though is probably already a Clinton win. The last day to register was yesterday, and absentee ballots have been available for awhile now. That will lock in a large block of voters at about a 20 point margin for Clinton. Sanders has delivered only a speech or two in the whole state. As such, it is *very* unlikely he has had the ability to register his key supporters... and it's a larger state with less time to campaign in.
South Carolina -- and possibly Nevada -- is primarily what voters will remember going into Super Tuesday, and the big states in play are much closer to those two states than Iowa and New Hampshire. Practically every state that Sanders might "win" are Hillary victories, once you factor in superdelegates. And, with Clinton likely to run up the delegates in South Carolina, which has over twice as many as N.H., that's likely to give her a strong lead across the board, which will be near impossible for Sanders to reverse.
Despite Sanders supporter's claims, Clinton's superdelegate support is pretty much locked in. The media is already showing him being down 365 electoral votes. The only thing that might change that fact is if Sanders could decisively beat Clinton in several of the early large states.
He won't do it in Texas, for opposing immigration reform in 2007 and trying to send his nuclear waste across damn near a dozen states to a small latino town on the Rio Grande, despite their pleas. Sierra Blanca was a huge victory for environmentalists and progressives, who stopped this from happening.
He won't do it in Florida, which would hate him for being invited to visit Cuba, trying to meet Castro, and his history of viewing Castro as a hero, fighting "ugly, rich people"... many of whom are now Floridians.
So yeah, it's going to be brutal on Sanders, but that's a good thing for the Democrats, because they need to put forward the strongest ticket possible, and *really* need to get on with unifying the party and supporting down-ticket races.
posted by markkraft at 2:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
This pundit has never actually watched lions fucking yt , has he?
Where'd you get this footy of hubby and me? LMAO!
posted by todayandtomorrow at 2:34 PM on February 9, 2016
Where'd you get this footy of hubby and me? LMAO!
posted by todayandtomorrow at 2:34 PM on February 9, 2016
NBC Exit Poll: 42% of GOP voters ID as Independent
posted by Room 641-A at 2:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 2:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you're going to absurdly insist that the presidential nominee is personally responsible for getting people to vote in downticket races, then what's Sanders's plan, for that matter? (N.B.: "Sanders currently polls better than Clinton among young voters" is a statistic, not a plan.)That's what his whole "political revolution" stump speech line is about -
A statement of intent is not the same as a plan.
posted by dersins at 2:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Practically every state that Sanders might "win" are Hillary victories, once you factor in superdelegates.
If Clinton wins the nom because of superdelegates rather than actual primary wins and normal delegates, a huge swath of the Democrats will flip the table so hard it'll shatter. She will be incredibly hobbled during the general.
I'm happy to vote for either Sanders or Clinton. I think they're both flawed and yet I'm comfortable with both of them. The only possible outcome of this primary that scares me is one of bitterness at the end of it...and I can't imagine a more bitter ending than that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
If Clinton wins the nom because of superdelegates rather than actual primary wins and normal delegates, a huge swath of the Democrats will flip the table so hard it'll shatter. She will be incredibly hobbled during the general.
I'm happy to vote for either Sanders or Clinton. I think they're both flawed and yet I'm comfortable with both of them. The only possible outcome of this primary that scares me is one of bitterness at the end of it...and I can't imagine a more bitter ending than that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
If someone can explain to me WHY Trump would want to be President, then I might get concerned about it but it's ridiculous. He doesn't want it.
You're asking why an egomanic would want to be the most famous and powerful person in the world?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
You're asking why an egomanic would want to be the most famous and powerful person in the world?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
the DNC -- the largest source of income for these other elections
But maybe that shouldn't be the largest source of income for these other elections. Maybe it should come from small dollar donations by the constituents in the districts.
Despite Sanders supporter's claims, Clinton's superdelegate support is pretty much locked in.
This is part of the problem. The will of the people doesn't matter if it's all pre-decided by superdelegates. "Vote Clinton because the Fix Is In!" is not an inspiring campaign platform.
Nevada could be close, as its a caucus, bit it still leans Clinton.
Nevada also has a high union representation rate, and with more radical-leaning unions like UNITE HERE. I could see Sanders winning easily in NV.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
But maybe that shouldn't be the largest source of income for these other elections. Maybe it should come from small dollar donations by the constituents in the districts.
Despite Sanders supporter's claims, Clinton's superdelegate support is pretty much locked in.
This is part of the problem. The will of the people doesn't matter if it's all pre-decided by superdelegates. "Vote Clinton because the Fix Is In!" is not an inspiring campaign platform.
Nevada could be close, as its a caucus, bit it still leans Clinton.
Nevada also has a high union representation rate, and with more radical-leaning unions like UNITE HERE. I could see Sanders winning easily in NV.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
It absolutely doesn't help that Sanders' campaign considers the DNC -- the largest source of income for these other elections -- as their enemies, which is basically unheard of and very damaging to funding the kind of Congress that both Clinton and Sanders would like to see.
That's completely disingenuous - if anything, it's vice-versa. The DNC under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Clinton's campaign chair in 2008) has done everything it could to marginalize Sanders.
A statement of intent is not the same as a plan.
What's Hillary's argument, though? It's a hell of a lot more than anything she's put forth, and he's already delivering on it (as seen from his 3+ million small donations outfundraising her this quarter even with her big money, Sanders Democrats running for office, and his incredible turnout at rallies and volunteer army).
posted by dialetheia at 2:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
That's completely disingenuous - if anything, it's vice-versa. The DNC under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Clinton's campaign chair in 2008) has done everything it could to marginalize Sanders.
A statement of intent is not the same as a plan.
What's Hillary's argument, though? It's a hell of a lot more than anything she's put forth, and he's already delivering on it (as seen from his 3+ million small donations outfundraising her this quarter even with her big money, Sanders Democrats running for office, and his incredible turnout at rallies and volunteer army).
posted by dialetheia at 2:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
On the plus side, those "think tanks" who keep coming out with "most socialist candidate ever!!" for every Democratic presidential nominee ever will finally be right if Sanders win.
So they've got that going for them.
posted by clawsoon at 2:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
So they've got that going for them.
posted by clawsoon at 2:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If someone can explain to me WHY Trump would want to be President, then I might get concerned about it but it's ridiculous. He doesn't want it.
You're asking why an egomanic would want to be the most famous and powerful person in the world?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow
Yes. All I ever get is responses like this. He has power, money, and attention. The Presidency is a boring job with little actual power. There is no way he wants it - he likes running for it, sure. I certainly don't understand why anyone would be worried he'll actually BE President. He won't.
posted by agregoli at 2:44 PM on February 9, 2016
You're asking why an egomanic would want to be the most famous and powerful person in the world?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow
Yes. All I ever get is responses like this. He has power, money, and attention. The Presidency is a boring job with little actual power. There is no way he wants it - he likes running for it, sure. I certainly don't understand why anyone would be worried he'll actually BE President. He won't.
posted by agregoli at 2:44 PM on February 9, 2016
Seriously, some actual arguments from Clinton asides from ACCEPT DESPAIR would be a wonderful thing right now.
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
"If Clinton wins the nom because of superdelegates rather than actual primary wins and normal delegates, a huge swath of the Democrats will flip the table so hard it'll shatter."
Given the whole Bernie or Bust nonsense, that might happen anyway. Besides, you don't quite get the point.
Ultimately, people will see the numbers race for what it is... a numbers race. Clinton has a large, nebulous lead there, and is going to win a lot of big states, and probably a majority of the vote, just like she did in 2008. In short, the narrative supports her.
Some Sanders supporters will *ALWAYS* try to come up with justifications for not supporting her over the GOP, despite Sanders' wishes. Can't be helped.
posted by markkraft at 2:45 PM on February 9, 2016
Given the whole Bernie or Bust nonsense, that might happen anyway. Besides, you don't quite get the point.
Ultimately, people will see the numbers race for what it is... a numbers race. Clinton has a large, nebulous lead there, and is going to win a lot of big states, and probably a majority of the vote, just like she did in 2008. In short, the narrative supports her.
Some Sanders supporters will *ALWAYS* try to come up with justifications for not supporting her over the GOP, despite Sanders' wishes. Can't be helped.
posted by markkraft at 2:45 PM on February 9, 2016
> You're asking why an egomanic would want to be the most famous and powerful person in the world?
Yeah, but if he wins he'll actually have to deliver on these bullshit promises and threats he's been making, and when he doesn't or can't it'll make him look bad. Or am I still stuck in a pre-Trump mode of thinking, back in the day when it mattered what you said?
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but if he wins he'll actually have to deliver on these bullshit promises and threats he's been making, and when he doesn't or can't it'll make him look bad. Or am I still stuck in a pre-Trump mode of thinking, back in the day when it mattered what you said?
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's completely disingenuous - if anything, it's vice-versa. The DNC under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Clinton's campaign chair in 2008) has done everything it could to marginalize Sanders.
QFT
posted by futz at 2:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
QFT
posted by futz at 2:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Given the whole Bernie or Bust nonsense
Another way to look at the "Bernie or Bust" thing (to whatever extent that's true) is that he is very clearly reaching voters that she can't. I mean, 53% of America views her unfavorably - it's not surprising that there would be many voters unwilling to vote for her (or any other Bush or Clinton, frankly).
posted by dialetheia at 2:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Another way to look at the "Bernie or Bust" thing (to whatever extent that's true) is that he is very clearly reaching voters that she can't. I mean, 53% of America views her unfavorably - it's not surprising that there would be many voters unwilling to vote for her (or any other Bush or Clinton, frankly).
posted by dialetheia at 2:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
If Clinton wins the nom because of superdelegates rather than actual primary wins and normal delegates, a huge swath of the Democrats will flip the table so hard it'll shatter. She will be incredibly hobbled during the general.
And then President Cruz will appoint the next three Supreme Court judges or President Trump will rename America “Trumponia”; that'll show those DINOs...
posted by acb at 2:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
And then President Cruz will appoint the next three Supreme Court judges or President Trump will rename America “Trumponia”; that'll show those DINOs...
posted by acb at 2:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You're asking if the guy who leaves a trail of bankruptcy and disaster everywhere he goes and treading it like NBD would be a problem in office even if he left almost immediately?
posted by Artw at 2:49 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Artw at 2:49 PM on February 9, 2016
What this campaign is about is not just electing a president, it is transforming America,” the candidate told the crowd of young people, labor and community activists that assembled to march him into the hall where the dinner was to be held. “To do that we need millions of people—people who have given up on the political process, people who are demoralized, people who don’t believe that government listens to them. We need to bring those people together to stand up loudly and clearly and to say ‘Enough is enough.’
But that's not a plan for getting people to vote in downticket races, which is what you insisted that Clinton supporters provide. A sincere wish for that to happen, no matter how fervently and passionately expressed, is not the same as a plan. (Just to reiterate, I asked what Sanders's plan for doing that was, not because I actually think he should have a plan, but to demonstrate the absurdity of insisting that the nominee provide a plan, as you have for Clinton.)
Now, if you want to retract your insistence that the eventual nominee have a plan for getting people to vote in downticket races, and say instead that the nominee should be able to generate enthusiasm that can be translated into votes in downticket races — that I'd agree with. But I don't think "Sanders is doing a better job than Clinton at generating that sort of enthusiasm in February" implies "Clinton will be utterly unable to generate that sort of enthusiasm in November."
Sanders Democrats running for office,
And more power to them. But for races that don't feature a "Sanders Democrat," will Sanders's "political revolution" enthusiasm translate to votes for "establishment" Democratic candidates?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
But that's not a plan for getting people to vote in downticket races, which is what you insisted that Clinton supporters provide. A sincere wish for that to happen, no matter how fervently and passionately expressed, is not the same as a plan. (Just to reiterate, I asked what Sanders's plan for doing that was, not because I actually think he should have a plan, but to demonstrate the absurdity of insisting that the nominee provide a plan, as you have for Clinton.)
Now, if you want to retract your insistence that the eventual nominee have a plan for getting people to vote in downticket races, and say instead that the nominee should be able to generate enthusiasm that can be translated into votes in downticket races — that I'd agree with. But I don't think "Sanders is doing a better job than Clinton at generating that sort of enthusiasm in February" implies "Clinton will be utterly unable to generate that sort of enthusiasm in November."
Sanders Democrats running for office,
And more power to them. But for races that don't feature a "Sanders Democrat," will Sanders's "political revolution" enthusiasm translate to votes for "establishment" Democratic candidates?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
the only thing Hillary has a chance of passing through Congress is cutting restraining the growth of social security, like Oban tried desperately to do in his "grand compromise." remind me why that is a reason to vote for her?
but the bottom line is that a second Clinton presidency will mean a Democratic party representing monied interests in the US against a right wing populist "rump" Republican party. I think that will be wise than the circus of a trump presidency, in part because lots of people think, for no good reason, that the Clinton's aren't as cravenly cynical as their history had proven then to be.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
but the bottom line is that a second Clinton presidency will mean a Democratic party representing monied interests in the US against a right wing populist "rump" Republican party. I think that will be wise than the circus of a trump presidency, in part because lots of people think, for no good reason, that the Clinton's aren't as cravenly cynical as their history had proven then to be.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Despite Sanders supporter's claims, Clinton's superdelegate support is pretty much locked in.
They're locked in now. That doesn't mean they'd remain locked in if their preferred candidate were under federal indictment. Or if the primaries' popular vote goes to Sanders.
Don't count your chickens. Still a long road ahead.
posted by zarq at 2:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
They're locked in now. That doesn't mean they'd remain locked in if their preferred candidate were under federal indictment. Or if the primaries' popular vote goes to Sanders.
Don't count your chickens. Still a long road ahead.
posted by zarq at 2:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
> I'm not going to over-extrapolate from that anecdote, but I think people are finally getting so fed up with the way things are that they are willing to accept other solutions at this point. They may regret tagging Medicare For All as socialist, because it has really softened the reaction to the socialist label among older folks I've talked to - even (and maybe especially) for those who swallowed the socialized health care framing hook, line and sinker.
For whatever it's worth, this gibes with what I'm hearing from the few conservatives in my circle. They haaaate Clinton with a fiery fiery passion, despite their inability to give any actual reasons for hating Clinton — I mean, they give reasons, but they're gibberish: basically they say they hate her because she's a Benghazi-doing vagina-haver with a philandering husband. However, they think that Sanders is a stand-up guy and could see voting for him, especially if Trump or Cruz is the nominee on the Republican side.
The sample size is 4, though, so this is definitely anecdata rather than actual information.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
For whatever it's worth, this gibes with what I'm hearing from the few conservatives in my circle. They haaaate Clinton with a fiery fiery passion, despite their inability to give any actual reasons for hating Clinton — I mean, they give reasons, but they're gibberish: basically they say they hate her because she's a Benghazi-doing vagina-haver with a philandering husband. However, they think that Sanders is a stand-up guy and could see voting for him, especially if Trump or Cruz is the nominee on the Republican side.
The sample size is 4, though, so this is definitely anecdata rather than actual information.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
If Clinton wins by superdelegates alone, there will be no chance of swinging the lower ticket races in 2016 or 2018 and I would seriously question the likelihood of a Clinton reelection in 2020. Yes, SCOTUS matters, but I'm afraid of what happens in 2020 if Clinton wins via fiat.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The superdelegates might be inclined to give the nomination to Clinton if the delegate count comes out with Sanders having a tiny lead which can be spun as a tie but if he amasses any sort of significant lead they will not hand it to Clinton. I can't see that happening.
posted by Justinian at 2:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
> "here is some very important newly released footage from the recent all-candidates debate"
Oh dear god now that song is IN MY HEAD AND WILL NOT LEAVE.
If Marco Rubio takes New Hampshire I am blaming Greg Nog.
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh dear god now that song is IN MY HEAD AND WILL NOT LEAVE.
If Marco Rubio takes New Hampshire I am blaming Greg Nog.
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The superdelegates might be inclined to give the nomination to Clinton if the delegate count comes out with Sanders having a tiny lead which can be spun as a tie but if he amasses any sort of significant lead they will not hand it to Clinton. I can't see that happening.
I agree, it would cause massive mutiny in the party. But that's also why it's important to not say the superdelegates are already locked in. They're going to have to go with the person who has the most support (if such a person exists), otherwise the party itself is doomed.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I agree, it would cause massive mutiny in the party. But that's also why it's important to not say the superdelegates are already locked in. They're going to have to go with the person who has the most support (if such a person exists), otherwise the party itself is doomed.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Given the whole Bernie or Bust nonsense, that might happen anyway. Besides, you don't quite get the point.
Pretty sure you're not getting my point, actually.
The only thing a Bernie win costs in the general is some swing and moderate Republican support, because plenty of people on the right understand that their field is a shitstorm this year. Seriously, I know lifelong Republicans who have said they'd vote for Hillary over their current choices--but not Sanders. Still, most everyone on the left will get over it in time for the general.
If Hillary wins fair and square, the "Bernie or Bust" thing will likely fade as Bernie supporters get over it during the general campaign and accept that they absolutely don't want whichever monster the Republicans cough up.
If she wins dirty, though? And leaves even moderate Bernie supporters angry at him? That's not something they'll get over quickly. That outcome will be a freakin' disaster.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Pretty sure you're not getting my point, actually.
The only thing a Bernie win costs in the general is some swing and moderate Republican support, because plenty of people on the right understand that their field is a shitstorm this year. Seriously, I know lifelong Republicans who have said they'd vote for Hillary over their current choices--but not Sanders. Still, most everyone on the left will get over it in time for the general.
If Hillary wins fair and square, the "Bernie or Bust" thing will likely fade as Bernie supporters get over it during the general campaign and accept that they absolutely don't want whichever monster the Republicans cough up.
If she wins dirty, though? And leaves even moderate Bernie supporters angry at him? That's not something they'll get over quickly. That outcome will be a freakin' disaster.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
What can be done to eliminate the superdelegates by the next election? Cause the whole thing stinks and needs to go ASAP.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
The superdelegates might be inclined to give the nomination to Clinton if the delegate count comes out with Sanders having a tiny lead which can be spun as a tie but if he amasses any sort of significant lead they will not hand it to Clinton. I can't see that happening.
Is there any precedent for such a scenario? How free are the delegates/superdelegates to make their own choice?
posted by acb at 3:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there any precedent for such a scenario? How free are the delegates/superdelegates to make their own choice?
posted by acb at 3:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
But that's not a plan for getting people to vote in downticket races
It's a strategy for driving an increase in turnout on the Democratic side, which almost always provides boosts for downticket races (see: 2008). I'm sure there are counterexamples but in general, if you get more of your guys out to vote, it will help downticket candidates too.
posted by dialetheia at 3:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a strategy for driving an increase in turnout on the Democratic side, which almost always provides boosts for downticket races (see: 2008). I'm sure there are counterexamples but in general, if you get more of your guys out to vote, it will help downticket candidates too.
posted by dialetheia at 3:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly I'm surprised there wasn't a concerted effort to kill the superdelegate practice after it was such an issue in 2008. Not surprised they survived, because establishment support and such, but I don't remember even a significant attempt to kill that system.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2016
Having become a feminist in my doddering years, these are my thoughts regarding Hillary.
Women can't become president because there just are not that many who have a long enough resume.
Hillary can't become president because she's just a resume.
Women who are out of the mainstream can't become president because they are out of the mainstream.
Hillary shouldn't become president because she is establishment.
Hillary should bear the responsibility of Bill Clinton's decisions as president because she was there as a decider.
She shouldn't get credit for experience as first lady because first lady isn't a job.
It's perfectly fine to support Sanders because you support Sanders. But the hate that is slathered over Hillary feels like a double standard. I wonder what a woman has to do be acceptable. For men it is a much lower bar.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
Women can't become president because there just are not that many who have a long enough resume.
Hillary can't become president because she's just a resume.
Women who are out of the mainstream can't become president because they are out of the mainstream.
Hillary shouldn't become president because she is establishment.
Hillary should bear the responsibility of Bill Clinton's decisions as president because she was there as a decider.
She shouldn't get credit for experience as first lady because first lady isn't a job.
It's perfectly fine to support Sanders because you support Sanders. But the hate that is slathered over Hillary feels like a double standard. I wonder what a woman has to do be acceptable. For men it is a much lower bar.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
"maybe (the DNC) shouldn't be the largest source of income for these other elections. Maybe it should come from small dollar donations by the constituents in the districts."
I don't disagree with you, but given that Sanders has raised 84% of his money from out-of-state sources in recent elections, and has been a big fundraiser for and beneficiary of DNCC money...
Well, nobody is innocent and clean here. Nobody.
Democrats can only do this by working together as a team, which means that the fingerpointing is counterproductive, at least until it's abundantly clear that despite the claims of virtually all the candidates in both parties, some people just aren't willing to get on board.
posted by markkraft at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't disagree with you, but given that Sanders has raised 84% of his money from out-of-state sources in recent elections, and has been a big fundraiser for and beneficiary of DNCC money...
"Sanders has been... one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's (fundraising) retreats -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year... that listed Sanders as a host for ... events in each year since 2011. The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who... contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both. In 2006.. . the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into (Sanders) race and included him in fundraising efforts... The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders..Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.Well, nobody is innocent and clean here. Nobody.
Democrats can only do this by working together as a team, which means that the fingerpointing is counterproductive, at least until it's abundantly clear that despite the claims of virtually all the candidates in both parties, some people just aren't willing to get on board.
posted by markkraft at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Seriously, I know lifelong Republicans who have said they'd vote for Hillary over their current choices--but not Sanders.
“Hillary Clinton: the best Republican President America has had since Reagan”
posted by acb at 3:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
“Hillary Clinton: the best Republican President America has had since Reagan”
posted by acb at 3:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
“Hillary Clinton: the best Republican President America has had since Reagan”
We can argue that for a primary all we want, but in the general? Damn straight I'd take her or even Reagan over whoever gets the GOP nom this time around. That whole primary is just a cave of howling nightmares.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
We can argue that for a primary all we want, but in the general? Damn straight I'd take her or even Reagan over whoever gets the GOP nom this time around. That whole primary is just a cave of howling nightmares.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hillary should bear the responsibility of Bill Clinton's decisions as president because she was there as a decider.
Hillary Clinton should bear the responsibility of her own actions and statements during Bill's presidency. To the extent that Bill campaigns for her, she does have to own his actions, particularly because she has hinted at him having an active role in the administration.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary Clinton should bear the responsibility of her own actions and statements during Bill's presidency. To the extent that Bill campaigns for her, she does have to own his actions, particularly because she has hinted at him having an active role in the administration.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Sanders has been... one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's (fundraising) retreats
That he did the bare minimum of party-building work required of any Democratic-caucusing Senator is not an indictment of him. If anything, it's an indictment of the culture and requirements of the DSCC.
Voters are making it clear this year that corporate and Wall Street funding are huge liabilities. Democrats would do well to take that to heart, not try to argue that Wall Street funding is actually great. If nothing else, it would be a grave mistake to relinquish that moral high ground we have over Republicans.
posted by dialetheia at 3:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
That he did the bare minimum of party-building work required of any Democratic-caucusing Senator is not an indictment of him. If anything, it's an indictment of the culture and requirements of the DSCC.
Voters are making it clear this year that corporate and Wall Street funding are huge liabilities. Democrats would do well to take that to heart, not try to argue that Wall Street funding is actually great. If nothing else, it would be a grave mistake to relinquish that moral high ground we have over Republicans.
posted by dialetheia at 3:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
this gibes with what I'm hearing from the few conservatives in my circle — they haaaate Clinton with a fiery fiery passion, despite their inability to give any reasons for hating Clinton, but think that Sanders is a stand-up guy and could see voting for him
That's because the right wing hate machine hasn't been trying to convince low-info voters that he is Satan incarnate for the past 24 years.
Should Sanders win the nomination, the eye of Sauron (as prize bull octorok alluded to upthread) would focus all its energies upon his destruction, and I have a feeling some of those conservative potential Bernie-backers are going to suddenly start having massive misgivings about the man, seemingly out of nowhere.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
That's because the right wing hate machine hasn't been trying to convince low-info voters that he is Satan incarnate for the past 24 years.
Should Sanders win the nomination, the eye of Sauron (as prize bull octorok alluded to upthread) would focus all its energies upon his destruction, and I have a feeling some of those conservative potential Bernie-backers are going to suddenly start having massive misgivings about the man, seemingly out of nowhere.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
I suspect that a superdelegate-driven Clinton win would be the death knell of the Democratic Party as an organization. It would bring the institutional legitimacy of the party itself into crisis; like, on the one hand, for better or for worse, enough Sanders supporters would refuse to vote for her to cost her the election, but beyond that it would taint the brand of the party itself, causing a chain of losses down-ticket. like basically the party might survive this election if everyone got together and clapped hard enough, but it would be mortally wounded going forward.
If the institutional Democratic Party allowed the superdelegates to select a nominee against the will of the members of the Democratic Party, it would confirm what the fucking Trotskyists have been saying all along about how the Democratic Party is an institution primarily designed to contain, control, and extinguish left dissent, rather than an organization that's a potentially useful lever for instituting left policies.
Please, Democratic Party superdelegates, prove the Trotskyists wrong.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
If the institutional Democratic Party allowed the superdelegates to select a nominee against the will of the members of the Democratic Party, it would confirm what the fucking Trotskyists have been saying all along about how the Democratic Party is an institution primarily designed to contain, control, and extinguish left dissent, rather than an organization that's a potentially useful lever for instituting left policies.
Please, Democratic Party superdelegates, prove the Trotskyists wrong.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
For whatever it's worth, this gibes with what I'm hearing from the few conservatives in my circle — they haaaate Clinton with a fiery fiery passion, despite their inability to give any reasons for hating Clinton, but think that Sanders is a stand-up guy and could see voting for him, especially if Trump or Cruz is the nominee on the Republican side.
Agreed. I was just trying to some data on Obama's favorability ratings among Republicans during the 2008 campaign to see if there's any signs of this -- I would suspect that Republicans liked Obama just fine when he was attacking Clinton, but once he was the nominee I bet his favorability went down. But I can't find the data -- anyone have a link?
posted by crazy with stars at 3:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Agreed. I was just trying to some data on Obama's favorability ratings among Republicans during the 2008 campaign to see if there's any signs of this -- I would suspect that Republicans liked Obama just fine when he was attacking Clinton, but once he was the nominee I bet his favorability went down. But I can't find the data -- anyone have a link?
posted by crazy with stars at 3:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there any precedent for such a scenario? How free are the delegates/superdelegates to make their own choice?
The delegates are bound to vote a particular way. The super-delegates can vote how they choose. I went back a few decades and didn't see any cases (except for 2008) where the delegate count was close enough to make a difference (beyond giving the winner a more resounding margin of victory).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:13 PM on February 9, 2016
The delegates are bound to vote a particular way. The super-delegates can vote how they choose. I went back a few decades and didn't see any cases (except for 2008) where the delegate count was close enough to make a difference (beyond giving the winner a more resounding margin of victory).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:13 PM on February 9, 2016
That's because the right wing hate machine hasn't been trying to convince low-info voters that he is Satan incarnate for the past 24 years.
Remind me how that's not a huge negative for Clinton, though? From my perspective, having 24 years of hate built up for her is a huge negative for her, not a positive. Clinton fatigue is a real thing. How many people are going to be inspired to turn out to vote after a long campaign season of talking about her damned email server? Many Democrats are damn tired of the focus being on defending the Clintons from scandals instead of on enacting liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 3:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Remind me how that's not a huge negative for Clinton, though? From my perspective, having 24 years of hate built up for her is a huge negative for her, not a positive. Clinton fatigue is a real thing. How many people are going to be inspired to turn out to vote after a long campaign season of talking about her damned email server? Many Democrats are damn tired of the focus being on defending the Clintons from scandals instead of on enacting liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 3:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
this gibes with what I'm hearing from the few conservatives in my circle — they haaaate Clinton with a fiery fiery passion, despite their inability to give any reasons for hating Clinton, but think that Sanders is a stand-up guy and could see voting for him
My experience talking with (rational) Republicans is that they'd vote for Hillary over any of the GOP nominees (except maybe Kasich?) and put themselves into therapy immediately thereafter. However, they feel like Sanders would absolutely destroy the US economy and would therefore vote Republican instead of Sanders.
I don't doubt what your conservative friends are saying, but I think that tension shows just how incredibly crazy this cycle has become.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
My experience talking with (rational) Republicans is that they'd vote for Hillary over any of the GOP nominees (except maybe Kasich?) and put themselves into therapy immediately thereafter. However, they feel like Sanders would absolutely destroy the US economy and would therefore vote Republican instead of Sanders.
I don't doubt what your conservative friends are saying, but I think that tension shows just how incredibly crazy this cycle has become.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
"If Hillary wins fair and square, the "Bernie or Bust" thing will likely fade "
It will tend to anyway. But the thing is, there is no "fair and square", in the sense you view it to be.
The superdelgates are already being counted, the narrative is already unfolding, and yes, she's very likely to get credited with more votes, and more delegates.
The only reason that Obama won in 2008 was big margins in small states, primarily caucuses, along with most of their superdelegates. Well, that and a Clinton campaign that wasn't prepared to aggressively GOTV and prevent Obama from running up the board in states they took for granted.
There is nothing inherently more "fair and square" about those delegates than any other delegates, though. It's already a pretty unbalanced, unfair system for doing elections.
posted by markkraft at 3:16 PM on February 9, 2016
It will tend to anyway. But the thing is, there is no "fair and square", in the sense you view it to be.
The superdelgates are already being counted, the narrative is already unfolding, and yes, she's very likely to get credited with more votes, and more delegates.
The only reason that Obama won in 2008 was big margins in small states, primarily caucuses, along with most of their superdelegates. Well, that and a Clinton campaign that wasn't prepared to aggressively GOTV and prevent Obama from running up the board in states they took for granted.
There is nothing inherently more "fair and square" about those delegates than any other delegates, though. It's already a pretty unbalanced, unfair system for doing elections.
posted by markkraft at 3:16 PM on February 9, 2016
Well, nobody is innocent and clean here. Nobody.
There is an enormous difference between someone taking part in hosting a multi-member committee that hosts events in which some bank representatives attends amongst other donors, where each entity can donate a 33k max annually which is then split amongst the collective group, and another person who bills 200K+ that goes only to her per speaking event, events that are EXCLUSIVELY made up of big banks. This is quite possibly one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen in all of these threads.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [43 favorites]
There is an enormous difference between someone taking part in hosting a multi-member committee that hosts events in which some bank representatives attends amongst other donors, where each entity can donate a 33k max annually which is then split amongst the collective group, and another person who bills 200K+ that goes only to her per speaking event, events that are EXCLUSIVELY made up of big banks. This is quite possibly one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen in all of these threads.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [43 favorites]
Remind me how that's not a huge negative for Clinton, though? From my perspective, having 24 years of hate built up for her is a huge negative for her, not a positive.
I've said this in other threads: after 24 years of this shit, hating on Hillary has been the bone of bipartisanship that people on the left will throw out to make working or living with hardcore conservatives tolerable. Your Uncle Jim goes off about liberals and whatever during Thanksgiving, and you're sick of it all, but you need to show that you aren't a closed-minded lefty drone, so you at least agree on Hillary. That seriously does have an effect over time. Doubly so if you're a young person and you grow up hearing even your liberal friends/relatives (allegedly) hate her.
Additionally: many people sincerely believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. Doesn't matter that after those 24 years, almost everything the GOP has managed to come up with has either turned out to be incredibly minor or complete bullshit. It's the smoke that matters. Hillary's "scandals" are often no different than the Planned Parenthood videos. Doesn't matter that the grand jury vindicated PP and indicted the video-makers; the true believers think that's part of the scam, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've said this in other threads: after 24 years of this shit, hating on Hillary has been the bone of bipartisanship that people on the left will throw out to make working or living with hardcore conservatives tolerable. Your Uncle Jim goes off about liberals and whatever during Thanksgiving, and you're sick of it all, but you need to show that you aren't a closed-minded lefty drone, so you at least agree on Hillary. That seriously does have an effect over time. Doubly so if you're a young person and you grow up hearing even your liberal friends/relatives (allegedly) hate her.
Additionally: many people sincerely believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. Doesn't matter that after those 24 years, almost everything the GOP has managed to come up with has either turned out to be incredibly minor or complete bullshit. It's the smoke that matters. Hillary's "scandals" are often no different than the Planned Parenthood videos. Doesn't matter that the grand jury vindicated PP and indicted the video-makers; the true believers think that's part of the scam, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Please, Democratic Party superdelegates, prove the Trotskyists wrong.
A friendly reminder that we have many, many primaries to go before this could even conceivably become an issue.
posted by zarq at 3:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
A friendly reminder that we have many, many primaries to go before this could even conceivably become an issue.
posted by zarq at 3:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
There is nothing inherently more "fair and square" about those delegates than any other delegates, though.
Yes there is - the regular delegates are democratically elected, while the others are not. Voters should decide. Anything else is undemocratic.
posted by dialetheia at 3:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yes there is - the regular delegates are democratically elected, while the others are not. Voters should decide. Anything else is undemocratic.
posted by dialetheia at 3:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Also, the reason why Cruz will not be the Republican nominee is that a Cruz win would mean the radical christian right would control both the top and bottom of the Republican party. The "establishment" ie corporate and financial American will never stand for that.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 3:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
is there any support for bloomberg from poc? (sorry if this is a dumb q - i am just wondering how the numbers would work).
(also, on edit, i see bbc currently has santorum ahead with 1% in. you heard it here first ;o)
posted by andrewcooke at 3:19 PM on February 9, 2016
(also, on edit, i see bbc currently has santorum ahead with 1% in. you heard it here first ;o)
posted by andrewcooke at 3:19 PM on February 9, 2016
It's already a pretty unbalanced, unfair system for doing elections.
So...don't worry about the superdelegates rigging the primary because the whole primary is rigged anyway? I can't see how this gets me excited about the establishment candidate.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
So...don't worry about the superdelegates rigging the primary because the whole primary is rigged anyway? I can't see how this gets me excited about the establishment candidate.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Bloomberg's gonna be the next president, huh.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Further more -- You want to win people to Clintons cause? Tell us how she ISN'T corrupted by the money she gets DIRECTLY from the industry and DIRECTLY to her, instead of trying to make laughable equivalents like these that insinuate that it's ok because everyone is corrupt snd Sanders is part of that.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
is there any support for bloomberg from poc?
I don't know that there's support for Bloomberg outside some very specific demographics. But, he did marry himself to the whole stop and frisk thing, so, I think it would be an uphill battle for him.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know that there's support for Bloomberg outside some very specific demographics. But, he did marry himself to the whole stop and frisk thing, so, I think it would be an uphill battle for him.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a strategy for driving an increase in turnout on the Democratic side, which almost always provides boosts for downticket races (see: 2008). I'm sure there are counterexamples but in general, if you get more of your guys out to vote, it will help downticket candidates too.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. I only disagree with the implication that Clinton is incapable of generating that sort of turnout come November. If nothing else, the historic chance to vote for the first female US president, while not a rational reason to vote for or against a candidate, is likely to be emotionally appealing to Democratic voters in November regardless of which candidate they supported in the primary.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2016
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. I only disagree with the implication that Clinton is incapable of generating that sort of turnout come November. If nothing else, the historic chance to vote for the first female US president, while not a rational reason to vote for or against a candidate, is likely to be emotionally appealing to Democratic voters in November regardless of which candidate they supported in the primary.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2016
Hillary's "scandals" are often no different than the Planned Parenthood videos.
I feel differently about the email server stuff. It's potentially a really big deal, especially since we now know for sure that there is an ongoing investigation, and we'd be foolish to dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory if we want to win in November. I still can't think of a single valid reason for her to keep a private server, and her explanation that all of her emails went to public government accounts an were therefore FOIA-able is weak at best. She was arguing that it was just the CIA misclassifying things but now her own State department is classifying things from her server as top-secret. It's troubling from the perspective that I do not want to spend this whole year defending her dumb decision to keep her affairs private even while she was a public servant.
posted by dialetheia at 3:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel differently about the email server stuff. It's potentially a really big deal, especially since we now know for sure that there is an ongoing investigation, and we'd be foolish to dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory if we want to win in November. I still can't think of a single valid reason for her to keep a private server, and her explanation that all of her emails went to public government accounts an were therefore FOIA-able is weak at best. She was arguing that it was just the CIA misclassifying things but now her own State department is classifying things from her server as top-secret. It's troubling from the perspective that I do not want to spend this whole year defending her dumb decision to keep her affairs private even while she was a public servant.
posted by dialetheia at 3:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't have an uncle Jim and I've rarely discussed Hillary with anyone, but she is so patently, obviously a corporate drone worse than even Obama.
posted by telstar at 3:24 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by telstar at 3:24 PM on February 9, 2016
I'm thinking Hillary's team can do without headlines like this:
Why Do Young People Have Such Visceral Dislike for Hillary?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why Do Young People Have Such Visceral Dislike for Hillary?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, nobody is innocent and clean here. Nobody.
There is an enormous difference between someone taking part in hosting a multi-member committee that hosts events in which some bank representatives attends amongst other donors, where each entity can donate a 33k max annually which is then split amongst the collective group, and another person who bills 200K+ that goes only to her per speaking event, events that are EXCLUSIVELY made up of big banks. This is quite possibly one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen in all of these threads.
Hey. I just heard this talking point on NPR: Bernie's on the take from Wall Street too. It's such transparent bullshit up-is-downism that you can't really respond.
Besides, it's conflating two things: political fundraising and personal income. Hillary Clinton earned $16 million dollars in personal income giving speeches in the last year she was Sec. of State. She earned $11 million in the last year she did the speech circuit before declaring for prez. She personally took millions of dollars from banks, hedge funds, big corporations, etc.
So, you either believe Wall Street doesn't know how to make a profit from a dollar and just throws them away on Hillary or...
posted by ennui.bz at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
There is an enormous difference between someone taking part in hosting a multi-member committee that hosts events in which some bank representatives attends amongst other donors, where each entity can donate a 33k max annually which is then split amongst the collective group, and another person who bills 200K+ that goes only to her per speaking event, events that are EXCLUSIVELY made up of big banks. This is quite possibly one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen in all of these threads.
Hey. I just heard this talking point on NPR: Bernie's on the take from Wall Street too. It's such transparent bullshit up-is-downism that you can't really respond.
Besides, it's conflating two things: political fundraising and personal income. Hillary Clinton earned $16 million dollars in personal income giving speeches in the last year she was Sec. of State. She earned $11 million in the last year she did the speech circuit before declaring for prez. She personally took millions of dollars from banks, hedge funds, big corporations, etc.
So, you either believe Wall Street doesn't know how to make a profit from a dollar and just throws them away on Hillary or...
posted by ennui.bz at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's already a pretty unbalanced, unfair system for doing elections.
I'm starting to read all of the arguments that you are presenting as "Everyone is horrible and the system is like this - get over it, there's no other way" - which does not make for a very compelling case for winning over voters.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'm starting to read all of the arguments that you are presenting as "Everyone is horrible and the system is like this - get over it, there's no other way" - which does not make for a very compelling case for winning over voters.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'm thinking Hillary's team can do without headlines like this:
Why Do Young People Have Such Visceral Dislike for Hillary?
Not if their response is "stop wanting healthcare, that's sexist" they can't.
posted by Artw at 3:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why Do Young People Have Such Visceral Dislike for Hillary?
Not if their response is "stop wanting healthcare, that's sexist" they can't.
posted by Artw at 3:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well, nobody is innocent and clean here. Nobody.
I don't think anyone claims that he is, but as far as this campaign goes, on the issue of campaign finance reform, his opposition to corruption is clearly much more legitimate than that of Clinton, without question. Sanders doesn't appear to take support from PACs and Super PACs, and he is running a campaign off of individual donations.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think anyone claims that he is, but as far as this campaign goes, on the issue of campaign finance reform, his opposition to corruption is clearly much more legitimate than that of Clinton, without question. Sanders doesn't appear to take support from PACs and Super PACs, and he is running a campaign off of individual donations.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
She personally took millions of dollars from banks, hedge funds, big corporations, etc
corporations are people, my friend. [engaging rictus subroutine]
posted by entropicamericana at 3:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
corporations are people, my friend. [engaging rictus subroutine]
posted by entropicamericana at 3:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
"So...don't worry about the superdelegates rigging the primary because the whole primary is rigged anyway?"
Not always in favor of establishment candidates. Caucuses are disproportionately won by candidates who have the most activist supporters, even as they tend to shut out the elderly.
The point though, isn't that it's rigged. It's that it's antiquated and undemocratic, giving small states far more representation, per capita, than larger ones. This, of course, will never change, because it's so damn unfair and hard to poor little states, etc. etc.
When you have a system which already essentially takes people's votes away, and gives out far more SDs, per capita, to small states, it's really hard to say what a fair win is, other than simply winning.
I do feel pretty comfortable that Clinton will win with majorities across the board, but hell, even that's not entirely fair, because of the narrative of delegates in general, the lack of time to campaign in large states, the lack of time to register, the differing rules on early voting, caucuses vs. primaries, etc. etc. etc.
It's like trying to find fairness in a fruitcake, as if the winner should be the person with the most pieces of walnuts or candied fruit, as opposed to the largest -- or smallest -- slice.
posted by markkraft at 3:35 PM on February 9, 2016
Not always in favor of establishment candidates. Caucuses are disproportionately won by candidates who have the most activist supporters, even as they tend to shut out the elderly.
The point though, isn't that it's rigged. It's that it's antiquated and undemocratic, giving small states far more representation, per capita, than larger ones. This, of course, will never change, because it's so damn unfair and hard to poor little states, etc. etc.
When you have a system which already essentially takes people's votes away, and gives out far more SDs, per capita, to small states, it's really hard to say what a fair win is, other than simply winning.
I do feel pretty comfortable that Clinton will win with majorities across the board, but hell, even that's not entirely fair, because of the narrative of delegates in general, the lack of time to campaign in large states, the lack of time to register, the differing rules on early voting, caucuses vs. primaries, etc. etc. etc.
It's like trying to find fairness in a fruitcake, as if the winner should be the person with the most pieces of walnuts or candied fruit, as opposed to the largest -- or smallest -- slice.
posted by markkraft at 3:35 PM on February 9, 2016
dialethia, the deal with the email is:
1. it's complicated and hard to understand
2. no evidence of harm being done has come to light (as in, stuff going to our enemies, people dying, spies being exposed)
3. many people have used personal email for work purposes a few times and don't think of it as a huge deal
Really, it's number 1 that makes most people tune out. How the government is supposed to handle email is really complicated; how classification works is complicated; most people are not going to take the time to try to figure out if she did anything wrong, absent a big 'ol scandal that can be directly attributed to her decision or some sort of really damning statement.
People who already hate her will see it as more confirmation of her wrongdoing. People who don't will mostly shrug it off.
posted by emjaybee at 3:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
1. it's complicated and hard to understand
2. no evidence of harm being done has come to light (as in, stuff going to our enemies, people dying, spies being exposed)
3. many people have used personal email for work purposes a few times and don't think of it as a huge deal
Really, it's number 1 that makes most people tune out. How the government is supposed to handle email is really complicated; how classification works is complicated; most people are not going to take the time to try to figure out if she did anything wrong, absent a big 'ol scandal that can be directly attributed to her decision or some sort of really damning statement.
People who already hate her will see it as more confirmation of her wrongdoing. People who don't will mostly shrug it off.
posted by emjaybee at 3:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Before I knew anything about Bernie, I was going to vote for Hillary. I liked the idea of a woman president, and I had no idea what her record was on war and fiscal policy. As soon as I knew what was up with Bernie, he made sense to me, but I figured he was an unlikely bet and I was still totally down for the Woman President party.
As Bernie's popularity has grown, I've become increasingly excited by the possibility of his nomination. But up until a month or two ago I was still in the "Yeah but Hillary's alright too" camp.
After everything I've seen from the Clinton campaign this past month or so, I am just about unable to vote for her in good conscience or bad conscience or any conscience at all. Everyone she has surrounded herself with seems to suck, and suck hard. And harder and harder the more the momentum has shifted. Which she defends. She explicitly defends all that suck. I wasn't willing to judge her character before. I am judging it now. I do not trust her, and I do not like her.
I don't even know if I can hold my nose and vote for her. And it really, really bothers me that Clinton supporters keep framing the conversation in terms of how *I* will have to taste the bitter medicine, when we're not even done with the first two primaries.
posted by an animate objects at 3:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
As Bernie's popularity has grown, I've become increasingly excited by the possibility of his nomination. But up until a month or two ago I was still in the "Yeah but Hillary's alright too" camp.
After everything I've seen from the Clinton campaign this past month or so, I am just about unable to vote for her in good conscience or bad conscience or any conscience at all. Everyone she has surrounded herself with seems to suck, and suck hard. And harder and harder the more the momentum has shifted. Which she defends. She explicitly defends all that suck. I wasn't willing to judge her character before. I am judging it now. I do not trust her, and I do not like her.
I don't even know if I can hold my nose and vote for her. And it really, really bothers me that Clinton supporters keep framing the conversation in terms of how *I* will have to taste the bitter medicine, when we're not even done with the first two primaries.
posted by an animate objects at 3:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
It's not complicated at all, or at least it certainly won't be after they start attacking her on it. Every email she sent or received as Secretary of State came from @clintonemail.com - I think that's problematic on its face. Add the fact that she failed to take proper security precautions with those top-secret emails and it's a pretty devastating attack - she put her personal self-interest and secrecy ahead of national security.
posted by dialetheia at 3:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fascinating coverage of NH voter ID law right now on MSNBC. They are taking Polaroids of voters to compare them later on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wish Clinton would just say "Yes, money influences decisions politicians make. I've tried my best to avoid that influence, but, of course, I am not immune. Work with me to try to improve the situation going forward" or something like that. Pretending she's not influenced or that money in politics isn't really a problem doesn't help her case and makes her look bought.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie gets more Super pac money than Hillary.
posted by Trochanter at 3:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 3:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The right-wing attacks on Bernie Sanders will be about taxes. He says he'll raise them. Possibly a lot.
"We need higher taxes" is something I've been waiting for a politician brave enough to say for a while. We'll see if everybody else feels the same way.
The Republicans will assume that no-one wants higher taxes - a safe electoral bet for the past 4 decades - and hammer hammer hammer at that issue.
If Sanders is right, and people are ready for a politician who says "higher taxes", it'll be a momentous shift.
posted by clawsoon at 3:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
"We need higher taxes" is something I've been waiting for a politician brave enough to say for a while. We'll see if everybody else feels the same way.
The Republicans will assume that no-one wants higher taxes - a safe electoral bet for the past 4 decades - and hammer hammer hammer at that issue.
If Sanders is right, and people are ready for a politician who says "higher taxes", it'll be a momentous shift.
posted by clawsoon at 3:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie gets more Super pac money than Hillary.
Of particular interest is this paragraph:
Sanders’ unlikely rise to super PAC pre-eminence is, in part, the story of an unusual alignment of strategies by different outside groups, including Republican ones eager to bloody Clinton and lift Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election. While the nurses’ super PAC is the biggest left-leaning outside spender in the Democratic primary, conservative organizations have also spent at least $4.3 million attacking Clinton in recent months.
posted by crazy with stars at 3:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Of particular interest is this paragraph:
Sanders’ unlikely rise to super PAC pre-eminence is, in part, the story of an unusual alignment of strategies by different outside groups, including Republican ones eager to bloody Clinton and lift Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election. While the nurses’ super PAC is the biggest left-leaning outside spender in the Democratic primary, conservative organizations have also spent at least $4.3 million attacking Clinton in recent months.
posted by crazy with stars at 3:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie gets more Super pac money than Hillary.
Wait, they want to call spending by a nurses' union "super pac" money now? Is the Democratic party intentionally destroying itself or what? What a foolhardy, short-sighted, self-destructive argument. Again, the Clinton campaign puts their own self-interest ahead of the party's - it's monumentally stupid to cede that ground to Republicans.
Conservatives spending against Clinton does not constitute support for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 3:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
Wait, they want to call spending by a nurses' union "super pac" money now? Is the Democratic party intentionally destroying itself or what? What a foolhardy, short-sighted, self-destructive argument. Again, the Clinton campaign puts their own self-interest ahead of the party's - it's monumentally stupid to cede that ground to Republicans.
Conservatives spending against Clinton does not constitute support for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 3:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
Bernie gets more Super pac money than Hillary.
I found this more interesting; most of Sanders' Super PAC money is from:
I found this more interesting; most of Sanders' Super PAC money is from:
National Nurses United, which was born out of a 2009 merger of three smaller unions and has embraced liberal politics and movement-building. In 2011, union nurses provided health care at the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Lower Manhattan, and the organization has lobbied forcefully for single-payer health care and a financial-transaction tax.posted by clawsoon at 3:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
I predict that if Clinton wins, we will be asked to all pull together against the Republican menace. By and large we will, through gritted teeth.
If Sanders wins (and oh, oh be still my flittering fluttering heart), there will be a six month fully public shit-fit from the top ranks of and donors to the party. Smaller odds of that happening if Clinton throws her support behind Sanders pretty much immediately.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Sanders wins (and oh, oh be still my flittering fluttering heart), there will be a six month fully public shit-fit from the top ranks of and donors to the party. Smaller odds of that happening if Clinton throws her support behind Sanders pretty much immediately.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah. The nurses union. I didn't want to spoil it. I saw it tweeted by Greg Pinelo. An "Obama ad maker and Dem strategist."
posted by Trochanter at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why wouldn't it be super pac money? It may be good super PAC money as opposed to bad super PAC money but that's different.
posted by Justinian at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
In fairness, a candidate can't stop a SuperPAC from supporting them. They can only distance themself from it and not actively raise money for it, and Sanders has at least done the latter.
Wait, they want to call spending by a nurses' union "super pac" money now?
At least in the sense that it is political speech which was upheld as constitutionally protected by Citizens United, yes.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wait, they want to call spending by a nurses' union "super pac" money now?
At least in the sense that it is political speech which was upheld as constitutionally protected by Citizens United, yes.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, all those fat-cat nurses with their big-money interests.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [35 favorites]
At least in the sense that it is political speech which was upheld as constitutionally protected by Citizens United, yes.
That is fundamentally stupid framing for Democrats to use even if it is technically correct (and I still don't think most voters think of unions as super PACs). Framing it that way removes our moral high ground on Republicans - does no one remember when attacking Romney for his $375,000 in speaking fees was a huge deal in 2012? Not being as bought as the Republicans is a huge part of Democrats' appeal. To throw that framing away just so that she can make a petty attack on Sanders is appalling.
posted by dialetheia at 3:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
That is fundamentally stupid framing for Democrats to use even if it is technically correct (and I still don't think most voters think of unions as super PACs). Framing it that way removes our moral high ground on Republicans - does no one remember when attacking Romney for his $375,000 in speaking fees was a huge deal in 2012? Not being as bought as the Republicans is a huge part of Democrats' appeal. To throw that framing away just so that she can make a petty attack on Sanders is appalling.
posted by dialetheia at 3:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
"they want to call spending by a nurses' union "super pac" money now?"
SuperPAC is a legal definition. The nurses union is, in fact, a super pac. It's just one that some people like to give free reign to.
All of these superPACs though, are ways for big moneyed interests to funnel money to candidates. If you look at the percentage of $$ that Obama and Clinton got from the financial industry in 2008 vs. today, it's much lower... but where has that money gone? Did it really leave the game, or is it simply being laundered better?
The answer: Who knows? SuperPACs don't have to tell.
Again, all the candidates are guilty of playing the game, because the game is the game.
posted by markkraft at 3:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
SuperPAC is a legal definition. The nurses union is, in fact, a super pac. It's just one that some people like to give free reign to.
All of these superPACs though, are ways for big moneyed interests to funnel money to candidates. If you look at the percentage of $$ that Obama and Clinton got from the financial industry in 2008 vs. today, it's much lower... but where has that money gone? Did it really leave the game, or is it simply being laundered better?
The answer: Who knows? SuperPACs don't have to tell.
Again, all the candidates are guilty of playing the game, because the game is the game.
posted by markkraft at 3:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
To be fair, my mum is a retired fat-cat nurse. I mean, she's a nurse, and her cat is like 15 pounds. So yeah the fat cat nurses are definitely out there.
That's what we're talking about right?
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
That's what we're talking about right?
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
He's a pawn of Big Bedpan
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Conservatives spending against Clinton does not constitute support for Sanders.
At this point in the electoral cycle it most certainly does. Why else would they do it? What would be the point? We're too far from the general election for that to be the purpose. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but if I were Rubio or Bush I would want Sanders to be the nominee and would encourage super PACs to spend money to that effect.
I say this as someone who would like Sanders to be president and will vote for him in a primary, if I am given the opportunity and the race lasts that long.
posted by crazy with stars at 3:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
At this point in the electoral cycle it most certainly does. Why else would they do it? What would be the point? We're too far from the general election for that to be the purpose. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but if I were Rubio or Bush I would want Sanders to be the nominee and would encourage super PACs to spend money to that effect.
I say this as someone who would like Sanders to be president and will vote for him in a primary, if I am given the opportunity and the race lasts that long.
posted by crazy with stars at 3:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would totally support a Fat Cat Nurses for Bernie campaign where nurses and their overweight cats stump for him.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
If nothing else, I wonder what her union supporters think about that strategy. I'd be furious.
posted by dialetheia at 3:54 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 3:54 PM on February 9, 2016
Sanders' response is that he doesn't do fundraising for Super PACs supporting him, but Clinton does for hers. Which is a fair point.
I wonder what the Clinton SuperPACs will do with the $40 million or so they've saved up for the general election if she doesn't make it that far.
posted by clawsoon at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wonder what the Clinton SuperPACs will do with the $40 million or so they've saved up for the general election if she doesn't make it that far.
posted by clawsoon at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh wait... you mean you're trying to draw an analogy between nurses' unions' spending on ads and Wall Street corruption... to a progressive audience? hahahahaforever good luck with that
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
The DNC might froth at a Bernie nomination but by the same token it's very, very unlikely that the majority of Bernie's grassroots support will 1:1 port over to a Clinton run through the general. Bernie supporters might vote for her, even in majority. But they won't do much more than that. They definitely won't support her with the same gusto.
Calling them fickle for not falling in line because they care about specific ideological language being used in specific ways and put their weight behind specific people for specific reasons is gross. Bernie supporters don't owe Hillary shit, and a lot of them won't be scared into submission come November whether or not you think they should.
posted by an animate objects at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Calling them fickle for not falling in line because they care about specific ideological language being used in specific ways and put their weight behind specific people for specific reasons is gross. Bernie supporters don't owe Hillary shit, and a lot of them won't be scared into submission come November whether or not you think they should.
posted by an animate objects at 3:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Exit polling: 68% of voters identify themselves as very liberal or somewhat liberal in NH, up 14% since 2008.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Everyone [Clinton] has surrounded herself with seems to suck, and suck hard.
Interesting comment - this is exactly how I feel about Sanders campaign.
I don't even know if I can hold my nose and vote for her. And it really, really bothers me that Clinton supporters keep framing the conversation in terms of how *I* will have to taste the bitter medicine, when we're not even done with the first two primaries.
And this is where we differ, because I -will- vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination, even though I think he is being extremely irresponsible by making promises that he knows he can't possibly keep if he becomes president and even though he will have significant weaknesses as a candidate in the general election (weaknesses that the GOP is going to ruthlessly exploit). The stakes are just too fucking high to do anything else. I just hope and pray that his supporters have the maturity to consider everything that will be lost if a Republican wins the White House and will do the right thing and vote for Clinton if she does win the Democratic nomination, even if they opposed her in the primary.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Interesting comment - this is exactly how I feel about Sanders campaign.
I don't even know if I can hold my nose and vote for her. And it really, really bothers me that Clinton supporters keep framing the conversation in terms of how *I* will have to taste the bitter medicine, when we're not even done with the first two primaries.
And this is where we differ, because I -will- vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination, even though I think he is being extremely irresponsible by making promises that he knows he can't possibly keep if he becomes president and even though he will have significant weaknesses as a candidate in the general election (weaknesses that the GOP is going to ruthlessly exploit). The stakes are just too fucking high to do anything else. I just hope and pray that his supporters have the maturity to consider everything that will be lost if a Republican wins the White House and will do the right thing and vote for Clinton if she does win the Democratic nomination, even if they opposed her in the primary.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
My mum's not a big fan of the camera, but I bet her cat would do it! He is named Charlie and he is part Siamese so probably donald trump would try to deport him though
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
And this is where we differ, because I -will- vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination,
Right, which is Clinton's huge problem at this point. His voters aren't, largely, going to be easy to sway.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:57 PM on February 9, 2016
Right, which is Clinton's huge problem at this point. His voters aren't, largely, going to be easy to sway.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:57 PM on February 9, 2016
I wonder what a woman has to do be acceptable.
Right now, today? Be Elizabeth Warren.
For men it is a much lower bar.
I don't want the first woman president to just pass the bar, I want the first woman president to raise the bar far, far out of reach from of the idiots and assholes. If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trounced. Why is that?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
Right now, today? Be Elizabeth Warren.
For men it is a much lower bar.
I don't want the first woman president to just pass the bar, I want the first woman president to raise the bar far, far out of reach from of the idiots and assholes. If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trounced. Why is that?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [38 favorites]
tl;dr: vote however you want to in the primary, but for god's sake, please vote for whomever has the (D) next to their name in the general.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
everything that will be lost if a Republican wins the White House
As long as Wall Street runs this country, everything is already lost
posted by an animate objects at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
As long as Wall Street runs this country, everything is already lost
posted by an animate objects at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Lots of late deciders for Jeb! I wonder if signs of a personality at the last debate helped him.
posted by angrycat at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by angrycat at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016
For fucks sake vote for whoever wins the democratic nom or i will challenge you to the holmgang
posted by poffin boffin at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 3:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
tl;dr: vote however you want to in the primary, but for god's sake, please vote for whomever has the (D) next to their name in the general.
Or, you know, vote your conscience. Not the same thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Or, you know, vote your conscience. Not the same thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you think that union superPACs don't take corporate donations, well... keep in mind that union PACs are all dramatically increasing their donations to candidates, even though their ranks seem to be shrinking over time. How does that work, exactly?
posted by markkraft at 3:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by markkraft at 3:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Salon is digging up this old article about how Clinton intervened with the IRS on the behalf of UBS as Secretary of State, and "after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs".
posted by clawsoon at 4:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 4:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or, you know, vote your conscience. Not the same thing.
Which will be super comforting with President Cruz or Trump in the White House.
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Which will be super comforting with President Cruz or Trump in the White House.
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Or, you know, vote your conscience. Not the same thing.
For varying and heretofore unexplored definitions of "conscience." :)
posted by zarq at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
For varying and heretofore unexplored definitions of "conscience." :)
posted by zarq at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If nothing else, I wonder what her union supporters think about that strategy.
A strategy that defends the political speech of unions as constitutionally protected free speech, you mean?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
A strategy that defends the political speech of unions as constitutionally protected free speech, you mean?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
To amend the others above, vote for whomever has the (D) next to their name in the general if you're in a possible swing state. If not, vote however the fuck you want.
Actually, nevermind. Just vote however the fuck you want and don't listen to anyone trying to influence your decisions. You have a brain and can make your own mind up.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Actually, nevermind. Just vote however the fuck you want and don't listen to anyone trying to influence your decisions. You have a brain and can make your own mind up.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
"We need higher taxes" is something I've been waiting for a politician brave enough to say for a while. We'll see if everybody else feels the same way.
Didn't work so well for Walter Mondale in 1984, alas.
posted by holborne at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Didn't work so well for Walter Mondale in 1984, alas.
posted by holborne at 4:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie supporters don't owe Hillary shit, and a lot of them won't be scared into submission come November whether or not you think they should.
I'd hope people would think more about what they owe to the people who are going to lose their lives, and rights, if somebody who's been pledging to carpet bomb the Middle East and defund Planned Parenthood, among other things, is the only other person with a chance of being elected president come November.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
I'd hope people would think more about what they owe to the people who are going to lose their lives, and rights, if somebody who's been pledging to carpet bomb the Middle East and defund Planned Parenthood, among other things, is the only other person with a chance of being elected president come November.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Wow, epic late lines to vote at the Bedford location MSNBC is at. Lots of them there for same day registration too. Somebody is getting out some new voters.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
So the issue is that Bernie Sanders is the kind of guy who has union super PACs doing supportive ads for him and those VERY SAME UNION SUPERPACs also make donations to candidates that are going up (although not him because he doesn't take donations from super PACs) so maybe those union super PACs are getting corporate donations and so Bernie Sanders is the Exact Same Corruption Level as Hillary Clinton who directly received hundreds of thousands of dollars from huge financial institutions in exchange for speaking for an hour (and saying what, she refuses to say).
Yup. Making a stellar case for your candidate, there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Yup. Making a stellar case for your candidate, there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Honestly, it's not the people here in this thread that we need to worry about not voting, for the most part - and if they do choose not to vote or to vote for someone else, they probably live in the majority of the country that isn't located in a swing state.
That said, if there are are a significant number of Sanders voters who would vote for him and not for her, that's evidence that he is expanding our voting base and reaching votes she can't get. It's evidence for his superior electability, not evidence of his voters' moral turpitude.
Didn't work so well for Walter Mondale in 1984, alas.
Luckily, that was 32 years ago. A lot has changed since the depths of the Reagan revolution.
posted by dialetheia at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
That said, if there are are a significant number of Sanders voters who would vote for him and not for her, that's evidence that he is expanding our voting base and reaching votes she can't get. It's evidence for his superior electability, not evidence of his voters' moral turpitude.
Didn't work so well for Walter Mondale in 1984, alas.
Luckily, that was 32 years ago. A lot has changed since the depths of the Reagan revolution.
posted by dialetheia at 4:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I love New Hampshire. They are sending out police to figure out which cars were in line when the polls were closing and are letting all of those folks vote.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
That's what his whole "political revolution" stump speech line is about - bringing people who have given up on the political process back into it by demonstrating that not everyone involved is bought and paid for, that there is still someone advocating for working people and not billionaires.
Wait a second, isn't that basically what Obama's angle was back in 2008, except with less of a class warfare angle and more of a uniter not a divider message? Did Hillary seriously not learn from getting trounced by a grassroots/populist campaign the first time around?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wait a second, isn't that basically what Obama's angle was back in 2008, except with less of a class warfare angle and more of a uniter not a divider message? Did Hillary seriously not learn from getting trounced by a grassroots/populist campaign the first time around?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you think that union superPACs don't take corporate donations, well... keep in mind that union PACs are all dramatically increasing their donations to candidates, even though their ranks seem to be shrinking over time. How does that work, exactly?
Wait, so are we supposed to be anti-union now? I don't get it.
I don't think people on the left care if Clinton gets money from union PACs. I think they care if union leadership endorses her without a membership vote and I think they care if she gets money from Wall Street and Big Pharma and Big Ag.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Wait, so are we supposed to be anti-union now? I don't get it.
I don't think people on the left care if Clinton gets money from union PACs. I think they care if union leadership endorses her without a membership vote and I think they care if she gets money from Wall Street and Big Pharma and Big Ag.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Conservatives spending against Clinton does not constitute support for Sanders.
It reminds me of being in my first job in 2000, and my very, very, very rich boss (and GWB superfan) walking around the office crowing about all the money he was donating to the Nader campaign. Good times.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It reminds me of being in my first job in 2000, and my very, very, very rich boss (and GWB superfan) walking around the office crowing about all the money he was donating to the Nader campaign. Good times.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Crap. Lines are still forming after the polls closed. Sec. Of State asking AG to extend vote times
posted by Room 641-A at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
votes aren't an expression of your conscience or soul or whatever. they're a very small tactical move in a very big game. Don't cast your vote based on your conscience or your values. Figure out what you're trying to accomplish with your vote, figure out what you can accomplish with your vote, and let that guide you. You might cast your vote for a particular candidate because you're living in a swing state and think that voting for that particular candidate will help get that candidate in office. Or you might want to vote for a minor party candidate because their party might get more funding if they pass a certain vote threshold, and you like that party. Or you might cast a vote for a minor party candidate who you totally despise, specifically because if they pass a certain vote threshold they'll get more funding and thereby maybe in the future split the vote away from your least favored major party.
The point is, your vote is not an expression of your will or your abstract preferences. it is a material tool, a very small one, that can be put to a range of uses. So figure out how you can use it, and then use it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [47 favorites]
The point is, your vote is not an expression of your will or your abstract preferences. it is a material tool, a very small one, that can be put to a range of uses. So figure out how you can use it, and then use it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [47 favorites]
Don't cast your vote based on your conscience or your values.
No.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
No.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Don't cast your vote based on your conscience or your values.
It's your vote. You get to do with it whatever you want.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's your vote. You get to do with it whatever you want.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Local WMUR news reported a few minutes ago that Keene, in the West of the state, is running out of Democratic ballots.
posted by XMLicious at 4:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 4:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hillary Clinton who directly received hundreds of thousands of dollars from huge financial institutions in exchange for speaking for an hour (and saying what, she refuses to say).
We got some indications today. What Clinton said in her paid speeches, Politico: "It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."
And here's an account of one of her Goldman Sachs speaking engagements, published way back in 2013:
We got some indications today. What Clinton said in her paid speeches, Politico: "It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."
And here's an account of one of her Goldman Sachs speaking engagements, published way back in 2013:
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).posted by dialetheia at 4:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). And perhaps even more than that, Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships.
Well, sure, you can use it as a tool for self-expression, but it's a very poor tool for that purpose. For one thing, it's done in secret, so it's sort of like writing down your thoughts in your diary or whatever — it's self-expression, but not in a form that you can share with the world.
If political self-expression really is your chief aim, I would suggest finding a more useful tool; an old fashioned blog, say, or a Twitter account, or like Instagram or whatever.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
If political self-expression really is your chief aim, I would suggest finding a more useful tool; an old fashioned blog, say, or a Twitter account, or like Instagram or whatever.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Or, you know, vote your conscience. Not the same thing.
I don't understand this. Christ on a crutch. The Supreme Court is four conservatives and a guy who leans right and might be deciding cases based on the side of the bed he woke up on. There won't be a filibuster if they can ram through laws fast and furious. There isn't a plan fucking B here.
If your chosen Dem candidate doesn't win, please hold your nose and vote D so that we can get 4-8 years of what we just had and not 4-8 years of off-the-rails madness with a Mad Hatter president, Tea Party House, and sort-of-sane senate.
It's your vote. You get to do with it whatever you want.
Then please do the thing that isn't helping in a miniscule way to hand the country over to Trump, Cruz, Christie, Carson, Robio, Santorum, et al.
posted by Slackermagee at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
I don't understand this. Christ on a crutch. The Supreme Court is four conservatives and a guy who leans right and might be deciding cases based on the side of the bed he woke up on. There won't be a filibuster if they can ram through laws fast and furious. There isn't a plan fucking B here.
If your chosen Dem candidate doesn't win, please hold your nose and vote D so that we can get 4-8 years of what we just had and not 4-8 years of off-the-rails madness with a Mad Hatter president, Tea Party House, and sort-of-sane senate.
It's your vote. You get to do with it whatever you want.
Then please do the thing that isn't helping in a miniscule way to hand the country over to Trump, Cruz, Christie, Carson, Robio, Santorum, et al.
posted by Slackermagee at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
Well, sure, you can use it as a tool for self-expression, but it's a very poor tool for that purpose. If political self-expression is your aim, I would suggest finding a more useful tool; an old fashioned blog, say, or a Twitter account, or like Instagram or whatever.
I suggest finding better methods for being tactical. Voting is a bad method to exercise political power. Work extra hours so you can donate more money, for example.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I suggest finding better methods for being tactical. Voting is a bad method to exercise political power. Work extra hours so you can donate more money, for example.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Nobody has any place telling anyone who to vote for or how to vote or why to vote. It's their choice. Period. We all know that happens when one candidate gets more votes than another, and we can make a decision based on our own beliefs.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
He's a pawn of Big Bedpan
If you repeat this slowly and breathily, it's like bamboo wind chimes. Good for meditation.
posted by Celsius1414 at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
If you repeat this slowly and breathily, it's like bamboo wind chimes. Good for meditation.
posted by Celsius1414 at 4:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
> she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.
Ah, the old "socialize the risk, privatize the reward" game.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Ah, the old "socialize the risk, privatize the reward" game.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trounced
Please tell me this is not A Thing.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Please tell me this is not A Thing.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Ah, the old "socialize the risk, privatize the reward" game.
Yeah - it's hard to imagine why voters would want socialism for the little guy, too.
posted by dialetheia at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah - it's hard to imagine why voters would want socialism for the little guy, too.
posted by dialetheia at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Before we get so outraged about how other people vote, please at least consider that most Americans don't even live in swing states.
posted by dialetheia at 4:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
> I suggest finding better methods for being tactical. Voting is a bad method to exercise political power. Work extra hours so you can donate more money, for example.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on 2/9
[3 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
Absolutely. The ritual of voting is a necessary prerequisite for democratic governance, but the simple participation in the ritual is by itself barely a political act.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on 2/9
[3 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
Absolutely. The ritual of voting is a necessary prerequisite for democratic governance, but the simple participation in the ritual is by itself barely a political act.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Before we get so outraged about how other people vote, please at least consider that most Americans don't even live in swing states.
Or vote
posted by Max Power at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Or vote
posted by Max Power at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Please tell me this is not A Thing.
Nah, just lazy iPad typing
posted by Room 641-A at 4:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nah, just lazy iPad typing
posted by Room 641-A at 4:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have a half-baked theory that there's a critical developmental window for the formation of political beliefs. If you came of political age during the '30s, you were always a big-government Democrat. If you came of political age during the '70s, you were always an anti-union Reaganite. If you came of political age in 2000, nothing is scarier to you than losing a close election to a Republican. And if you came of political age in 2008, nothing is scarier to you than Wall Street. (Which kind of goes back in a circle to the '30s, I guess.)
I suspect - and this may be complete bullshit - that this drives some of the debate here. It's hard for all of us to see past our formative political experiences, because nothing is more visceral to us.
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
I suspect - and this may be complete bullshit - that this drives some of the debate here. It's hard for all of us to see past our formative political experiences, because nothing is more visceral to us.
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
I have a half-baked theory that there's a critical developmental window for the formation of political beliefs.
I like that theory! It would explain why so many Democrats seem to think we're still in the Bush era as far as the country being fundamentally conservative even though we've won the last two Presidential elections and public opinion is fairly evenly split, with more nonvoters supporting liberal policies than not (part of the reason so many are focused on turnout this year).
By contrast, Millenials view socialism more positively than capitalism and grew up in the Obama era. They are very open to big government. This is a huge opportunity for the left (if not this year, then soon) as long as we don't openly tell them to go fuck themselves (which is what the Democratic party would be doing if they overturned a popular vote with superdelegates, for example) or demonstrate that the party is so bought and paid for that politics just aren't worth it.
posted by dialetheia at 4:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
I like that theory! It would explain why so many Democrats seem to think we're still in the Bush era as far as the country being fundamentally conservative even though we've won the last two Presidential elections and public opinion is fairly evenly split, with more nonvoters supporting liberal policies than not (part of the reason so many are focused on turnout this year).
By contrast, Millenials view socialism more positively than capitalism and grew up in the Obama era. They are very open to big government. This is a huge opportunity for the left (if not this year, then soon) as long as we don't openly tell them to go fuck themselves (which is what the Democratic party would be doing if they overturned a popular vote with superdelegates, for example) or demonstrate that the party is so bought and paid for that politics just aren't worth it.
posted by dialetheia at 4:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Bernie supporters don't owe Hillary shit, and a lot of them won't be scared into submission come November whether or not you think they should.
I'm exceptionally dismayed when I see the process framed in these terms. You can flip those names and I'm still just as dismayed. This is exactly the sort of bitterness that I worry will come out of this primary.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm exceptionally dismayed when I see the process framed in these terms. You can flip those names and I'm still just as dismayed. This is exactly the sort of bitterness that I worry will come out of this primary.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
I like that theory clawsoon. Its kinda like the Douglas Adams theory of technology but for politics.
posted by ian1977 at 4:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 4:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The ritual of voting is a necessary prerequisite for democratic governance, but the simple participation in the ritual is by itself barely a political act.
Ah, American individualism. True, "nothing could be weaker than the feeble strength of one" but together "In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold." Voting is an act of solidarity with others who vote, and as collective action it actually does topple governments. Solidarity forever!
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ah, American individualism. True, "nothing could be weaker than the feeble strength of one" but together "In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold." Voting is an act of solidarity with others who vote, and as collective action it actually does topple governments. Solidarity forever!
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have a half-baked theory that there's a critical developmental window for the formation of political beliefs.
I don't think it's half-baked at all. Here's another theory (and criticism).
posted by triggerfinger at 4:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think it's half-baked at all. Here's another theory (and criticism).
posted by triggerfinger at 4:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have a half-baked theory that there's a critical developmental window for the formation of political beliefs. If you came of political age during the '30s, you were always a big-government Democrat. If you came of political age during the '70s, you were always an anti-union Reaganite. If you came of political age in 2000, nothing is scarier to you than losing a close election to a Republican. And if you came of political age in 2008, nothing is scarier to you than Wall Street. (Which kind of goes back in a circle to the '30s, I guess.)
Personally, I have changed my political beliefs considerably in the course of my life. I have also changed my religious beliefs a great deal. I understand this makes me part of a minority. However, like pretty much every member of a minority, I resent my experience being discounted as something that couldn't happen, or that people like me aren't really significant.
posted by Quonab at 4:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Personally, I have changed my political beliefs considerably in the course of my life. I have also changed my religious beliefs a great deal. I understand this makes me part of a minority. However, like pretty much every member of a minority, I resent my experience being discounted as something that couldn't happen, or that people like me aren't really significant.
posted by Quonab at 4:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trochanter: "Bernie gets more Super pac money than Hillary."
No candidate gets money from a superpac. Superpacs are forbidden from donating to campaigns.
posted by boo_radley at 4:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
No candidate gets money from a superpac. Superpacs are forbidden from donating to campaigns.
posted by boo_radley at 4:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It would really just be wonderful if we could at least get beyond the primary before we go into the "vote the party" rhetoric, because then there will be a chance to maybe unify some people behind a common candidate, people who perhaps not been preemptively attacked for their vote because of how the election is obviously going to unfold. Doing that beforehand is a wonderful way to drive that wedge in the party very deeply, though.
This campaign is already well on track to be by far the most divisive campaign I've personally been part of.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
This campaign is already well on track to be by far the most divisive campaign I've personally been part of.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Well, nobody is innocent and clean here. Nobody.
No one here is perfect.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
No one here is perfect.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If your chosen Dem candidate doesn't win, please hold your nose and vote D so that we can get 4-8 years of what we just had and not 4-8 years of off-the-rails madness with a Mad Hatter president, Tea Party House, and sort-of-sane senate.
But there always seems to be off-the-rails madness lurking around the corner. If Hillary gets in, eight years later we'll just have the same arguments being made for why we shouldn't support Elizabeth Warren because a Martin Shkreli presidency would be too disastrous. The stakes are always too damn high.
When will it ever be permissible to vote for a candidate who isn't a stopgap solution against the relentless crazy tide? When will I be able to cast a vote for the person who best represents my ideals and my priorities?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
But there always seems to be off-the-rails madness lurking around the corner. If Hillary gets in, eight years later we'll just have the same arguments being made for why we shouldn't support Elizabeth Warren because a Martin Shkreli presidency would be too disastrous. The stakes are always too damn high.
When will it ever be permissible to vote for a candidate who isn't a stopgap solution against the relentless crazy tide? When will I be able to cast a vote for the person who best represents my ideals and my priorities?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
I remember how much bitterness there was in '08 and how people swore up and down they wouldn't vote for Obama/Clinton if the other won the primary... and then when the general came along people mostly voted for Obama.
posted by Justinian at 4:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
you're allowed, certainly, to let your conscience guide your vote. it's just that your vote isn't your self; it's a mark on a piece of paper, or a hole in a piece of card stock, or a repositioned gear in an old-fashioned voting booth, or a very, very small mark on a digital drive, that's put together with a bunch of other marks and tallied up and then filtered through an arcane process that yields, after several steps, the name of an officeholder seen as legitimately entitled to that office.
This strikes me as a very poor tool for self-expression or self-actualization or whatever. It's a slightly better tool for other purposes, though of course it is such a vanishingly small political act that it cannot, in most situations, be treated as individally valuable in and of itself.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
This strikes me as a very poor tool for self-expression or self-actualization or whatever. It's a slightly better tool for other purposes, though of course it is such a vanishingly small political act that it cannot, in most situations, be treated as individally valuable in and of itself.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have a half-baked theory that there's a critical developmental window for the formation of political beliefs.
What does it mean if you came of political age reading the Starr Report? Besides years of sexual confusion that is.
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
What does it mean if you came of political age reading the Starr Report? Besides years of sexual confusion that is.
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
It would really just be wonderful if we could at least get beyond the primary... because then there will be a chance to maybe unify some people behind a common candidate
Yes yes yes. Please. Let's fight the general when it's time for the general.
posted by saturday_morning at 4:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes yes yes. Please. Let's fight the general when it's time for the general.
posted by saturday_morning at 4:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Early results coming in. http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/
posted by joeyh at 4:38 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by joeyh at 4:38 PM on February 9, 2016
Third place right now is a fellow named Vermin Supreme.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Don't cast your vote based on your conscience or your values. Figure out what you're trying to accomplish with your vote, figure out what you can accomplish with your vote, and let that guide you.
Voting your values is, itself, tactical.
posted by threeants at 4:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Voting your values is, itself, tactical.
posted by threeants at 4:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean if I wanted to vote my conscience I'd write in Angela Davis for President and Janelle Monáe for VP. but that wouldn't be a useful application of the affordances granted by voting, so instead I'll state my conscience here on an old-fashioned community webforum and put my vote to better uses.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
It is your vote and you are free to do whatever you want, but please try not to fuck the rest of us over by tossing it into the wind if you are in a state that matters.
posted by futz at 4:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 4:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh my god, the tactical voting argument is so boring. Can we talk about literally anything else? If there are people who won't vote for Clinton but would vote for Sanders, all that speaks to is that he can reach votes that she can't. Those people aren't even here in the thread to hear our lectures, for the most part.
posted by dialetheia at 4:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
FTR, I am not in a state that matters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on February 9, 2016
So what are people thinking for NH? I'm guessing 58-42 for Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on February 9, 2016
I am going to tactically vote for O'Malley just to spite you all
posted by Apocryphon at 4:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 4:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
57:40 is 538's estimate
posted by andrewcooke at 4:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 4:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ummm, back to more important topics:
god who would he even pick as his VP
one of his children
Which one?
This one: Piteous Soul Trump Jr. Bemoans the Trials Of Being a Billionaire's Son?
Or this one: Donald Trump’s Son Compares Waterboarding to Frat Parties - "No different than what happens on college campuses in frat houses every day"?
George. George was always the smartest guy in the Trump boardroom. Ivanka is good, too. Like George, she knows which way the Trump wind is blowing, and can back off from good sense accordingly. But George, he could always lead The Donald without him knowing it.
Gary Busey would be a good VP choice.
Carolyn or GTFO
First of all, Carolyn was, is, and always will be better than George (George?! as if!). Ivanka is the Favored One over all other Trump offspring, but I suspect she's too smart to involve herself in this to that degree. Busey is an accused art supply thief (ok, exonerated, but the scandal still taints him). As far as other Apprentices, Bill is still somewhat in the limelight. LaToya Jackson? Find me any other Apprentice that Trump fired and *rehired* - you can't.
If Trump is going to continue operating on instinct (it's gotten him this far), I think he'll refuse to pick any of the other also-rans and instead choose someone who is not and never has been a politician, and who is a woman and/or POC (Trump loves crowing about how everyone is wrong about him and he loves the people his enemies claim he hates). He will pick someone he has a lot of experience with, knows he can control, and knows will not outshine him (he has to be the center of attention at all times).
The answer is Omarosa.
posted by sallybrown at 4:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
god who would he even pick as his VP
one of his children
Which one?
This one: Piteous Soul Trump Jr. Bemoans the Trials Of Being a Billionaire's Son?
Or this one: Donald Trump’s Son Compares Waterboarding to Frat Parties - "No different than what happens on college campuses in frat houses every day"?
George. George was always the smartest guy in the Trump boardroom. Ivanka is good, too. Like George, she knows which way the Trump wind is blowing, and can back off from good sense accordingly. But George, he could always lead The Donald without him knowing it.
Gary Busey would be a good VP choice.
Carolyn or GTFO
First of all, Carolyn was, is, and always will be better than George (George?! as if!). Ivanka is the Favored One over all other Trump offspring, but I suspect she's too smart to involve herself in this to that degree. Busey is an accused art supply thief (ok, exonerated, but the scandal still taints him). As far as other Apprentices, Bill is still somewhat in the limelight. LaToya Jackson? Find me any other Apprentice that Trump fired and *rehired* - you can't.
If Trump is going to continue operating on instinct (it's gotten him this far), I think he'll refuse to pick any of the other also-rans and instead choose someone who is not and never has been a politician, and who is a woman and/or POC (Trump loves crowing about how everyone is wrong about him and he loves the people his enemies claim he hates). He will pick someone he has a lot of experience with, knows he can control, and knows will not outshine him (he has to be the center of attention at all times).
The answer is Omarosa.
posted by sallybrown at 4:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
My guesses:
56-40 Sanders
35 Trump-14 Rubio-14 Kasich
posted by crazy with stars at 4:48 PM on February 9, 2016
56-40 Sanders
35 Trump-14 Rubio-14 Kasich
posted by crazy with stars at 4:48 PM on February 9, 2016
I say 54:45. Right in the middle of the spin zone for both candidates.
posted by ian1977 at 4:48 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 4:48 PM on February 9, 2016
It takes privilege to say Sanders-or-bust if your reproductive/marriage/whatever rights aren't at stake, too, especially when major economic reform is far from a fait accompli even if Sanders gets elected president.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Im thinking 56-42 for Bernie. Solid win but not a blow out.
Trump will easily win on the Right with Cruz and Kasich getting 2nd and 3rd. Rubio is fucked because he pulled a Perry in the debate.
posted by vuron at 4:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump will easily win on the Right with Cruz and Kasich getting 2nd and 3rd. Rubio is fucked because he pulled a Perry in the debate.
posted by vuron at 4:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
some of us olds also have been arrested and lobbied and did time fundraising and we know what it feels like to believe in somebody. It's a little like falling in love.
The danger of falling in love here is that it might not align well with real-world gains and losses.
And I get, as somebody who is around a fifteen year old kid a lot and teaches 18-22 year olds, that lecturing about what to do with one's vote is maybe not productive. But I would urge people who are younger to think about the possibility that some of older cynical folks are not (just) burnt out; it's a knowledge of process of and what can actually be lost.
I know when I was young and got arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge, for a while it was AWESOME. We were first in a cell with Act Up veterans, and we basically partied.
But Guliani wanted to punish us, and so we were in The Tombs for maybe three days. People with HIV didn't get their meds. There were real world harms.
So if some of us olds come of as pedantic, at least from where I sit it comes from a matter of experience, not just a resignation to a fate that we could change if we resisted.
[on preview, I see we've moved away from this topic, and maybe that's a good thing]
posted by angrycat at 4:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The danger of falling in love here is that it might not align well with real-world gains and losses.
And I get, as somebody who is around a fifteen year old kid a lot and teaches 18-22 year olds, that lecturing about what to do with one's vote is maybe not productive. But I would urge people who are younger to think about the possibility that some of older cynical folks are not (just) burnt out; it's a knowledge of process of and what can actually be lost.
I know when I was young and got arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge, for a while it was AWESOME. We were first in a cell with Act Up veterans, and we basically partied.
But Guliani wanted to punish us, and so we were in The Tombs for maybe three days. People with HIV didn't get their meds. There were real world harms.
So if some of us olds come of as pedantic, at least from where I sit it comes from a matter of experience, not just a resignation to a fate that we could change if we resisted.
[on preview, I see we've moved away from this topic, and maybe that's a good thing]
posted by angrycat at 4:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
If Sanders is right, and people are ready for a politician who says "higher taxes", it'll be a momentous shift.
People might be very open to at least forcing corps to pay what they owe instead of off-shoring it if they have a president who isn't afraid to talk to the the public about it.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
People might be very open to at least forcing corps to pay what they owe instead of off-shoring it if they have a president who isn't afraid to talk to the the public about it.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
It takes privilege to say Sanders-or-bust if your reproductive/marriage/whatever rights aren't at stake, too, especially when major economic reform is far from a fait accompli even if Sanders gets elected president.
You're not wrong but I continue resent the Democratic party holding my reproductive rights hostage like this, especially being lectured on it by people who probably have health insurance and make more than minimum wage. 23% of my state still doesn't have coverage, including me. People aren't just being idealists or purists when they support Sanders. Many of us desperately need our government to work for working people again, not just billionaires, and we don't have the privilege of ignoring the broken system we have, either.
posted by dialetheia at 4:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
You're not wrong but I continue resent the Democratic party holding my reproductive rights hostage like this, especially being lectured on it by people who probably have health insurance and make more than minimum wage. 23% of my state still doesn't have coverage, including me. People aren't just being idealists or purists when they support Sanders. Many of us desperately need our government to work for working people again, not just billionaires, and we don't have the privilege of ignoring the broken system we have, either.
posted by dialetheia at 4:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s political machine has been busted — thanks to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
for reals though sallybrown is right. Omarosa really is the obvious pick for Trump's VP.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC issuing a warning that they may call one or both parties at 8pm while folks are still in line.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016
The question is: how close a defeat for Clinton would it have to be for it to count as a victory, and to shift the narrative to one of Sanders' revolution petering out? 55-45?
posted by acb at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Third place right now is a fellow named Vermin Supreme.
Vermin runs every election. He's an institution. Unfortunately, he's beholden to Big Crazy.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Vermin runs every election. He's an institution. Unfortunately, he's beholden to Big Crazy.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
For people who have the very real possibility of being fucked by a Republican administration and more right wing SCOTUS judges the idea if losing in this election is terrifying so yeah they will take a less than perfect candidate who can win vs a candidate that says the right thing and will be blown out in the general election. The result is that people are hedging their bets.
posted by vuron at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not to continue the "vote for the chosen candidate or else everything bad is your fault" topic, but I have to address this line:
And I get, as somebody who is around a fifteen year old kid a lot and teaches 18-22 year olds, that lecturing about what to do with one's vote is maybe not productive. But I would urge people who are younger to think about the possibility that some of older cynical folks are not (just) burnt out; it's a knowledge of process of and what can actually be lost.
Why assume it's only young people that won't vote? Look at voter turnout. A huge number of people of all ages have checked out.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
And I get, as somebody who is around a fifteen year old kid a lot and teaches 18-22 year olds, that lecturing about what to do with one's vote is maybe not productive. But I would urge people who are younger to think about the possibility that some of older cynical folks are not (just) burnt out; it's a knowledge of process of and what can actually be lost.
Why assume it's only young people that won't vote? Look at voter turnout. A huge number of people of all ages have checked out.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
You know, I was thinking for a while this afternoon around the idea that while Sanders resonates with me much more as a candidate, it's incredibly obvious that Clinton for better or for worse would be a better representative of the national electorate's political will. And then I realized how fucked it is that I have so deeply internalized the misapprehension that a handful of kleptocrats and their interests speak with the voice of the people. It feels self-evident that a conservative liberal from the corporate class is a better reflection of the populace than a social democrat-- but I'm not sure it would hold up to scrutiny. There are so, so many people in our country who aren't, haven't been, or can't be at the table.
posted by threeants at 4:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by threeants at 4:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
wikipedia's article on populism is quite interesting (i've been wondering about the meaning of the word recently). anyone have any better links?
posted by andrewcooke at 4:56 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 4:56 PM on February 9, 2016
I think any win for Sanders is fine here. The current press cycle is enjoying hammering the Clintons.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's a new consideration:
Suppose a drastic market correction happens in the next few months. Shades of 2008. Which Democratic candidate would have a better plan for economic recovery? Which message would appeal better to the electorate?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Suppose a drastic market correction happens in the next few months. Shades of 2008. Which Democratic candidate would have a better plan for economic recovery? Which message would appeal better to the electorate?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
wikipedia's article on populism is quite interesting (i've been wondering about the meaning of the word recently). anyone have any better links?
The Backstory podcast had a pretty good ep a few months back.
posted by moons in june at 4:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Backstory podcast had a pretty good ep a few months back.
posted by moons in june at 4:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Im thinking 56-42 for Bernie. Solid win but not a blow out.
I would just like to say as a person living in a red state, that this is a typical republican vs. democrat split and we are typically cast as a die-hard-republican/there-are-no-democrats-here state. It is weird to see someone say it is not a blow out.
posted by Quonab at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
I would just like to say as a person living in a red state, that this is a typical republican vs. democrat split and we are typically cast as a die-hard-republican/there-are-no-democrats-here state. It is weird to see someone say it is not a blow out.
posted by Quonab at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Sanders and Trump, called on the hour.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think any win for Sanders is fine here. The current press cycle is enjoying hammering the Clintons.
OTOH, if, after glowing reports of his strength in NH, he squeezed in with 52-48 or so, it'd take a lot of the wind out of his sails. Subsequent states were never going to be as easy, and to shift polling (not to mention superdelegates), Sanders would need not just a win but a resounding one, one which casts doubt on Clinton's electoral appeal.
posted by acb at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2016
OTOH, if, after glowing reports of his strength in NH, he squeezed in with 52-48 or so, it'd take a lot of the wind out of his sails. Subsequent states were never going to be as easy, and to shift polling (not to mention superdelegates), Sanders would need not just a win but a resounding one, one which casts doubt on Clinton's electoral appeal.
posted by acb at 5:00 PM on February 9, 2016
Why assume it's only young people that won't vote? Look at voter turnout. A huge number of people of all ages have checked out
actually, I was making two points there, neither really having to do with the chronological age of Sanders supporters:
1) Adolescents can be super resistant to being lectured, so because I'm around them (sometimes lecturing them) I'm sensitive to that fact, that being lectured to is not nice.
2) I wonder if many of the Sanders voters feel empowered by his message in a newish way. I mean, he's saying things about class that are new in terms of the common discourse. And if people are falling for a candidate for the first time--well, there may be a naiveté there that is often associated with youth or inexperience.
Sorry if I'm being insulting I'm trying hard not to be.
posted by angrycat at 5:01 PM on February 9, 2016
actually, I was making two points there, neither really having to do with the chronological age of Sanders supporters:
1) Adolescents can be super resistant to being lectured, so because I'm around them (sometimes lecturing them) I'm sensitive to that fact, that being lectured to is not nice.
2) I wonder if many of the Sanders voters feel empowered by his message in a newish way. I mean, he's saying things about class that are new in terms of the common discourse. And if people are falling for a candidate for the first time--well, there may be a naiveté there that is often associated with youth or inexperience.
Sorry if I'm being insulting I'm trying hard not to be.
posted by angrycat at 5:01 PM on February 9, 2016
I think it would great if everyone with both candidates stopped speculating about who will or will not vote for the other candidate if theirs loses. All the people we know? Totally, uselessly anecdotal because it's early and anything can happen and people can change their mind five times between now and then. Assumptions about how the other candidates supporters will or will not vote is even more meaningless. All this does is foment suspicion and bad will, and dangerously specious strategizing over totally nonexistent information. This hurts everyone and helps no one.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 5:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
on bernie:hilary ratios: wasserman on 538 has just framed it in terms of whether or not she can keep the lead under 20%. that seems like a press-friendly way of looking at it. (maybe it's been used already, but i've been looking around for what will be used as "analysis" and it's the first thing i've found that has a clear number).
interestingly, the 538 projection is a 17% lead, so hilary will come out "ahead" in the expected result.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
interestingly, the 538 projection is a 17% lead, so hilary will come out "ahead" in the expected result.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump's speech is gonna be fun. Can't wait to see how Bernie handles his speech. He has to really try and springboard himself nationally here.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think it would great if everyone with both candidates stopped speculating about who will or will not vote for the other candidate if theirs loses. All the people we know?
Yea people seem to be working with a sample size of their group of friends.
posted by sweetkid at 5:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
ABC called it for Trump and Sanders. Looks like the results are going to be right about the average for the polls.
posted by markkraft at 5:04 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by markkraft at 5:04 PM on February 9, 2016
I am going to tactically vote for O'Malley just to spite you all
im voting for zombie reanimated stalin
but not old lumpy stalin, it's hot young hipster stalin
posted by poffin boffin at 5:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
im voting for zombie reanimated stalin
but not old lumpy stalin, it's hot young hipster stalin
posted by poffin boffin at 5:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Donald Trump has won a primary election. The Republican Party of New Hampshire has said they want Donald Trump to be President of the United States.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
Sorry if I'm being insulting I'm trying hard not to be.
By the standards of the thread, I think you're doing pretty fine (and the thread is doing pretty well, at that).
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
By the standards of the thread, I think you're doing pretty fine (and the thread is doing pretty well, at that).
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I forgot Cornell West was stumping for Bernie. I'm dying to see what happens in the south.
posted by Trochanter at 5:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 5:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
The current press cycle is enjoying hammering the Clintons.
Yeah, I'll be interested to see if she goes on the attack even more or tries to dial things down and act like she's been there before. I have to think these newer scandals (whatever merit they may or may not have) make it harder for her to go on the attack, but maybe she'll look at it as a way to change the conversation.
I wouldn't say the "electability" argument is dead now that Bernie's won a primary, but it's certainly in the ER getting its vitals checked.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'll be interested to see if she goes on the attack even more or tries to dial things down and act like she's been there before. I have to think these newer scandals (whatever merit they may or may not have) make it harder for her to go on the attack, but maybe she'll look at it as a way to change the conversation.
I wouldn't say the "electability" argument is dead now that Bernie's won a primary, but it's certainly in the ER getting its vitals checked.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bush currently in third place in NH.
Carl Hiaasen:
It’s a grim battle for the sane wing of the Republican Party, which means placing at least third in New Hampshire.
The positioning is crucial because Trump’s vaudeville act is starting to fray, and the icy zealotry of Cruz scares many conservatives.
If this were a script, you would now write in a timely entrance by the seasoned, well-credentialed Jeb Bush.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carl Hiaasen:
It’s a grim battle for the sane wing of the Republican Party, which means placing at least third in New Hampshire.
The positioning is crucial because Trump’s vaudeville act is starting to fray, and the icy zealotry of Cruz scares many conservatives.
If this were a script, you would now write in a timely entrance by the seasoned, well-credentialed Jeb Bush.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"The media says we’re going to win but we can't take anything for granted. Please, stay in line and practice democracy. Every vote matters." @berniesanders
posted by melissasaurus at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm sorry to see Jeb ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... I mean Jeb! ...doing so well. I would love to see Cruz best him for third place.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Short Attention Sp at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2016
If this were a script, you would now write in a timely entrance by the seasoned, well-credentialed Jeb Bush.
"Please clap."
posted by tonycpsu at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
"Please clap."
posted by tonycpsu at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Buh-bye Iowa and New Hampshire... it's been nice running the gauntlet, with one win apiece.
But hello Nevada and South Carolina! Now things get innnteresting.
posted by markkraft at 5:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
But hello Nevada and South Carolina! Now things get innnteresting.
posted by markkraft at 5:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton just released a three page memo saying "how she can still win" the nomination.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, he's saying things about class that are new in terms of the common discourse.
what's interesting to me is the way that "intersectionality" is being used in the cultural civil war. when i returned to this site i was surprised at the exclusion of "poor whites" in american politics (at least as argued here). then i started reading threads mentioning intersectionality and it seemed like everything old was new again. and now i think you can argue we've got to the point where there's payback along the lines of "you've been calling me names and so i'm not voting for you."
in a sense it's not that he's saying new things, but that's he's found a way to say the new things that removes the sting in the criticism from other areas of "the left". he's (or his supporters) found a way to use old politics with the new words. which may be what you mean by "new in terms of the common discourse".
posted by andrewcooke at 5:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
what's interesting to me is the way that "intersectionality" is being used in the cultural civil war. when i returned to this site i was surprised at the exclusion of "poor whites" in american politics (at least as argued here). then i started reading threads mentioning intersectionality and it seemed like everything old was new again. and now i think you can argue we've got to the point where there's payback along the lines of "you've been calling me names and so i'm not voting for you."
in a sense it's not that he's saying new things, but that's he's found a way to say the new things that removes the sting in the criticism from other areas of "the left". he's (or his supporters) found a way to use old politics with the new words. which may be what you mean by "new in terms of the common discourse".
posted by andrewcooke at 5:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whatever you think of the current race I hope we can all agree that holding the first two primaries/caucuses in two of the three whitest states in the country is not an optimal structure.
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
She doesn't need a memo. Winning should be fairly easy from here on out.
By my count, she's likely to lose only about 2-3 delegates tonight, and she's up by over 350.
posted by markkraft at 5:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
By my count, she's likely to lose only about 2-3 delegates tonight, and she's up by over 350.
posted by markkraft at 5:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders to hold a rally in Harlem tomorrow with endorsements of Black Lives Matters folks, including Eric Garner's family.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
Including some of Garner's family. Garner's daughter has endorsed Sanders. Garner's mother has endorsed Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Eric Garner's daughter, perhaps... but the mother has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
posted by markkraft at 5:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by markkraft at 5:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The whole primary / caucus procedure is so incredibly fucking weird - It seems well optimized for the 24 hour news cycle as well as the same sort of blow-by-blow and day-to-day analysis that we have with professional sports, but I can't say I have any clue as to why we do things this way.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which goes to show the generational split over all I guess.
posted by Justinian at 5:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I didn't mean to say you were insulting anyone, angrycat. I just wanted to *cough* dispel the notion that people who don't vote don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.
posted by downtohisturtles at 5:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 5:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Buh-bye Iowa and New Hampshire... it's been nice running the gauntlet, with one win apiece.
But hello Nevada and South Carolina! Now things get innnteresting.
I'm not sure whose favor this works...in..favor of? But it's 16 days until Nevada. That is a long time.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:22 PM on February 9, 2016
But hello Nevada and South Carolina! Now things get innnteresting.
I'm not sure whose favor this works...in..favor of? But it's 16 days until Nevada. That is a long time.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:22 PM on February 9, 2016
I just wanted to *cough* dispel the notion that people don't vote don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I question the sense of going to Harlem tomorrow. I wonder how seriously he's actually contesting Nevada, because Hillary has a lot of union support there., and really needs to win at least two of the first four races to have a shot on Super Tuesday.
posted by markkraft at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by markkraft at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016
Man, Rubio might finished behind Jeb! in New Hampshire. That's gotta smart. I'm sure he'll memorize a snappy response to questions about it though.
posted by Justinian at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
oh man imagine Biden replaced with Carson. It would be four years of no Biden gaffes a la "THIS IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL," no Biden smiles, and Carson napping and saying weird shit about the pyramids
So, what you're saying is that the vice presidency is now the equivalent of the "wacky neighbor" on a 1970s era sitcom?
posted by jonp72 at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, what you're saying is that the vice presidency is now the equivalent of the "wacky neighbor" on a 1970s era sitcom?
posted by jonp72 at 5:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm sorry to see Jeb ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... I mean Jeb! ...doing so well. I would love to see Cruz best him for third place.
Honestly, I've been pulling for Bush the whole time, hoping against hope that he'll stage a stunning comeback. Not because I like him or because I want another Bush in the White House, but because he's the most moderate of the bunch. I guess Rubio is acceptable (when compared to the rest of the contenders so of course SUPER LOW BAR), but wow, is that a scary overall lineup. Even scarier that it's Jeb's comparative moderateness that's causing him to lose.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Honestly, I've been pulling for Bush the whole time, hoping against hope that he'll stage a stunning comeback. Not because I like him or because I want another Bush in the White House, but because he's the most moderate of the bunch. I guess Rubio is acceptable (when compared to the rest of the contenders so of course SUPER LOW BAR), but wow, is that a scary overall lineup. Even scarier that it's Jeb's comparative moderateness that's causing him to lose.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
So far Trump has 34% of the vote, and so he's outperforming his polls (31% in the final Huffington Post average). He underperformed in Iowa, but I do think there is a "shy Trump" effect -- people are reluctant to admit to others that they're voting for Trump, and the Iowa caucus can be a pretty informal, open affair. Bodes well for him the rest of the way, since there are lot more primaries than caucuses.
posted by crazy with stars at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by crazy with stars at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
85% of the under 30 voters for Democrats when to Sanders tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Listening to NPR coverage. Who the fuck are all these undecided people? I've voted in every presidential election since 1992 and I've always known who I was going to vote for long before I went to the poll... Granted, I live in a late voting state, but even before the field narrows, it's always simple as hell.
(Also, this Hillary voter currently being interviewed is condescending as hell with the "magic wand" comment.)
posted by entropicamericana at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Also, this Hillary voter currently being interviewed is condescending as hell with the "magic wand" comment.)
posted by entropicamericana at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
And 68% of the gun owner vote.
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders also won the women in New Hampshire, 53-46.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I question the sense of going to Harlem tomorrow. I wonder how seriously he's actually contesting Nevada, because Hillary has a lot of union support there., and really needs to win at least two of the first four races to have a shot on Super Tuesday.
Nevada is over two weeks away. Tomorrow he'll be coming off his first primary victory, and everyone knows he's weak on the black vote. It makes PERFECT sense.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Nevada is over two weeks away. Tomorrow he'll be coming off his first primary victory, and everyone knows he's weak on the black vote. It makes PERFECT sense.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
So, what you're saying is that the vice presidency is now the equivalent of the "wacky neighbor" on a 1970s era sitcom?
Same as it ever was.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2016
Same as it ever was.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2016
I wonder if there are all sorts of 'undecideds' in Iowa and New Hampshire cuz they get attention for being undecided? Too cynical?
posted by ian1977 at 5:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 5:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It made sense for Hillary to go to Flint, MI... and to do it first, without making it into a big rally. But Sander's only got another 10 days to campaign in Nevada, which he's significantly behind in, so burning one of them seems a bit risky right now.
posted by markkraft at 5:28 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by markkraft at 5:28 PM on February 9, 2016
on bernie:hilary ratios: wasserman on 538 has just framed it in terms of whether or not she can keep the lead under 20%. that seems like a press-friendly way of looking at it. (maybe it's been used already, but i've been looking around for what will be used as "analysis" and it's the first thing i've found that has a clear number).
Hillary is allowed to lose by no more than 9% in order to declare victory. I wish that were a joke.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary is allowed to lose by no more than 9% in order to declare victory. I wish that were a joke.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I wonder if there are all sorts of 'undecideds' in Iowa and New Hampshire cuz they get attention for being undecided?
I think it's because most people are complete ignoramuses about politics. People like those in this thread are the exception rather than the rule. It is shocking how utterly and completely ignorant most people are about issues, policies, positions of candidates, and basically every single aspect of politics that we consider so important.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it's because most people are complete ignoramuses about politics. People like those in this thread are the exception rather than the rule. It is shocking how utterly and completely ignorant most people are about issues, policies, positions of candidates, and basically every single aspect of politics that we consider so important.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
wonder how seriously he's actually contesting Nevada, because Hillary has a lot of union support there., and really needs to win at least two of the first four races to have a shot on Super Tuesday.
I can't remember where I heard this today, probably MSNBC, but a woman said that Bernie has more offices, people on the ground, and is competitive financially in Nevada. FWIW, I don't think it was a Bernie person who said it.
And 68% of the gun owner vote.
I think I said this in the other thread, but this could be a good thing if they will at least come to the table. The NRA will need a whole new strategy. Also, Bernie's current NRA report card grade is D-. He's had five Fs, a few more D-s, and a C- when he voted for that one bill.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I can't remember where I heard this today, probably MSNBC, but a woman said that Bernie has more offices, people on the ground, and is competitive financially in Nevada. FWIW, I don't think it was a Bernie person who said it.
And 68% of the gun owner vote.
I think I said this in the other thread, but this could be a good thing if they will at least come to the table. The NRA will need a whole new strategy. Also, Bernie's current NRA report card grade is D-. He's had five Fs, a few more D-s, and a C- when he voted for that one bill.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
MSNBC exit polls. Important groups for Bernie. Bernie winning women 53-46 according to their data.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not undecided it's actually Unenrolled. Many of us do not want to be a lifetime party member.
posted by sammyo at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 5:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Years ago I read a book on the effects of positive thinking in which the author (I think it was Martin Seligman) wrote that, according to his examination of the data, American presidential elections were always won by the most positive candidate. He was so certain of this that during one American election, while on a trip outside the U.S., he placed a bet on the most positive candidate. (It being illegal to bet on the outcome of a U.S. election within the U.S.). But then he lost the bet because the candidate he'd bet on suddenly stopped being positive.
Despite that unfortunate lost bet, I do think the author was on to something. I think U.S. presidential candidates must be able to energize voters with their positive, compelling vision in order to win. John Kerry failed to do it, and lost; Barack Obama did it, and won.
Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candidate currently energizing people with his vision of what he can do as president. Hillary Clinton isn't doing it. I think she'd make a competent president, and I'm aghast at the amount of hate she receives because I think it all boils down to misogyny and/or Republican bigotry, but I don't think she has the kind of clear, positive vision Sanders does of the kind of systemic change that the U.S. needs, or if she does, it's not coming across. And none of the Republicans have it either. Trump's trying to project a positive vision with his "Make America Great Again" and his promise to institute universal health care, but of course he's an incompetent, narcissistic, ignorant, bigoted jackass and doesn't have a coherent plan or any real understanding of or experience in what needs to be done or how to do it. He's energizing quite a lot of people with his grand promises and that might just get him the Republican nomination, but he won't be able to get the majority in a general election because too many people can see he's simply hot, noxious air.
I think Bernie can win the presidency, and that, although he has a long hard road ahead of him, he may very well do it. He's got a great message and he's tough-minded enough that he refuses to let anyone or anything sidetrack him.
posted by orange swan at 5:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Despite that unfortunate lost bet, I do think the author was on to something. I think U.S. presidential candidates must be able to energize voters with their positive, compelling vision in order to win. John Kerry failed to do it, and lost; Barack Obama did it, and won.
Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candidate currently energizing people with his vision of what he can do as president. Hillary Clinton isn't doing it. I think she'd make a competent president, and I'm aghast at the amount of hate she receives because I think it all boils down to misogyny and/or Republican bigotry, but I don't think she has the kind of clear, positive vision Sanders does of the kind of systemic change that the U.S. needs, or if she does, it's not coming across. And none of the Republicans have it either. Trump's trying to project a positive vision with his "Make America Great Again" and his promise to institute universal health care, but of course he's an incompetent, narcissistic, ignorant, bigoted jackass and doesn't have a coherent plan or any real understanding of or experience in what needs to be done or how to do it. He's energizing quite a lot of people with his grand promises and that might just get him the Republican nomination, but he won't be able to get the majority in a general election because too many people can see he's simply hot, noxious air.
I think Bernie can win the presidency, and that, although he has a long hard road ahead of him, he may very well do it. He's got a great message and he's tough-minded enough that he refuses to let anyone or anything sidetrack him.
posted by orange swan at 5:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Wow are we going to be throwing out random cherry picked statistics all night?
Long and short of it is Sanders had a good night and has a much more credible shot at the nomination. Neither camp can clearly claim their path is clear but it's much closer to the horse race narrative that pundits want.
As for the Republicans man who knows it's a total clusterfuck with Rubio clearly failing to get confirmation that he is the not Trump and not Cruz candidate. Hopefully we have months of clusterfuck ahead of us.
posted by vuron at 5:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Long and short of it is Sanders had a good night and has a much more credible shot at the nomination. Neither camp can clearly claim their path is clear but it's much closer to the horse race narrative that pundits want.
As for the Republicans man who knows it's a total clusterfuck with Rubio clearly failing to get confirmation that he is the not Trump and not Cruz candidate. Hopefully we have months of clusterfuck ahead of us.
posted by vuron at 5:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Except 2001-2008.
Yeah, they got the roles flipped-flopped that year.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, they got the roles flipped-flopped that year.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump has won a primary election. The Republican Party of New Hampshire has said they want Donald Trump to be President of the United States.
I was prepared for this and I still laughed out loud when I read it.
posted by sallybrown at 5:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
I was prepared for this and I still laughed out loud when I read it.
posted by sallybrown at 5:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
nearly 90% of young voters support Sanders, not her
Why assume it's only young people that won't vote? Look at voter turnout.
Has there been an election in the last... hundred years, maybe? where someone has made the claim that this time is going to be the one where the youth will make their voices heard, and still end up voting in lower numbers than any other age group?
US Voter turnout by age, 1986-2014
Voter turnout in Canada, 1965-2011
I've heard that argument so often. Hell, I remember making that argument back in the 80s when I started voting. Yep, an organized youth vote could really make a difference. But they never, ever do.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why assume it's only young people that won't vote? Look at voter turnout.
Has there been an election in the last... hundred years, maybe? where someone has made the claim that this time is going to be the one where the youth will make their voices heard, and still end up voting in lower numbers than any other age group?
US Voter turnout by age, 1986-2014
Voter turnout in Canada, 1965-2011
I've heard that argument so often. Hell, I remember making that argument back in the 80s when I started voting. Yep, an organized youth vote could really make a difference. But they never, ever do.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, according to the latest voting tallies, Hillary has won Millsfield precinct by a 2-to-1 margin, that is, she has 2 votes and Bernie has 1.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 5:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
So many ways to spin that... She only won by one vote, after all.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't forget that something like the "p-word" could implode on Trump and alienate most of the non-true-believers. And he keeps tossing off crazy quite periodically.
posted by sammyo at 5:37 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by sammyo at 5:37 PM on February 9, 2016
I'm seldom undecided in the general election but I'm often that way for the primary. I had a hard time deciding in '08 and was sort of leaning toward Edwards but he was out of the picture by the time the PA primary came around. This year I'm still kind of waffly but again it'll probably be decided before the Pennsylvania primary.
posted by octothorpe at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
To paraphrase myself from another thread, every time someone claims Trump has gone too far and will alienate people his polls go up 2%.
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
I really don't buy the "Clinton is more electable than Sanders" arguments, but my reasons for not buying them are idiosyncratic — I think the U.S. populace is realizing that they're for socialism on the one side and fascism on the other, with liberalism/neoliberalism having no remaining popular base despite its hold on the major parties and on the mass media.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Unfortunately voting on Tuesday during the day tends to depress voter turnout because in many areas voting requires a significant time commitment and youth (and the poor and minority voters) tend to have the least time to devote to voting. Youth tend to have less mobility and less flexible work schedules so voter turnout is depressed.
Great for Republicans horrible for Democrats.
posted by vuron at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Great for Republicans horrible for Democrats.
posted by vuron at 5:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wish Democratic voters would just wake up to reality and get behind Hillary. There's simply no way a little-known, idealistic senator with the middle name "Hussein" could possibly beat the Clinton machine.
On preview: sorry, was recycling common wisdom from 8 years ago and forgot to edit out the "Hussein" bit. Let's go with "socialist"...yeah, that'll work.
posted by uosuaq at 5:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
On preview: sorry, was recycling common wisdom from 8 years ago and forgot to edit out the "Hussein" bit. Let's go with "socialist"...yeah, that'll work.
posted by uosuaq at 5:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
I'm not worried about Sanders' ability to beat the Clinton machine, I'm worried about Sanders' ability to beat the Republican machine.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
REANIMATED ZOMBIE SHIRLEY CHISHOLM FOR PRESIDENT.
UNBOUGHT. UNBOSSED. UNDEAD.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
UNBOUGHT. UNBOSSED. UNDEAD.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Has anyone predicted a Kasich resurgence? It seems possible at this point.
posted by Quonab at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Quonab at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2016
Trump
Kasich
Cruz
Jeb
Rubio
Would be such a fun result.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kasich
Cruz
Jeb
Rubio
Would be such a fun result.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, other than the part where Cruz or Trump might become President.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yep, an organized youth vote could really make a difference. But they never, ever do.
Was everyone hibernating in 2008 and 2012 or something? We have the youth vote to thank for our last two Presidential victories.
posted by dialetheia at 5:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Was everyone hibernating in 2008 and 2012 or something? We have the youth vote to thank for our last two Presidential victories.
posted by dialetheia at 5:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
I cannot friggin' wait for the next batch of Republican polls to roll in from SC and NV. South Carolina hasn't been polled since Jan. 23 and Nevada hasn't been polled since December. Has Trump's lead widened or narrowed? Will Kasich-mentum take hold? And what about the Jeb! vs. Rubio vs. Cruz crab bucket battle royale? Stay tuned.
posted by mhum at 5:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mhum at 5:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately I would love to say that sexism, racism, antisemitism, etc won't impact the electorate but one thing that the last 8 years have taught me is that an claims of being a post Xism society are total bullshit and that old white males are fucking mad that people are questioning their god given rights to assert their privilege.
I think Bernie and Hillary are going to struggle with that cohort but honestly I would hate to have to pander to them either way.
posted by vuron at 5:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Bernie and Hillary are going to struggle with that cohort but honestly I would hate to have to pander to them either way.
posted by vuron at 5:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
MSNBC reporting that Bernie Sanders is shooting hoops backstage with his grandkids.
I'm just imagining him out on the court draining three balls in Larry Bird-era NBA Celtics shorts while practicing his victory speech.
"NOTHING BUT NET, MY FELLOW AMERICANS."
posted by tonycpsu at 5:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
I'm just imagining him out on the court draining three balls in Larry Bird-era NBA Celtics shorts while practicing his victory speech.
"NOTHING BUT NET, MY FELLOW AMERICANS."
posted by tonycpsu at 5:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
Yes but the possibility of a Trump(et sour honk that sticks) will keep the next five in the race collecting just enough delegates each so we can have the grand entertainment of a brokered convention. I'm investing in popcorn futures!
posted by sammyo at 5:48 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by sammyo at 5:48 PM on February 9, 2016
every time someone claims Trump has gone too far and will alienate people his polls go up 2%.
‘This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
‘This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
He should be playing cribbage with his grandkids because it's the card game of kings. None of this new fangled basketball craze.
posted by vuron at 5:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vuron at 5:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
'Don't tell me!..I can't sink this hook shot from center court!'
posted by ian1977 at 5:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 5:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
REANIMATED ZOMBIE SHIRLEY CHISHOLM FOR PRESIDENT.
UNBOUGHT. UNBOSSED. UNDEAD.
I hit 'em with the rhythm and the lyricism that I give 'em. Obama is the Prez but I still vote for Shirley Chisholm.
posted by jonp72 at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
UNBOUGHT. UNBOSSED. UNDEAD.
I hit 'em with the rhythm and the lyricism that I give 'em. Obama is the Prez but I still vote for Shirley Chisholm.
posted by jonp72 at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wouldn't the rise of support for Israel as a right-wing litmus test issue have suppressed nativist anti-semitism on the US Right to a noticeable degree? Or are there lots of Republicans who somehow think that the “Jewish” used to describe Sanders and such and the “Jewish” used to describe the state of Israel are two unrelated words that happen to sound very similar?
posted by acb at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
He should be playing cribbage with his grandkids because it's the card game of kings.
Tell that to Martin O'Malley. He got 19 points last hand.
posted by duffell at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016
Tell that to Martin O'Malley. He got 19 points last hand.
posted by duffell at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016
538 briefly had Jeb Bush's name as Jeb Bust. Didn't get a grab of it.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
At this point, I’m most curious to see if Rubio hits the 10% cutoff to earn any delegates. He’s been teetering really close to that edge in the updated totals thus far.
posted by nicepersonality at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by nicepersonality at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016
538 briefly had Jeb Bush's name as Jeb Bust. Didn't get a grab of it.
here ya go.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
here ya go.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Chris Hayes called Bernie Sanders "Bernie Sandwiches" on air.
posted by Small Dollar at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Trump reminds me of Reagan. Sanders reminds me of McGovern. I'm terrified. The elections of 72 and 80 were disasters for the country. I really want someone to convince me that Bernie won't crash and burn like McGovern.
posted by humanfont at 5:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Apparently we just have to really believe, humanfront.
posted by Justinian at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been writing in Gus Hall -- and lately Zombie Gus Hall -- for years*.
---------------------------
*Also, I've been telling this joke since well past it's sellby, too and maybe it needs a refresh: Finally I can vote for a live Socialist again?
posted by notyou at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
---------------------------
*Also, I've been telling this joke since well past it's sellby, too and maybe it needs a refresh: Finally I can vote for a live Socialist again?
posted by notyou at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Grauniad has Sanders/Clinton at 57.7% to 40.3%, with 23.3% counted. A moment ago, Clinton's count briefly dipped below 40%. She doesn't seem to have done well at all.
Apparently her party is a somewhat morose event. At least afterwards, she can go back to her hotel room and count her superdelegates.
posted by acb at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Apparently her party is a somewhat morose event. At least afterwards, she can go back to her hotel room and count her superdelegates.
posted by acb at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump reminds me of Reagan. Sanders reminds me of McGovern. I'm terrified. The elections of 72 and 80 were disasters for the country. I really want someone to convince me that Bernie won't crash and burn like McGovern.
Maybe you could look at them on their own merits instead of trying to compare them to candidates from before the internet even existed? Just a thought. The country is very different now. And they aren't those people, either.
posted by dialetheia at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Maybe you could look at them on their own merits instead of trying to compare them to candidates from before the internet even existed? Just a thought. The country is very different now. And they aren't those people, either.
posted by dialetheia at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Trump reminds me of Reagan. Sanders reminds me of McGovern. I'm terrified. The elections of 72 and 80 were disasters for the country. I really want someone to convince me that Bernie won't crash and burn like McGovern.
The universe is insane so who knows, but Trump looks like a much weaker candidate than Reagan to me.
Hillary reminds me of Nixon. Sometimes 1968 Nixon, sometimes 1960 Nixon.
posted by grobstein at 5:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
The universe is insane so who knows, but Trump looks like a much weaker candidate than Reagan to me.
Hillary reminds me of Nixon. Sometimes 1968 Nixon, sometimes 1960 Nixon.
posted by grobstein at 5:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Apropro:
Ebenezer Scrooge and Donald Trump, Epic Rap Battles
posted by mfu at 6:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ebenezer Scrooge and Donald Trump, Epic Rap Battles
posted by mfu at 6:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
My understanding is that the far right likes Israel because of some wierd kingdom of God dispensationalism. The also think it's okay attacking just about anything Jewish with coded phrases about NYC values. Personally I find it confusing and disgusting but it's broader in support than the edgy fucktards at /pol/ and stormfront
posted by vuron at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by vuron at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
For what it's worth, I've spent some time in Vegas recently and Bernie Sanders advertisements are all over the place, in English and Spanish. He's definitely spending some money there. I didn't see any for Clinton.
Also didn't see any advertising for Trump... aside from the huge buildings that are always there.
posted by mmoncur at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also didn't see any advertising for Trump... aside from the huge buildings that are always there.
posted by mmoncur at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reagan was an election-winning powerhouse, but a broadcast-age powerhouse, meaning he had more in common with FDR than anyone campaigning today. The question is: what would a social-media/big-data-age Reagan look like? Does such a thing make sense?
posted by acb at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, going by the Republican count, Fiorina and Carson (and probably Christie) might as well throw it in.
posted by acb at 6:05 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by acb at 6:05 PM on February 9, 2016
Y'know, the tactical voting arguments above would ring a lot less hollow to me if we had anywhere near a majority of voter turnout in the primaries in this country.
When will I be able to cast a vote for the person who best represents my ideals and my priorities?
DURING THE PRIMARIES, that's when. A lot of people turn out for New Hampshire, but most other states you only get about 10-20% of the eligible voters turning out, and if you wanna know why the candidates usually suck, that might be why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
When will I be able to cast a vote for the person who best represents my ideals and my priorities?
DURING THE PRIMARIES, that's when. A lot of people turn out for New Hampshire, but most other states you only get about 10-20% of the eligible voters turning out, and if you wanna know why the candidates usually suck, that might be why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mr. Machine thought it would be interesting to turn to Fox to see their reaction to Trump winning, and I swear to God, the first thing we heard on tuning in was a dude who voted for Trump saying, "I just heard that Ford is sending another 4_______ jobs to Mexico. We send jobs to Mexico, and they send us drugs!"
I.
posted by joyceanmachine at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016
I.
posted by joyceanmachine at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016
Christie seems like a rather talented guy, but also an asshole and everyone knows he's an asshole.
posted by grobstein at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders To Introduce Legislation Abolishing Private Prisons
Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money
posted by Room 641-A at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money
posted by Room 641-A at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump reminds me of Reagan. Sanders reminds me of McGovern. I'm terrified...
Maybe you could look at them on their own merits instead of trying to compare them to candidates from before the internet even existed...
What's that famous saying about those who cannot remember the past being condemned to something something?
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe you could look at them on their own merits instead of trying to compare them to candidates from before the internet even existed...
What's that famous saying about those who cannot remember the past being condemned to something something?
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump reminds me of Reagan
Donald Trump? The reality TV buffoon? Then who's vice president, Puck from the Real World?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Donald Trump? The reality TV buffoon? Then who's vice president, Puck from the Real World?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Fox News has called 2nd Place for Kasich.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 PM on February 9, 2016
whoa Kasich gets the sanity vote. that would explain all the late deciders, maybe after Rubio malfunctioned during the last debate
posted by angrycat at 6:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 6:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think of Sanders more as an FDR figure - they called everything he wanted to do socialist, too, but people were hurting enough that they didn't actually care. Bernie's just honest about it (which is a huge part of what people love about him, which the media is just figuring out). Sanders has already started referencing FDR in his speeches, most notably in his recent address on how he would see democratic socialism applying to the United States.
DURING THE PRIMARIES, that's when.
That's what we're doing right now, and we still get lectured about voting strategically!
posted by dialetheia at 6:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
DURING THE PRIMARIES, that's when.
That's what we're doing right now, and we still get lectured about voting strategically!
posted by dialetheia at 6:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Wouldn't the rise of support for Israel as a right-wing litmus test issue have suppressed nativist anti-semitism on the US Right to a noticeable degree?
My understanding is that the far right likes Israel because of some wierd kingdom of God dispensationalism. The also think it's okay attacking just about anything Jewish with coded phrases about NYC values. Personally I find it confusing and disgusting but it's broader in support than the edgy fucktards at /pol/ and stormfront
Yeah, basically. They like Israel for reasons that emerge from their own theological preoccupations; this doesn't translate into any necessary enthusiasm for us, except perhaps in an aggravating philosemitic sort of way (e.g., coming up to Jews and saying, "oooh, how I looooove the Jews!").
posted by thomas j wise at 6:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
My understanding is that the far right likes Israel because of some wierd kingdom of God dispensationalism. The also think it's okay attacking just about anything Jewish with coded phrases about NYC values. Personally I find it confusing and disgusting but it's broader in support than the edgy fucktards at /pol/ and stormfront
Yeah, basically. They like Israel for reasons that emerge from their own theological preoccupations; this doesn't translate into any necessary enthusiasm for us, except perhaps in an aggravating philosemitic sort of way (e.g., coming up to Jews and saying, "oooh, how I looooove the Jews!").
posted by thomas j wise at 6:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie Sanders wins every income group and every demographic in NH.
The two exceptions: Clinton wins voters from families whose income exceeds $200,000/yr and voters 65 and older.
Kinda says it all, IMHO.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [55 favorites]
The two exceptions: Clinton wins voters from families whose income exceeds $200,000/yr and voters 65 and older.
Kinda says it all, IMHO.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [55 favorites]
the difference between Sanders and FDR:
1) The Great Depression
2) The suffering caused by the Great Depression
3) FDR and his family were powerful and entrenched in establishment politics
I mean, my grasp of history is pretty terrible, but these things make an obvious difference, yeah?
posted by angrycat at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
1) The Great Depression
2) The suffering caused by the Great Depression
3) FDR and his family were powerful and entrenched in establishment politics
I mean, my grasp of history is pretty terrible, but these things make an obvious difference, yeah?
posted by angrycat at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
To repeat an earlier post, Sanders is definitely McGovern, Cruz is Goldwater for his right-wing ideological zealotry, Trump is George Wallace for his lower middle class-appealing economic populism mixed with outright bigotry, and Bloomberg is John Anderson- the boring centrist Republican sanity vote.
No idea who Hillary is, and I'm not even sure if she knows, either.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
No idea who Hillary is, and I'm not even sure if she knows, either.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I also cannot help but think that we will see a repeat of 1968 or 1972 if Sanders takes the nomination. Yes, we all remember the great accomplishments Presidents Humphrey and McGovern...
posted by haiku warrior at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by haiku warrior at 6:14 PM on February 9, 2016
Wait, so if all it takes for Sanders to become FDR is an economic collapse, are you answering my earlier question? (I honestly believe we'll see a crash this year. The question is how big.)
posted by Apocryphon at 6:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 6:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
To repeat an earlier post, Sanders is definitely Mondale, Cruz is Goldwater for his right-wing ideological zealotry, Trump is George Wallace for his lower middle class-appealing economic populism mixed with outright bigotry, and Bloomberg is John Anderson- the boring centrist Republican sanity vote.
Ooh, ooh, let's do "which Pokemon" next!
posted by tonycpsu at 6:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Ooh, ooh, let's do "which Pokemon" next!
posted by tonycpsu at 6:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yep, an organized youth vote could really make a difference. But they never, ever do.
Once more: The Sanders campaign is totally grassroots. His young volunteers are passionate and tireless. He has broken fundraising records by millions of people donating small amounts of money. People are donating all their free time to phone bank and canvass. They've been doing this for months and months and months, since he was an unheard of socialist senator from Vermont. It makes no sense to think that they would put in all this work and money and time and heart and then wake up on Nov 4 and go, ehh, forget it.
It's true that the youth vote had a dramatic decline over the last few decades but that has reversed itself since 2004.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Once more: The Sanders campaign is totally grassroots. His young volunteers are passionate and tireless. He has broken fundraising records by millions of people donating small amounts of money. People are donating all their free time to phone bank and canvass. They've been doing this for months and months and months, since he was an unheard of socialist senator from Vermont. It makes no sense to think that they would put in all this work and money and time and heart and then wake up on Nov 4 and go, ehh, forget it.
It's true that the youth vote had a dramatic decline over the last few decades but that has reversed itself since 2004.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
so when I was in high school I moved around a lot. My senior year I ended up in a new high school and ran for sr class president. My buddies and I made jokey posters. Everyone else was super serious about running. The day before the election the other candidates were all talking amongst their overlapping circles trying to convince that they were the candidate to vote for. I went to the cafeteria and walked straight to the stoner table and said 'will you guys vote for me?' And then I went straight to the jock table and said the same thing. I won in a squeaker. In this way I think I am like Donald trump.
posted by ian1977 at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
No idea who Hillary is, and I'm not even sure if she knows, either.
Personally, I can't think of any two term generally successful President she reminds me of.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Personally, I can't think of any two term generally successful President she reminds me of.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
i see bernie as a bulbasaur personally
posted by poffin boffin at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, basically. They like Israel for reasons that emerge from their own theological preoccupations; this doesn't translate into any necessary enthusiasm for us, except perhaps in an aggravating philosemitic sort of way (e.g., coming up to Jews and saying, "oooh, how I looooove the Jews!").
Though, among low-information voters, wouldn't that in itself be enough to neutralise some of the old anti-semitic folklore that has been passed down since the days of Father Coughlan and the Know-Nothing Party, or at least introduce enough cognitive dissonance to make anti-semitic dog-whistles no longer a sound strategy against a Jewish candidate?
posted by acb at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Though, among low-information voters, wouldn't that in itself be enough to neutralise some of the old anti-semitic folklore that has been passed down since the days of Father Coughlan and the Know-Nothing Party, or at least introduce enough cognitive dissonance to make anti-semitic dog-whistles no longer a sound strategy against a Jewish candidate?
posted by acb at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
If the youth vote doesn't matter, the women's vote certain does.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:17 PM on February 9, 2016
Dammit MarcoBot. I was *thisclose* to selecting Kasich over Rubio in the MetaTalk prediction thread but like an idiot I thought Rubio would get over the top despite his deer-in-the-headlights-ness. Which turns out to have sunk him and my already slim chances to win that thread.
posted by notyou at 6:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by notyou at 6:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately voting on Tuesday during the day tends to depress voter turnout because in many areas voting requires a significant time commitment and youth (and the poor and minority voters) tend to have the least time to devote to voting. Youth tend to have less mobility and less flexible work schedules so voter turnout is depressed.
Lolwut no, youth don't even have jobs, or if they do they aren't jobs that they give a fuck about. When I was 19 or 20, and I worked at Subway and couldn't make it to the polls, and Sanders was on the ticket, I would've just quit so I could vote.
posted by dis_integration at 6:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lolwut no, youth don't even have jobs, or if they do they aren't jobs that they give a fuck about. When I was 19 or 20, and I worked at Subway and couldn't make it to the polls, and Sanders was on the ticket, I would've just quit so I could vote.
posted by dis_integration at 6:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
carson: caterpie
christie: graveler
rubio: psyduck
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
christie: graveler
rubio: psyduck
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is the eight-year anniversary of Obama's Yes We Can "concession" speech. Not as inspired by this concession.
posted by pjenks at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pjenks at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Getting an Obama vibe from Hillary's speech. Not a bad plan.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2016
My prediction for the rest of the Republican primary: Jeb Bush donates his exclamation point to Kasich! which allows him to beat Trump. Rubio rusts and seizes up. Cruz becomes a Fox News personality.
posted by mmoncur at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by mmoncur at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2016
Wouldn't the rise of support for Israel as a right-wing litmus test issue have suppressed nativist anti-semitism on the US Right to a noticeable degree?
Seriously, most right-wingers I've talked to are too worried about Mexicans moving in next door or imagining what it would feel like to have their hands around a Muslim's neck to worry about who's Jewish. And I don't know anyone who's picked up on the "NYC Values" dogwhistle. Maybe it's too high-pitched for most to hear.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2016
Seriously, most right-wingers I've talked to are too worried about Mexicans moving in next door or imagining what it would feel like to have their hands around a Muslim's neck to worry about who's Jewish. And I don't know anyone who's picked up on the "NYC Values" dogwhistle. Maybe it's too high-pitched for most to hear.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2016
Clinton needs a new speechwriter ASAP.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2016
Jews also don't vote Republican in quantities that matter. We usually vote Dem. Because we care about social issues.
So some republicans can and will bash Jews in dogwhistles or plain uncoded terms while simultaneously praising Israel and still manage to appeal to the base they care about: religious Protestant sects who think Israel has to be destroyed to hasten Armageddon, so they can fulfill the plot of one of the Left Behind novels.
Of course, not everyone cares to distinguish.
posted by zarq at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
So some republicans can and will bash Jews in dogwhistles or plain uncoded terms while simultaneously praising Israel and still manage to appeal to the base they care about: religious Protestant sects who think Israel has to be destroyed to hasten Armageddon, so they can fulfill the plot of one of the Left Behind novels.
Of course, not everyone cares to distinguish.
posted by zarq at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
On one of my podcasts this week was a guy who has written a few books on Reagan and he was talking about how Reagan and Trump are basically nothing alike. The main point being that Reagan's version of the GOP and their vision of America was much more inclusive to people who wanted to be a part of it. Whereas the GOP now (and especially Trump) is very exclusive, i.e. don't want immigrants or other "outsiders" to be a part of America and American life. He also said that a better comparison to Trump was George Wallace.
I wish I could remember which podcast it was on, it was a pretty interesting discussion.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wish I could remember which podcast it was on, it was a pretty interesting discussion.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Did she just remind people that her donors give "under $100"? Really? To change the narrative?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If it's Trump and Clinton it's totally going to be a replay of Herbert Hoover versus Alfred E. Smith.
posted by XMLicious at 6:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 6:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cruz becomes a Fox News personality.
Well, he may yet end up working for Fox News, but I don't think "personality" is the appropriate word.
posted by duffell at 6:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, he may yet end up working for Fox News, but I don't think "personality" is the appropriate word.
posted by duffell at 6:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Watch Bernie Sanders Play Four Different Sports In This Public-Access Montage
posted by Room 641-A at 6:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Lolwut no, youth don't even have jobs, or if they do they aren't jobs that they give a fuck about.
Way more likely that they have much-needed jobs which they will lose if they ask for time off.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Way more likely that they have much-needed jobs which they will lose if they ask for time off.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
2) The suffering caused by the Great Depression
I mean, it's definitely a different set of conditions, but this is what is happening in my state of Montana right now: Financial despair, addiction and the rise of suicide in white America.
We also just saw our government devote trillions of dollars to bailing out Wall Street while saying there just wasn't enough for anyone to have health care. The lie about everything being too expensive was pretty much proven wrong if you just look at how much we spent on bailing out Wall Street and fighting all of our wars. We know the money is there, they just prioritize the wealthy over working people.
posted by dialetheia at 6:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
I mean, it's definitely a different set of conditions, but this is what is happening in my state of Montana right now: Financial despair, addiction and the rise of suicide in white America.
But all of those are longstanding issues in Montana. So what’s changed to drive up the rate of people taking their own lives in recent years?The suicide part is probably unique to white people only because they had higher expectations due to white privilege, but the situation is still deplorable all over. We've recovered a little since the crash in 2008, but things are still pretty bleak for most working-class people, with no indication of things changing anytime soon.
“Probably the biggest reason is socio-economic. We have about 150,000 people in our state that don’t have access to any type of healthcare, which is a major issue. We have a lot of people living in poverty. Wages are not going up at the same pace as rising health costs, rising cost of living and inflation,” Rosston said.
“Definitely you see a lot of people that all of a sudden they hit 45 or 50 and they don’t see retirement as a bonus. They see something that they’re going to have struggle with and they’re not going to be able to retire.” ...
Lowney ran up most of his debts before Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. They have been a big leap forward for many Americans by, among other things, preventing insurance companies from cutting people off mid-treatment or capping payments for expensive medications, such as for cancer. But even with subsidized rates for low-income families, a trip to the doctor can still prove expensive because most insurance policies require holders to pay the first few thousand dollars each year before coverage kicks in.
That has put many people in the position of paying for insurance but being unable to afford to go to the doctor.
According to the Butte-Silver Bow Community Health Needs Assessment for 2014 23% of people in Montana have no health insurance.
But the report said that even among those with insurance, nearly 40% faced obstacles to receiving needed healthcare. About one-third said they could not afford the cost of the doctor or prescription. Nearly 8% said they lacked transport to get to a clinic. More than 11% said they skipped or reduced prescription doses in order to save money.
We also just saw our government devote trillions of dollars to bailing out Wall Street while saying there just wasn't enough for anyone to have health care. The lie about everything being too expensive was pretty much proven wrong if you just look at how much we spent on bailing out Wall Street and fighting all of our wars. We know the money is there, they just prioritize the wealthy over working people.
posted by dialetheia at 6:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
Really notyou? You though Rubio was anything other than dead meat? I personally loathe Christie but he did everyone a massive favor by illustrating that Rubio as a candidate was a empty suit that allowed people to project their hopes on him.
And just like Governor Goodhair did in 2012 a bad debate performance basically nuked him. I can't see him recovering momentum now especially with his positions coming under increasing scrutiny as he's simply too far to the right to make a valid claim of being a centrist candidate.
I'm actually very amused by the Republicans as it's coming apparent that the nominee will likely be Cruz or Trump because there is no great centrist hope like Romney waiting in the wings.
And let's be honest Sanders or Clinton will trounce Cruz or Trump. I feel less confident about a Sanders vs Rubio or a Clinton vs Bush matchup.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
And just like Governor Goodhair did in 2012 a bad debate performance basically nuked him. I can't see him recovering momentum now especially with his positions coming under increasing scrutiny as he's simply too far to the right to make a valid claim of being a centrist candidate.
I'm actually very amused by the Republicans as it's coming apparent that the nominee will likely be Cruz or Trump because there is no great centrist hope like Romney waiting in the wings.
And let's be honest Sanders or Clinton will trounce Cruz or Trump. I feel less confident about a Sanders vs Rubio or a Clinton vs Bush matchup.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is Samantha
Bernie is Miranda
Hillary is Carrie
Jeb! is Charlotte
posted by sallybrown at 6:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Bernie is Miranda
Hillary is Carrie
Jeb! is Charlotte
posted by sallybrown at 6:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
oh my god I don't think I've ever seen him smile before
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary gave a very good speech but Bernie's face says it all.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know these things are set up, but the visual of the people of color behind Bernie is much more interesting than watching Bill Clinton frowning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump reminds me of Reagan. Sanders reminds me of McGovern. I'm terrified...
Maybe you could look at them on their own merits instead of trying to compare them to candidates from before the internet even existed...
Yeah, what is this comment supposed to mean besides "Sit down, olds" or something? It's perfectly normal to look at past results to try to predict future outcomes.
What's that famous saying about those who cannot remember the past being condemned to something something?
Exactly.
posted by sweetkid at 6:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Because of a YUUGE voter turnout...."
Hah.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hah.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Sit down, olds" is an extremely uncharitable reading.
posted by delight at 6:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by delight at 6:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
that's why I'm asking. what does it mean?
posted by sweetkid at 6:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Really notyou? You though Rubio was anything other than dead meat? I personally loathe Christie but he did everyone a massive favor by illustrating that Rubio as a candidate was a empty suit that allowed people to project their hopes on him.
I thought he was an empty suit that would nevertheless grab second spot in NH, which would get him to Super Tuesday with enough establishment support to grind it out from there.
I guess the takeaway from tonight is Jeb!'s not dead yet.
posted by notyou at 6:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought he was an empty suit that would nevertheless grab second spot in NH, which would get him to Super Tuesday with enough establishment support to grind it out from there.
I guess the takeaway from tonight is Jeb!'s not dead yet.
posted by notyou at 6:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, from before the Internet even existed....there have been lots of elections like that.
posted by sweetkid at 6:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
This was a good evening to start reading Ted Rall's graphic biography of Sanders this evening: Bernie.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's perfectly normal to look at past results to try to predict future outcomes.
Sure, OK. McGovern was running largely as an anti-war candidate, and that election was decided on the Vietnam war, not economic issues. That election followed a historic splintering of the Democratic party at the 1968 convention, which was marked by violence and protests. The Democrats had just signed civil rights legislation into law, a move that LBJ said would lose them the south "for a generation" - this was still a very new dynamic in the Democratic party in 1972. Also, the internet didn't exist, and the youth vote had not just won us our last two Presidential victories.
posted by dialetheia at 6:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Sure, OK. McGovern was running largely as an anti-war candidate, and that election was decided on the Vietnam war, not economic issues. That election followed a historic splintering of the Democratic party at the 1968 convention, which was marked by violence and protests. The Democrats had just signed civil rights legislation into law, a move that LBJ said would lose them the south "for a generation" - this was still a very new dynamic in the Democratic party in 1972. Also, the internet didn't exist, and the youth vote had not just won us our last two Presidential victories.
posted by dialetheia at 6:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Bernie to "Bernie or Bust" movement: drop dead.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I honestly don't think Sanders is McGovern 2.0. I think the country has changed quite a bit since then. That being said I can totally understand why there are reasons why people are thinking he's McGovern 2.0 or Dukakis 2.0.
However I think if he manages to win the nomination and that's still very much an uphill climb due to structural issues within the nomination process that present a pretty stiff headwind against him that the party will still rally around him. Yes there will almost certainly be a loss of voters among the so called Reagan democrat cohorts but man I'm getting tired of always chasing after that voter block.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
However I think if he manages to win the nomination and that's still very much an uphill climb due to structural issues within the nomination process that present a pretty stiff headwind against him that the party will still rally around him. Yes there will almost certainly be a loss of voters among the so called Reagan democrat cohorts but man I'm getting tired of always chasing after that voter block.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Before Humphries and McGovern we had Adlai Stevenson. Al Smith before that in 1928.
posted by humanfont at 6:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 6:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe if Sanders wins people will start talking about Sanders Republicans instead of Reagan Democrats. Let the Republicans chase that ethereal dragon for a while. Pull them to the left a little instead of the Democrats pulling right.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Sanders to Clinton is now 59.0 to 38.3, with 40% counted.
posted by acb at 6:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 6:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who are the 62 folks who voted for Santorum? Come on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie is Dorothy
Bush is Rose
Rubio is Blanche
Trump is Sophia
posted by triggerfinger at 6:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bush is Rose
Rubio is Blanche
Trump is Sophia
posted by triggerfinger at 6:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, Bernie is obviously Martin van Buren. Which is great because then Trump will die after only a month in office.
posted by Automocar at 6:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 6:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Millennials and Boomers are similar ginormous demographic lumps thrashing their way through the snake. It's not unfair to note likenesses with the lump that backed McGovern, say, nor to point out that today's lump finds itself in its own historically unique... snake digestive tract.
posted by notyou at 6:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by notyou at 6:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie is Laurens
Clinton is Burr
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton is Burr
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders to Clinton is now 59.0 to 38.3, with 40% counted.
Come on sixty!
posted by Trochanter at 6:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Come on sixty!
posted by Trochanter at 6:42 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary is Quimby
Bernie is Grampa
Trump is Krusty
Rubio is Ralph Wiggum
Jeb! is Hans Moleman
posted by tonycpsu at 6:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie is Grampa
Trump is Krusty
Rubio is Ralph Wiggum
Jeb! is Hans Moleman
posted by tonycpsu at 6:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Warren is HERCULES MULLIGAN
posted by saturday_morning at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Clinton is Lipton
Bernie is Tetley
Trump is antifreeze.
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie is Tetley
Trump is antifreeze.
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
My criticism of those who compare the current crop of candidates to past candidates is that those who do so don't usually provide reasons for the comparison. Sketch in the parallels as you see them for the rest of us, and then we'll be better able to gauge whether your argument has merit.
posted by orange swan at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by orange swan at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
O'Malley is Gil
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Looks like they are estimating 13 delegates for Sanders, 7 for Clinton.
So if you add in the superdelegate endorsements, that makes New Hampshire...
A TIE.
Thanks for coming out! Be sure to tip your waitrons!
posted by markkraft at 6:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
So if you add in the superdelegate endorsements, that makes New Hampshire...
A TIE.
Thanks for coming out! Be sure to tip your waitrons!
posted by markkraft at 6:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trying to donate on Bern's website and it appears to be getting hammered.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 6:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hey, Kasich is looking like second in NH. Is now the time to quote me from back in September?
Kasich is their only credible candidate. Not that that's a good thing.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kasich is their only credible candidate. Not that that's a good thing.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jim Gilmore is "the happiest man in Springfield". He's not in many episodes and no one knows his name, but thanks for looking!
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trying to donate on Bern's website and it appears to be getting hammered.
The online fundraiser plug was a brilliant move.
posted by sallybrown at 6:47 PM on February 9, 2016
The online fundraiser plug was a brilliant move.
posted by sallybrown at 6:47 PM on February 9, 2016
I also tried to donate.. it's definitely stalling out. I wonder just how hard it's getting hammered right now. I feel like they must have prepared for this, but clearly not enough.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
For what's it's worth I donated to Bernie a few days ago and it was super easy. Although they had this additional opportunity to donate to Act Blue and then to 'tip' on top of that which I thought was kinda...a bit much. On the plus side, 4 bumper stickers any day now.
posted by ian1977 at 6:50 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 6:50 PM on February 9, 2016
Trump is Krusty Sideshow Bob
In Sideshow Bob Roberts he even runs for mayor as a Republican and uses his entertainment background to his advantage.
posted by FJT at 6:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
In Sideshow Bob Roberts he even runs for mayor as a Republican and uses his entertainment background to his advantage.
posted by FJT at 6:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hillary is Mayor McDaniels.
Bernie is Mr. Garrison.
O'Malley is Lemmiwinks.
posted by markkraft at 6:51 PM on February 9, 2016
Bernie is Mr. Garrison.
O'Malley is Lemmiwinks.
posted by markkraft at 6:51 PM on February 9, 2016
So if you add in the superdelegate endorsements
Those superdelegates haven't voted yet, and they don't actually vote until the convention. Many, many superdelegates changed their minds and switched to Obama in 2008.
posted by dialetheia at 6:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Those superdelegates haven't voted yet, and they don't actually vote until the convention. Many, many superdelegates changed their minds and switched to Obama in 2008.
posted by dialetheia at 6:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Live Bernie or die Trump.
posted by uosuaq at 6:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Republican primary season 2016: All you get is a very valuable lesson; Never trust a weirdo.
posted by ian1977 at 6:53 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 6:53 PM on February 9, 2016
Brian Williams is Rambo
(Seriously, MSNBC, why the fuck is Brian Williams on my television?)
posted by tonycpsu at 6:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
(Seriously, MSNBC, why the fuck is Brian Williams on my television?)
posted by tonycpsu at 6:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Live Bernie or die Trump.
Trump Hard with a Vengeance?
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:54 PM on February 9, 2016
Trump Hard with a Vengeance?
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:54 PM on February 9, 2016
If Clinton were to win because of superdelegates alone it will not be pretty.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I am so ready for the primaries to be over so people who agree on virtually everything can stop screaming at each other.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [44 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [44 favorites]
I DISAGREE
posted by poffin boffin at 6:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 6:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yes, Trump goes on over Jeb.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:57 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:57 PM on February 9, 2016
Who would Sanders Republicans really be? I assume some sort of left libertarians but my general experience is that libertarians typically talk a decent game on social liberties but economic policies trump everything else and Bernie is clear in favor of a strong state on economic issues.
I am totally with a statist approach on economic issues but I am unclear how popular it really is with the electorate or are Sanders and Trump largely fueled by populism in the throw the bums out way.
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am totally with a statist approach on economic issues but I am unclear how popular it really is with the electorate or are Sanders and Trump largely fueled by populism in the throw the bums out way.
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Millennials and Boomers are similar ginormous demographic lumps thrashing their way through the snake.
Must we always trot out the same old tired clichés?
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Must we always trot out the same old tired clichés?
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You guys are totally ignoring the Rocky De La Fuente surge. Could he be the savior of the Democratic party?
posted by ennui.bz at 6:59 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by ennui.bz at 6:59 PM on February 9, 2016
Sorry, there was a glitch in the Matrix:
You guys are totally ignoring the Vermin Supreme surge. Could he be the savior of the Democratic party?
posted by ennui.bz at 7:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
You guys are totally ignoring the Vermin Supreme surge. Could he be the savior of the Democratic party?
posted by ennui.bz at 7:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who would Sanders Republicans really be?
The lifelong Republicans who love Bernie Sanders
/r/RepublicansforSanders
Republicans for Bernie Facebook page
posted by dialetheia at 7:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The lifelong Republicans who love Bernie Sanders
/r/RepublicansforSanders
Republicans for Bernie Facebook page
posted by dialetheia at 7:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh good, "the old fashioned way." So, slavery and child labor?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
O'Malley: now let's talk rust proofing. These caleco's will rust up on you like that
posted by ian1977 at 7:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Those superdelegates haven't voted yet, and they don't actually vote until the convention."
They are routinely counted by AP and other major news sources, as soon as they endorse. Right now, AP has the race at 392 delegates Clinton, to 42 delegates Sanders.
As more states cast their vote, this will increasingly become the narrative, until one candidate reaches 2,382 delegates.
posted by markkraft at 7:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
They are routinely counted by AP and other major news sources, as soon as they endorse. Right now, AP has the race at 392 delegates Clinton, to 42 delegates Sanders.
As more states cast their vote, this will increasingly become the narrative, until one candidate reaches 2,382 delegates.
posted by markkraft at 7:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are you kidding pope guilty we are still holding grudges about the Nader crap in 2000. Yeah we agree 99% of everything but old grudges die hard.
posted by vuron at 7:04 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:04 PM on February 9, 2016
"Bernie Sanders has just become the first Jewish candidate to win a major party’s state-primary election for president. For that matter, he’s the first non-Christian ever to do so."
Yoni Appelbaum
(And the first atheist too.)
posted by joeyh at 7:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yoni Appelbaum
(And the first atheist too.)
posted by joeyh at 7:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
As more states cast their vote, this will increasingly become the narrative, until one candidate reaches 2,382 delegates.
Sure. OK. But then the narrative becomes "party hacks distorting the democratic process for Hillary Clinton," and I think that would only help fuel the Sanders campaign.
posted by dialetheia at 7:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sure. OK. But then the narrative becomes "party hacks distorting the democratic process for Hillary Clinton," and I think that would only help fuel the Sanders campaign.
posted by dialetheia at 7:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oy, markkraft, with the superdelegates already...
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Trump.... he just said the real unemployment number might be 42%.
posted by Justinian at 7:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Must we always trot out the same old tired clichés?
I'd have rolled with a young fresh cliché, but I was aiming for "unique digestive tract" and couldn't find a another way there.
posted by notyou at 7:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd have rolled with a young fresh cliché, but I was aiming for "unique digestive tract" and couldn't find a another way there.
posted by notyou at 7:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I like this piece from Salon, which argues that while Sanders and Trump are both tapping into voter anger, Sanders is appealing to the compassionate, "let's make our system work better for the 99%" anger, while Trump appeals to the selfish, "I want more" anger. And good heavens does that ever apply to so many polarized elections. In Toronto and in Canada at large, Rob Ford voters and Stephen Harper voters are definitely in the "gimme" camp.
posted by orange swan at 7:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by orange swan at 7:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump.... he just said the real unemployment number might be 42%.
The employment-population ratio is ~59%, so this is probably what he's referring to.
The unemployment rate is about 5% as it's usually measured. But, because the unemployment rate only counts people who are currently looking for work, some argue that it can understate the badness of the employment situation. When someone becomes despondent and gives up on looking for a job, the unemployment rate goes down, but it may not be good news.
Unemployment has recovered since the crash, but the underlying employment situation may not have recovered as much -- a good place to look to test this idea is the employment-population ratio.
BUT it's still wildly sensational to say that unemployment is 42%. That clearly overstates unemployment even if the official rate understates it.
posted by grobstein at 7:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The employment-population ratio is ~59%, so this is probably what he's referring to.
The unemployment rate is about 5% as it's usually measured. But, because the unemployment rate only counts people who are currently looking for work, some argue that it can understate the badness of the employment situation. When someone becomes despondent and gives up on looking for a job, the unemployment rate goes down, but it may not be good news.
Unemployment has recovered since the crash, but the underlying employment situation may not have recovered as much -- a good place to look to test this idea is the employment-population ratio.
BUT it's still wildly sensational to say that unemployment is 42%. That clearly overstates unemployment even if the official rate understates it.
posted by grobstein at 7:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
This graph shows that the employment-population ratio fell to a historic low in the 2008 crash and has not recovered that much.
posted by grobstein at 7:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 7:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders is appealing to the compassionate, "let's make our system work better for the 99%" anger, while Trump appeals to the selfish, "I want more" anger.
Bernie is Rey
Trump is Kylo
posted by curious nu at 7:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Bernie is Rey
Trump is Kylo
posted by curious nu at 7:18 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think John Kasich may be the last actual human left in the Republican Party
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
No one running is cool enough to be Finn & Poe, don't even try.
posted by curious nu at 7:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by curious nu at 7:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
The media seem to be content with Trump running a fact free campaign because he's great for the narrative and consequentially eyeballs and eyeballs translate to the sweet sweet lucre of advertising dollars.
The media does have systemic bias but it's not typically along the liberal-conservative axis (Fox News and some aspects of MSNBC being the exception) but rather along the good for advertising dollars vs boring axis. I think this election is proving that despite Trump being a shitty candidate for the pro-Business Republicans (that basically served as Kingmakers behind Romney in 2012) his advantage in terms of attracting media attention has negated most of the advantages of Rubio and Bush.
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The media does have systemic bias but it's not typically along the liberal-conservative axis (Fox News and some aspects of MSNBC being the exception) but rather along the good for advertising dollars vs boring axis. I think this election is proving that despite Trump being a shitty candidate for the pro-Business Republicans (that basically served as Kingmakers behind Romney in 2012) his advantage in terms of attracting media attention has negated most of the advantages of Rubio and Bush.
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The real story no one will notice tomorrow: Democratic turnout was down 12% from 2008, while Republican was up 13% from 2012. We are so fucked.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Kasich is super right wing, he's just not insane. "Not insane" is not a qualification for president.
posted by Justinian at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think John Kasich may be the last actual human left in the Republican Party
I mean, I want to believe that they're all lizard people, but that's only because I know that they're all too human.
posted by dis_integration at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, I want to believe that they're all lizard people, but that's only because I know that they're all too human.
posted by dis_integration at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been thinking Dark Crystal for Sanders and Trump due to various similarities and differences, so:
Sanders is urSu the Master
Trump is skekSo the Emperor
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders is urSu the Master
Trump is skekSo the Emperor
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think John Kasich may be the last actual human left in the Republican Party
How Ohio Gov. John Kasich Is Making Life Hell for Women Seeking Abortions
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
How Ohio Gov. John Kasich Is Making Life Hell for Women Seeking Abortions
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
I am so ready for the primaries to be over so people who agree on virtually everything can stop screaming at each other.
I'm glad we all agree on nationalizing the banks, reducing defence to 10% of the national budget, increase of top tax rate to 90%, crash program for a mass transit build-out, crash program for a renewable energy build-out, crash program for a public housing build-out, restoring science funding to historic norms, restoring NASA funding to historic norms, ending local property tax funding of public school, free public university, free medical school, a national health service, medicare for all, removal of patent protections for pharmaceuticals, return of copyright length to historic norms, return to strong enforcement and enhancement of antitrust law, return to equal-time rules for mass media, breaking of monopolies in tech world, break up of Comcast, strong consumer protections for cell phone users, restructuring of internet as public utility with strong laws preventing vertical intergration of ISPs and cell phone companies, repeal of Taft-Hartley, repeal of Patriot Act, repeal/reform of security classification laws, repeal of authorization act for CIA, open all NSA databases...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [57 favorites]
I'm glad we all agree on nationalizing the banks, reducing defence to 10% of the national budget, increase of top tax rate to 90%, crash program for a mass transit build-out, crash program for a renewable energy build-out, crash program for a public housing build-out, restoring science funding to historic norms, restoring NASA funding to historic norms, ending local property tax funding of public school, free public university, free medical school, a national health service, medicare for all, removal of patent protections for pharmaceuticals, return of copyright length to historic norms, return to strong enforcement and enhancement of antitrust law, return to equal-time rules for mass media, breaking of monopolies in tech world, break up of Comcast, strong consumer protections for cell phone users, restructuring of internet as public utility with strong laws preventing vertical intergration of ISPs and cell phone companies, repeal of Taft-Hartley, repeal of Patriot Act, repeal/reform of security classification laws, repeal of authorization act for CIA, open all NSA databases...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [57 favorites]
The U6 unemployment measure (as bad as it gets) it at 9.9%. Trump is--again--full of shit.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:23 PM on February 9, 2016
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:23 PM on February 9, 2016
The real story no one will notice tomorrow: Democratic turnout was down 12% from 2008, while Republican was up 13% from 2012. We are so fucked.
That is troubling. I'm not sure how the open primary dynamic changes things - New Hampshire has an open primary, and people can vote in whichever primary they want. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of a stop-Trump vote.
posted by dialetheia at 7:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is troubling. I'm not sure how the open primary dynamic changes things - New Hampshire has an open primary, and people can vote in whichever primary they want. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of a stop-Trump vote.
posted by dialetheia at 7:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
In Muppet terms, Bernie is paradoxically both Bert and Ernie.
posted by knuckle tattoos at 7:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by knuckle tattoos at 7:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
I'd have rolled with a young fresh cliché, but I was aiming for "unique digestive tract" and couldn't find a another way there.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, notyou. I actually liked your unusual metaphor.
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, notyou. I actually liked your unusual metaphor.
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The real story no one will notice tomorrow: Democratic turnout was down 12% from 2008, while Republican was up 13% from 2012. We are so fucked.
Not fight picking...but could that be simply because the republican NH race was comparatively wide open and the dem race was seen as a foregone conclusion? I could see both sanders and Clinton supporters opting to stay home cuz why bother
posted by ian1977 at 7:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not fight picking...but could that be simply because the republican NH race was comparatively wide open and the dem race was seen as a foregone conclusion? I could see both sanders and Clinton supporters opting to stay home cuz why bother
posted by ian1977 at 7:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
opting to stay home cuz why bother
Slacktical voting FTW
posted by tonycpsu at 7:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Slacktical voting FTW
posted by tonycpsu at 7:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I suspect that turnout on the Democratic side was driven by Sanders winning basically be fait accompli. There was like 0% suspense on the Democratics side. On the Republican side Trump winning was virtually guaranteed but 2-5 was very much up for grabs.
That being said turnout numbers in the next few primaries could be concerning for Democrats because a passionate Republican base is prone to very high turnout and I've yet to see Sanders or Clinton being able to match Obama 08 for voter inspiration.
posted by vuron at 7:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
That being said turnout numbers in the next few primaries could be concerning for Democrats because a passionate Republican base is prone to very high turnout and I've yet to see Sanders or Clinton being able to match Obama 08 for voter inspiration.
posted by vuron at 7:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kasich is super right wing, he's just not insane.
Yeah, this is a sad feature of this primary, for those of us here in the Midwest. NYC-based writers whose total acquaintance with Kasich is seeing him on TV in a few debates are willing to take him at face value as the moderate in the race, when in fact he's Scott Walker with less national press. Christie is substantially more moderate, and for that matter so is Jeb Bush.
posted by escabeche at 7:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Yeah, this is a sad feature of this primary, for those of us here in the Midwest. NYC-based writers whose total acquaintance with Kasich is seeing him on TV in a few debates are willing to take him at face value as the moderate in the race, when in fact he's Scott Walker with less national press. Christie is substantially more moderate, and for that matter so is Jeb Bush.
posted by escabeche at 7:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
Sanders is urSu the Master
Trump is skekSo the Emperor
What!? Trump is clearly Fizzgig.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is skekSo the Emperor
What!? Trump is clearly Fizzgig.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:28 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am so ready for the primaries to be over so people who agree on virtually everything can stop screaming at each other.Thank you ennui.bz, one of the great annoyances of this election season is the constant insinuation that I must be on the same team as Hillary Clinton, ideologically. (Not that I agree with everything in this litany!)
I'm glad we all agree on nationalizing the banks, reducing defence to 10% of the national budget, increase of top tax rate to 90%, crash program for a mass transit build-out, crash program for a renewable energy build-out, crash program for a public housing build-out, restoring science funding to historic norms, restoring NASA funding to historic norms, ending local property tax funding of public school, free public university, free medical school, a national health service, medicare for all, removal of patent protections for pharmaceuticals, return of copyright length to historic norms, return to strong enforcement and enhancement of antitrust law, return to equal-time rules for mass media, breaking of monopolies in tech world, break up of Comcast, strong consumer protections for cell phone users, restructuring of internet as public utility with strong laws preventing vertical intergration of ISPs and cell phone companies, repeal of Taft-Hartley, repeal of Patriot Act, repeal/reform of security classification laws, repeal of authorization act for CIA, open all NSA databases...
It is a bizarre distortion to suggest that the differences between Sanders and Clinton are merely tactical, and yet we hear it again and again and again. And once the disagreement is one of tactics, of course, then we get the effectiveness of Hillary's tactics and the unrealisticness of Bernie's tactics.
posted by grobstein at 7:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
I do know that Kasich is a rightwinger, etc. But he comes across as an actual human with the ability to do empathy.
Frankly I think he's probably the Republicans' best shot in the general.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Frankly I think he's probably the Republicans' best shot in the general.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:33 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
NYC-based writers whose total acquaintance with Kasich is seeing him on TV in a few debates are willing to take him at face value as the moderate in the race, when in fact he's Scott Walker with less national press.
Back in the Gingrich era Kasich presented as the wonkish balanced budget dude, which many in the national writer corps may recall. He didn't take on his rightist social issue mantle until he went after the Ohio governorship, at least as I recall.
posted by notyou at 7:33 PM on February 9, 2016
Back in the Gingrich era Kasich presented as the wonkish balanced budget dude, which many in the national writer corps may recall. He didn't take on his rightist social issue mantle until he went after the Ohio governorship, at least as I recall.
posted by notyou at 7:33 PM on February 9, 2016
Bernie is Falcor
Trump is the Nothing
posted by ian1977 at 7:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Trump is the Nothing
posted by ian1977 at 7:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yeah, Midwestern Republicans are dangerous like that. They present as technocrats and govern as radicals -- Bruce Rauner here in Illinois, Rick Snyder in Michigan and John Kasich in Ohio.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Don't forget Scott Walker. *full body shudder*
posted by dialetheia at 7:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think he's more from the fundamentalist wing, no? I mean obviously he's obviously implemented an economic agenda of union-busting and general racing-to-the-bottom, but he's cut from a different cloth than the others (which is why they've been able to fly under the national radar).
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:42 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:42 PM on February 9, 2016
It was super frustrating for me to listen to Hillary Clinton refer to her life as a public servant, saying she's just like teachers and nurses and police officers. My daughter is a teacher and we still carry her on our health insurance because A) teachers don't make shit in Florida and B) the health insurance options offered to her would eat up nearly 40% of her take home pay. HRC has got no idea what actually living as a public servant, on public servant wages is like.
That being said, we're all in for Bernie in the primary and whomever is the Democratic nominee in the general. There's just far too much at risk with the Supreme Court nominees in the coming years for me to have the luxury of witholding my vote because of spite.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
That being said, we're all in for Bernie in the primary and whomever is the Democratic nominee in the general. There's just far too much at risk with the Supreme Court nominees in the coming years for me to have the luxury of witholding my vote because of spite.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
How in the world does your daughter work as a teacher in Florida and not have employer provided health care? Private or charter school I assume because I understand that Florida is "special" but even then I assume that pretty much every ISD offers some sort of employer provided HMO.
posted by vuron at 7:48 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:48 PM on February 9, 2016
It was super frustrating for me to listen to Hillary Clinton refer to her life as a public servant, saying she's just like teachers and nurses and police officers. My daughter is a teacher and we still carry her on our health insurance because A) teachers don't make shit in Florida and B) the health insurance options offered to her would eat up nearly 40% of her take home pay. HRC has got no idea what actually living as a public servant, on public servant wages is like.
I'm suspicious whenever politicians are called "public servants," but the Clintons in particular have made in the hundreds of millions of dollars off of their political careers. It boggles the mind.
So I can see why this would bother you!
posted by grobstein at 7:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm suspicious whenever politicians are called "public servants," but the Clintons in particular have made in the hundreds of millions of dollars off of their political careers. It boggles the mind.
So I can see why this would bother you!
posted by grobstein at 7:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
If and ONLY if Bernie loses the primary (and that's an IF!) THEN I will absotutely vote for Clinton with a smile. Same as I would have in 2008. And I sincizzily hope that Clinton supporters will do the same! BUT! The primary season is underway! There is plenty of time to sort out who is the nominee! It's all good right now unless we choose to make it icky.
posted by ian1977 at 7:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
It is a bizarre distortion to suggest that the differences between Sanders and Clinton are merely tactical, and yet we hear it again and again and again. And once the disagreement is one of tactics, of course, then we get the effectiveness of Hillary's tactics and the unrealisticness of Bernie's tactics.
I feel like I'm in bizarro land when I read things like this...I'm not 100% Bernie or Clinton, but probably leaning toward Clinton but if I ever say that it's like HEY DUMDUM YOU MUST LOVE BANKS AND WAR.
But yeah Bernie's...tactics....are kind of off to me, like social media ads that are like "Free tuition? Vote Bernie!" "Health Care as Right? Vote Bernie!" Like, yes, I support those things but I don't like the tactic. It might be effective but not for me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
It was super frustrating for me to listen to Hillary Clinton refer to her life as a public servant, saying she's just like teachers and nurses and police officers. My daughter is a teacher and we still carry her on our health insurance because A) teachers don't make shit in Florida and B) the health insurance options offered to her would eat up nearly 40% of her take home pay.
I've taught for 10+ years, mostly as a sub. I'm only doing okay economically now 'cause I've shifted over to writing, of all things. At this point subbing is like I'm doing charity work. I mean it only provides health insurance if I buy into the district's system at the expense of $4-800 a month.
They both piss me off when they pander to me. I want real talk. This is why Bernie resonates with me with his plain talk about income inequality & a rigged system, while Hillary's pragmatism works for me, too. I feel like these are both good things.
And then Hillary tries the transparently bullshit all-things-to-all-people approach, while Bernie gives me this stuff about reforms that I just don't see happening and he can't give a plan for making it happen, and my enthusiasm for either of them plummets.
But they're both against torture or shutting out Muslims and they're both pro-choice and at least somewhere on the side of police reform, so I guess I have to put up with the pandering.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I've taught for 10+ years, mostly as a sub. I'm only doing okay economically now 'cause I've shifted over to writing, of all things. At this point subbing is like I'm doing charity work. I mean it only provides health insurance if I buy into the district's system at the expense of $4-800 a month.
They both piss me off when they pander to me. I want real talk. This is why Bernie resonates with me with his plain talk about income inequality & a rigged system, while Hillary's pragmatism works for me, too. I feel like these are both good things.
And then Hillary tries the transparently bullshit all-things-to-all-people approach, while Bernie gives me this stuff about reforms that I just don't see happening and he can't give a plan for making it happen, and my enthusiasm for either of them plummets.
But they're both against torture or shutting out Muslims and they're both pro-choice and at least somewhere on the side of police reform, so I guess I have to put up with the pandering.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
She teaches in a public school in a very poor county. The school board does offer health insurance, but they aren't able to subsidize the premiums so it's more than most employees can afford. We can keep her on our insurance for another year, then she's got to see what her options are.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The real story no one will notice tomorrow: Democratic turnout was down 12% from 2008, while Republican was up 13% from 2012. We are so fucked.
Given how easy it was for NH voters to declare party for the primary and even change back to independent or whatever afterwards, it's essentially an open primary, and I'm not surprised more people decided to vote in the Republican one, where there was an actual race and consequences.
It was clear by today that Sanders was going to win (according to every poll and forecast), so going and either voting for Trump to try and get him nominated (in hopes he wins and then loses badly to whoever the Dems nominate) or voting for someone in the slightly more rational camp like Jeb! as a hedge against maybe Trump actually winning, makes sense.
Personally I was hoping for a closer result on the Dem side but still expect Clinton to pull it off. I would prefer her as President, but will obviously vote for Any Democrat in the general (unless like Cthulhu were to suddenly get in the race and become the Democratic nominee, and even then I might vote for him over Trump).
Going to donate a little more to Clinton and wait for Nevada, but I think/hope the general disarray on the Republican side is mostly good news for Democrats.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
>Years ago I read a book on the effects of positive thinking in which the author (I think it was >Martin Seligman) wrote that, according to his examination of the data, American presidential >elections were always won by the most positive candidate. He was so certain of this that during >one American election, while on a trip outside the U.S., he placed a bet on the most positive >candidate. (It being illegal to bet on the outcome of a U.S. election within the U.S.). But then he >lost the bet because the candidate he'd bet on suddenly stopped being positive.
I think there is something to this; I really do. I wish there was some way to implant this message into the brains of the Democrats. Democrats win when they sound inspiring and uplifting. They lose when they sound like they are reading from a list of policy proposals designed to appease whatever group of swing voters their pollsters tell them is important that morning. How the party failed to learn that lesson from Reagan, I'll never know. Too busy trying to prove to themselves and everyone else that they are the smartest people in the room, I guess. Ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry how that worked out. More "arcs of history" and less "bending cost curves", I say.
posted by eagles123 at 7:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think there is something to this; I really do. I wish there was some way to implant this message into the brains of the Democrats. Democrats win when they sound inspiring and uplifting. They lose when they sound like they are reading from a list of policy proposals designed to appease whatever group of swing voters their pollsters tell them is important that morning. How the party failed to learn that lesson from Reagan, I'll never know. Too busy trying to prove to themselves and everyone else that they are the smartest people in the room, I guess. Ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry how that worked out. More "arcs of history" and less "bending cost curves", I say.
posted by eagles123 at 7:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
And then Hillary tries the transparently bullshit all-things-to-all-people approach, while Bernie gives me this stuff about reforms that I just don't see happening and he can't give a plan for making it happen, and my enthusiasm for either of them plummets.
this!!
posted by sweetkid at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
this!!
posted by sweetkid at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
but probably leaning toward Clinton but if I ever say that it's like HEY DUMDUM YOU MUST LOVE BANKS AND WAR.
I'm really don't mean this as a personal attack but... objectively speaking, I think it's fair to say that Clinton likes Wall Street (I know this is hard to believe, but over and over the Clintons have repeated their belief that "financial innovation" is crucial to the American economy) and has advocated repeatedly for using military force to achieve US policy. So, you are saying you support her for other reasons or you don't believe she is a strong supporter of our banks and thinks war is a good policy tool?
posted by ennui.bz at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm really don't mean this as a personal attack but... objectively speaking, I think it's fair to say that Clinton likes Wall Street (I know this is hard to believe, but over and over the Clintons have repeated their belief that "financial innovation" is crucial to the American economy) and has advocated repeatedly for using military force to achieve US policy. So, you are saying you support her for other reasons or you don't believe she is a strong supporter of our banks and thinks war is a good policy tool?
posted by ennui.bz at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't think Bernie Is The Answer is really the answer. That doesn't mean I love banks and war.
posted by sweetkid at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
The real story no one will notice tomorrow: Democratic turnout was down 12% from 2008, while Republican was up 13% from 2012. We are so fucked.
I wonder if this is also explained a bit by the sheer number of GOTV initiatives the Republicans have. If you've got 5 or 6 (or 11?) campaign machines with millions and millions to spend on getting out the vote, that's bound to have more of an effect than just two campaigns.
posted by dis_integration at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wonder if this is also explained a bit by the sheer number of GOTV initiatives the Republicans have. If you've got 5 or 6 (or 11?) campaign machines with millions and millions to spend on getting out the vote, that's bound to have more of an effect than just two campaigns.
posted by dis_integration at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yikes that sounds awful, I can't even imagine trying to recruit and retain qualified teachers in a environment that you can't even offer a decent benefits package. Sounds like a express lane to declining test scores land.
posted by vuron at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stuff like that is why people might be willing to take a chance on socialized health care. Besides, how great would it be if you didn't have to worry about health care as part of choosing a job?
posted by dialetheia at 7:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie - Mr. Kotter
Hillary - Mr. Woodman
Trump - Vinnie Barbarino
Rubio - Arnold Horshack
Kasich - Freddie 'Boom Boom' Washington
Bush - Juan Epstein
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary - Mr. Woodman
Trump - Vinnie Barbarino
Rubio - Arnold Horshack
Kasich - Freddie 'Boom Boom' Washington
Bush - Juan Epstein
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sounds like a express lane to declining test scores land.
Y'know if we ditched this whole standardized testing regime and put the money we waste on it toward hiring & retaining qualified teachers (with things like accessible health care), we might see some real progress.
But the testing regime is a good racket that makes money for influential people.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Y'know if we ditched this whole standardized testing regime and put the money we waste on it toward hiring & retaining qualified teachers (with things like accessible health care), we might see some real progress.
But the testing regime is a good racket that makes money for influential people.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
how great would it be if you didn't have to worry about health care as part of choosing a job?
Too great for America, according to quite a few people. I guess if you're the greatest country on earth you have to be careful about overdoing it...?
posted by uosuaq at 8:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Too great for America, according to quite a few people. I guess if you're the greatest country on earth you have to be careful about overdoing it...?
posted by uosuaq at 8:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
For what its worth, when Bernie says it would take a "political revolution" to implement his plans, I believe him. The thing is, it would take a profound upsetting of the current political order, a revolution, if you will, to implement the plans discussed by any of the candidates in the primary - Clinton included - because of the Republican dominance in the House and at the State level. I'm willing to at least try to work towards that outcome than sit back, wait, and hope something changes.
In my opinion the most dangerous lie Democrats have been telling themselves for the past 4 years is that demographics guarantee them the Presidency. The second most dangerous lie Democrats have been telling themselves is that they can just sit back and wait for demographics to deliver them the House. The third most dangerous lie Democrats have been telling themselves is that they can win and hold the Presidency for eight years in an anti-establishment political environment, which isn't going to go away because of the economy, by running an establishment candidate.
posted by eagles123 at 8:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
In my opinion the most dangerous lie Democrats have been telling themselves for the past 4 years is that demographics guarantee them the Presidency. The second most dangerous lie Democrats have been telling themselves is that they can just sit back and wait for demographics to deliver them the House. The third most dangerous lie Democrats have been telling themselves is that they can win and hold the Presidency for eight years in an anti-establishment political environment, which isn't going to go away because of the economy, by running an establishment candidate.
posted by eagles123 at 8:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Something like a Republican revolution, but with Democrats, and with different Democrats than we have now.
posted by sweetkid at 8:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't typically like banks but it's pretty apparent that FIRE (Financial, Insurance and Real Estate) has been an increasing percentage of GDP growth for ages now. I don't think that it's particularly controversial to say that finance in general has been driving a large percentage of the growth in the US economy (it's also been driving a lot of the growth in income disparity as well) but in general it's not that controversial to say finance does tend to be a dynamic and important part of the US economy.
As for the pro-war complaints I think there are definitely plenty of people on the left that do think that an interventionist foreign policy is important to the US. Yes Iraq and Afghanistan have been complete fuckups of epic proportions but there are people who look at Bosnia and Rwanda and Syria and think to themselves maybe we should do more to protect the rights of others.
Yes it gets into the weird psychology about "Am I my brother's keeper" or even worse the neo-colonial "White Man's Burden" but I think there are plenty of people on the left that look at genocides and other failed state scenarios and think maybe the US should be willing to do more even if they oppose the Republican tendency towards extreme adventurism.
posted by vuron at 8:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
As for the pro-war complaints I think there are definitely plenty of people on the left that do think that an interventionist foreign policy is important to the US. Yes Iraq and Afghanistan have been complete fuckups of epic proportions but there are people who look at Bosnia and Rwanda and Syria and think to themselves maybe we should do more to protect the rights of others.
Yes it gets into the weird psychology about "Am I my brother's keeper" or even worse the neo-colonial "White Man's Burden" but I think there are plenty of people on the left that look at genocides and other failed state scenarios and think maybe the US should be willing to do more even if they oppose the Republican tendency towards extreme adventurism.
posted by vuron at 8:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Jeb: cobra commander
Trump: serpentor
Sanders: Orko
posted by ian1977 at 8:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump: serpentor
Sanders: Orko
posted by ian1977 at 8:11 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
It is a bizarre distortion to suggest that the differences between Sanders and Clinton are merely tactical, and yet we hear it again and again and again. And once the disagreement is one of tactics, of course, then we get the effectiveness of Hillary's tactics and the unrealisticness of Bernie's tactics.
I feel like I'm in bizarro land when I read things like this...I'm not 100% Bernie or Clinton, but probably leaning toward Clinton but if I ever say that it's like HEY DUMDUM YOU MUST LOVE BANKS AND WAR.
But yeah Bernie's...tactics....are kind of off to me, like social media ads that are like "Free tuition? Vote Bernie!" "Health Care as Right? Vote Bernie!" Like, yes, I support those things but I don't like the tactic. It might be effective but not for me.
There are certainly tactical differences between the candidates. But a lot of the Democrat-oriented writing I see implies (or insists!) that the only differences are tactical, as though the candidates are completely agreed on values by virtue of both being Democrats.
And they are not!
You could decide that, as far as you care, they agree on values. They agree on plenty of stuff and maybe that stuff includes the most important stuff for you. But that's not remotely the case for me.
posted by grobstein at 8:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel like I'm in bizarro land when I read things like this...I'm not 100% Bernie or Clinton, but probably leaning toward Clinton but if I ever say that it's like HEY DUMDUM YOU MUST LOVE BANKS AND WAR.
But yeah Bernie's...tactics....are kind of off to me, like social media ads that are like "Free tuition? Vote Bernie!" "Health Care as Right? Vote Bernie!" Like, yes, I support those things but I don't like the tactic. It might be effective but not for me.
There are certainly tactical differences between the candidates. But a lot of the Democrat-oriented writing I see implies (or insists!) that the only differences are tactical, as though the candidates are completely agreed on values by virtue of both being Democrats.
And they are not!
You could decide that, as far as you care, they agree on values. They agree on plenty of stuff and maybe that stuff includes the most important stuff for you. But that's not remotely the case for me.
posted by grobstein at 8:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
And then Hillary tries the transparently bullshit all-things-to-all-people approach, while Bernie gives me this stuff about reforms that I just don't see happening and he can't give a plan for making it happen, and my enthusiasm for either of them plummets.
I am also, for various reasons, on Team I Can't Work Up Much Enthusiasm for Either Candidate.
I miss the Obama campaign. Heck, I'd campaign for Biden if he ran.
I also have a fantasy of Bernie Sanders volunteering to be VP for Clinton. Or vice versa. We'd have a unified party while the republicans have a post-apocalyptic clown renaissance faire, and the two of them together (with all the contradictions that entails) would give me some hope.
posted by mmoncur at 8:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
I am also, for various reasons, on Team I Can't Work Up Much Enthusiasm for Either Candidate.
I miss the Obama campaign. Heck, I'd campaign for Biden if he ran.
I also have a fantasy of Bernie Sanders volunteering to be VP for Clinton. Or vice versa. We'd have a unified party while the republicans have a post-apocalyptic clown renaissance faire, and the two of them together (with all the contradictions that entails) would give me some hope.
posted by mmoncur at 8:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't think Bernie Is The Answer is really the answer. That doesn't mean I love banks and war.
See, I actually kind of hate Bernie's rhetoric. I think he is vague, in either a calculated or wooly-headed way, about what he would actually do for working people. There's actually a lot that the presidency can do, outside of Congress, through the Attorney General and Dept. of Justice, not to mention the treasury. But even outside of the possible, I don't really see him making a strong "working class" appeal. He's pretty much avoided what I would think of as "populist" rhetoric while implicitly calling for a populist voting surge. For all his rhetoric, I don't think he really understands how in crisis US society is.
But, I basically think Hillary loves banks and war and is a dangerous combination of cynical and corrupt.
The problem with either of them is that I really do think the US society is in a state of crisis. I don't think "moderate" policies will do anything other than delay while pressure builds. More specifically, I believe the financial industry is eating the US economy and the longer that is allowed to happen, one way or another, the worse the downside. But, if Bernie can convince enough people that used to go along with "new Democrats" like the Clintons and Gore and Obama that things really need to change... then maybe we can get off this track.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
See, I actually kind of hate Bernie's rhetoric. I think he is vague, in either a calculated or wooly-headed way, about what he would actually do for working people. There's actually a lot that the presidency can do, outside of Congress, through the Attorney General and Dept. of Justice, not to mention the treasury. But even outside of the possible, I don't really see him making a strong "working class" appeal. He's pretty much avoided what I would think of as "populist" rhetoric while implicitly calling for a populist voting surge. For all his rhetoric, I don't think he really understands how in crisis US society is.
But, I basically think Hillary loves banks and war and is a dangerous combination of cynical and corrupt.
The problem with either of them is that I really do think the US society is in a state of crisis. I don't think "moderate" policies will do anything other than delay while pressure builds. More specifically, I believe the financial industry is eating the US economy and the longer that is allowed to happen, one way or another, the worse the downside. But, if Bernie can convince enough people that used to go along with "new Democrats" like the Clintons and Gore and Obama that things really need to change... then maybe we can get off this track.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
1) OK, we can see the three lanes clearly - Outsider, Establishment and Arch-Conservative Republicans are in place. Outsider is wielding a baseball bat attached to a honey-badger with razorwire, the moderate is more moderate than usual, and the Arch-Conservative sounds just like Little Gideon from Gravity Falls.
2) Bernie can win. Wow, it's not a fluke, he can just flat out win the whole magilla. He took every demographic outside of the wealthy 65+ set. Every. One. He appeals across the board. He never lost his cool, he never went off message.
Hillary - oh. Oh. This did not end up well for her. Even her concession speech was a self-absorbed trainwreck. She should have just written off NH weeks ago, and spent time stumping in SC, speaking to the wants and needs of her Democratic mainstream base there, including and especially Black Americans. Instead she went negative, she attacked by the most transparent of proxies using some downright odious attacks.
She didn't just wreck her campaign for the nomination, she may have sunk her Presidential bid, if she makes it that far. We've seen it play out in the Caucus threads, and now the Primary threads. She has alienated the left wing.
I don't mean the get-out-the-vote, sway-toothed street-preachers who know how to organize and motivate. Not even Obama could reach these unreformed Trotskyites and big-A Anarchists. Bernie has, and without him, they just don't vote in November.
No, ordinary, principled left-of-center voters and some even closer to the middle, have no use for Hillary.
Identity politics is more than "I am A" - it's "I listen and I do." Did women turn out in droves to vote Palin into the veep seat? Nnnnnnnnnope. You got to bring more to table.
Bernie has said at every rally that equal pay is a top priority. Hillary had her hired goons remind women that Hillary was a woman. Also, some college guys Bernie has openly called "crap" and demand they stay the hell away from his campaign say rude things about her! Just like 2008, only Obama didn't call his own sexist supporters "crap."
So now wide, vast swathes of left-identifying liberals are looking at the ultra-left who have openly declared they would go home and count the bottles under the sink before going out to vote in November if Hillary is nommed - and they're saying "You've got a point..."
On a personal level, I disagree. VE. HEM. ENT. LY. But the degree of smarm and cruelty from the Clinton campaign in the past week means that I will vote for Bernie in the primary, and weep, and be one of the few to vote Hill in November.
So, if you wonder why we're at war in Iran and Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan and Mexico and Korea and Southeast Asia, and why cops are given awards for shooting black children in the Oval Office, and why Abortion is illegal and affirmative action is repealed and how states can gerrymander Presidential electoral votes, look back at this week, when Hillary alienated a large chunk of her voting base.
But, you know... Bernie can win.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
2) Bernie can win. Wow, it's not a fluke, he can just flat out win the whole magilla. He took every demographic outside of the wealthy 65+ set. Every. One. He appeals across the board. He never lost his cool, he never went off message.
Hillary - oh. Oh. This did not end up well for her. Even her concession speech was a self-absorbed trainwreck. She should have just written off NH weeks ago, and spent time stumping in SC, speaking to the wants and needs of her Democratic mainstream base there, including and especially Black Americans. Instead she went negative, she attacked by the most transparent of proxies using some downright odious attacks.
She didn't just wreck her campaign for the nomination, she may have sunk her Presidential bid, if she makes it that far. We've seen it play out in the Caucus threads, and now the Primary threads. She has alienated the left wing.
I don't mean the get-out-the-vote, sway-toothed street-preachers who know how to organize and motivate. Not even Obama could reach these unreformed Trotskyites and big-A Anarchists. Bernie has, and without him, they just don't vote in November.
No, ordinary, principled left-of-center voters and some even closer to the middle, have no use for Hillary.
Identity politics is more than "I am A" - it's "I listen and I do." Did women turn out in droves to vote Palin into the veep seat? Nnnnnnnnnope. You got to bring more to table.
Bernie has said at every rally that equal pay is a top priority. Hillary had her hired goons remind women that Hillary was a woman. Also, some college guys Bernie has openly called "crap" and demand they stay the hell away from his campaign say rude things about her! Just like 2008, only Obama didn't call his own sexist supporters "crap."
So now wide, vast swathes of left-identifying liberals are looking at the ultra-left who have openly declared they would go home and count the bottles under the sink before going out to vote in November if Hillary is nommed - and they're saying "You've got a point..."
On a personal level, I disagree. VE. HEM. ENT. LY. But the degree of smarm and cruelty from the Clinton campaign in the past week means that I will vote for Bernie in the primary, and weep, and be one of the few to vote Hill in November.
So, if you wonder why we're at war in Iran and Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan and Mexico and Korea and Southeast Asia, and why cops are given awards for shooting black children in the Oval Office, and why Abortion is illegal and affirmative action is repealed and how states can gerrymander Presidential electoral votes, look back at this week, when Hillary alienated a large chunk of her voting base.
But, you know... Bernie can win.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
grobstein, I don't see them as the same but just different with tactics. I also don't think support for either of them says profound things about my soul.
Honestly, I read Dreams from My Father and thought, hey this guy says things I've been thinking for a while, and he's going to be a major player on the world stage. That's so cool! That Obama wasn't the Dreams from My Father president was something of a disappointment but I still supported him.
I just don't feel that way about Clinton or Sanders. I'm not going to stay home though, I'm going to vote blue, and also vote for non Presidential candidates.
I've also been to Clinton AND Sanders fundraisers so...again, blue, but no battle for my soul.
posted by sweetkid at 8:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Honestly, I read Dreams from My Father and thought, hey this guy says things I've been thinking for a while, and he's going to be a major player on the world stage. That's so cool! That Obama wasn't the Dreams from My Father president was something of a disappointment but I still supported him.
I just don't feel that way about Clinton or Sanders. I'm not going to stay home though, I'm going to vote blue, and also vote for non Presidential candidates.
I've also been to Clinton AND Sanders fundraisers so...again, blue, but no battle for my soul.
posted by sweetkid at 8:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't typically like banks but it's pretty apparent that FIRE (Financial, Insurance and Real Estate) has been an increasing percentage of GDP growth for ages now. I don't think that it's particularly controversial to say that finance in general has been driving a large percentage of the growth in the US economy (it's also been driving a lot of the growth in income disparity as well) but in general it's not that controversial to say finance does tend to be a dynamic and important part of the US economy.
As for the pro-war complaints I think there are definitely plenty of people on the left that do think that an interventionist foreign policy is important to the US. Yes Iraq and Afghanistan have been complete fuckups of epic proportions but there are people who look at Bosnia and Rwanda and Syria and think to themselves maybe we should do more to protect the rights of others.
Yes, exactly. And I believe both of those trends are fantastically destructive.
But, just for clarity. Health care has also been an increasing percentage of GDP growth, growing at accelerating rates. No one has suggested this is a good thing, quite the opposite. The new Democrats have consistently stated their support and advocated for the growth of FIRE. They really do think Wall Street is good.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
As for the pro-war complaints I think there are definitely plenty of people on the left that do think that an interventionist foreign policy is important to the US. Yes Iraq and Afghanistan have been complete fuckups of epic proportions but there are people who look at Bosnia and Rwanda and Syria and think to themselves maybe we should do more to protect the rights of others.
Yes, exactly. And I believe both of those trends are fantastically destructive.
But, just for clarity. Health care has also been an increasing percentage of GDP growth, growing at accelerating rates. No one has suggested this is a good thing, quite the opposite. The new Democrats have consistently stated their support and advocated for the growth of FIRE. They really do think Wall Street is good.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:20 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
The thing is, Hillary alienated me a loooooooooooong time ago, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for her against any Republican that could conceivably run. That's just me, though. I remember trying to convince the Nader voters to vote for Gore in 2000. I'm afraid this is going to be 1000 times worse, and we'll have to do it all over again in 2020 if she manages to win. There are a lot of voters whose first political memory is the Clintons and their allies basically calling them one or more of several kinds of asshole.
posted by eagles123 at 8:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 8:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes Iraq and Afghanistan have been complete fuckups of epic proportions but there are people who look at Bosnia and Rwanda and Syria and think to themselves maybe we should do more to protect the rights of others.
I've yet to be convinced that intervening in Bosnia was a bad thing--although we got damn lucky with how it played out, and that's significant. Nobody has ever convinced me we shouldn't have intervened in Rwanda.
I'm also still sharply of the opinion that yes, we were right to go into Afghanistan, but that it should've been kept to a short term op specifically against al Qaeda & that it was bungled from the beginning by an administration that didn't care about it anyway.
Presumably this means I love war...?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've yet to be convinced that intervening in Bosnia was a bad thing--although we got damn lucky with how it played out, and that's significant. Nobody has ever convinced me we shouldn't have intervened in Rwanda.
I'm also still sharply of the opinion that yes, we were right to go into Afghanistan, but that it should've been kept to a short term op specifically against al Qaeda & that it was bungled from the beginning by an administration that didn't care about it anyway.
Presumably this means I love war...?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
There are a lot of voters whose first political memory is the Clintons and their allies basically calling them one or more of several kinds of asshole.
posted by eagles123 at 11:23 PM on 2/9
Not to mention the way her campaign's tone approached racist AND entitled that some black guy was challenging her. They went completely tone deaf after the momentum shifted to Barry and I'll never forget that
posted by glaucon at 8:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 11:23 PM on 2/9
Not to mention the way her campaign's tone approached racist AND entitled that some black guy was challenging her. They went completely tone deaf after the momentum shifted to Barry and I'll never forget that
posted by glaucon at 8:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
but there are people who look at Bosnia and Rwanda and Syria and think to themselves maybe we should do more to protect the rights of others.
Dude we are already knee deep, as in boots on the ground, in many countries. You just don't hear about it on the news. And I can guaranfuckingtee you that we are not "protecting the rights of others."
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Dude we are already knee deep, as in boots on the ground, in many countries. You just don't hear about it on the news. And I can guaranfuckingtee you that we are not "protecting the rights of others."
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The seven stages of establishment backlash: Corbyn/Sanders edition. I think we're still somewhere between stages 5 and 6. I believe we went through most of these in 2008, too, before people united behind Obama.
posted by dialetheia at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Unfortunately attacking the banks has become very difficult outside of some edge attacks asking for greater accountability in finance and maybe some revisions of how some High Frequency Trading is done. The major part of the problem is tied to the fact that almost everyone has a retirement fund explicitly tied to the performance of wall street (rather than a traditional pension fund) so for a lot of voters especially the boomers the idea of incorporating regulations that might actually result in a reduced rate of return (and thus a longer time towards retirement) seem unlikely to happen. Instead most financial regulation seems to be about reducing risk and possibly increasing transparency.
I have yet to see a politically feasible regulatory legislation that wouldn't be completely neutered by Republicans in the legislative process. So why Americans might be anger at Wall Street having record profits while real income growth and full employment number stagnate it's hard to see how Bernie (or Warren) would actually be able to deliver on any sort of pro-regulation platform.
Baring some miracle results that deliver a workable democratic supermajority it's hard to see any Democrat managing to deliver much of anything on the legislative side so most progress is going to be dependent on administrative rule changes and those while powerful don't tend to result in the change that many progressives want. Thus inevitable enthusiasm gap which results in loss of seats during midterms.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Oh what I wouldn't give for a FDR or LBJ style legislative and executive juggernaut.
posted by vuron at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have yet to see a politically feasible regulatory legislation that wouldn't be completely neutered by Republicans in the legislative process. So why Americans might be anger at Wall Street having record profits while real income growth and full employment number stagnate it's hard to see how Bernie (or Warren) would actually be able to deliver on any sort of pro-regulation platform.
Baring some miracle results that deliver a workable democratic supermajority it's hard to see any Democrat managing to deliver much of anything on the legislative side so most progress is going to be dependent on administrative rule changes and those while powerful don't tend to result in the change that many progressives want. Thus inevitable enthusiasm gap which results in loss of seats during midterms.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Oh what I wouldn't give for a FDR or LBJ style legislative and executive juggernaut.
posted by vuron at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
my maybe super unrealistic answer to the "how Sanders gets anything done" question is something like "continual unrelenting extremely rowdy potentially far left street protest providing pressure from the outside while Sanders offers up social democratic compromises from the inside."
but like I'm in an Oakland bubble right now and we're just way better at continual unrelenting extremely rowdy potentially menacing far left street protest than everyone else in America is.
but hey, maybe everyone else is catching up with us, who knows?
blerg. the scale of the Sanders New Hampshire victory has given me stupid hope. I hate having hope. like, ugh.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
but like I'm in an Oakland bubble right now and we're just way better at continual unrelenting extremely rowdy potentially menacing far left street protest than everyone else in America is.
but hey, maybe everyone else is catching up with us, who knows?
blerg. the scale of the Sanders New Hampshire victory has given me stupid hope. I hate having hope. like, ugh.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
I have yet to see a politically feasible regulatory legislation that wouldn't be completely neutered by Republicans in the legislative process.
We already have authority to break up too-big-to-fail banks under Dodd-Frank. We just need to use it.
posted by dialetheia at 8:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
We already have authority to break up too-big-to-fail banks under Dodd-Frank. We just need to use it.
posted by dialetheia at 8:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's evidence of how cramped our political imagination has become that we can only think of one way to guarantee human rights for people in other countries -- by "putting boots on the ground".
Maybe we invest in an intentional strategy of nation-building and nation-supporting to stop destabilization before things get to the point of genocide or civil war. There is such a thing as international development and although it has often been neo-colonialist bullshit, it doesn't have to be.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Maybe we invest in an intentional strategy of nation-building and nation-supporting to stop destabilization before things get to the point of genocide or civil war. There is such a thing as international development and although it has often been neo-colonialist bullshit, it doesn't have to be.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
but yeah it's not normal times in America. Clinton wouldn't get anything decent done except through executive order, because she's not particularly interested in decency and because the Republicans (and a chunk of the Democrats) would block anything decent. And Sanders wouldn't get anything decent done aside by executive order, because all the Republicans and half the Democrats would block literally anything he put forward, primarily just in the interest of disciplining the left.
But it would be a hell of a thing, America indicating that it's potentially a socialist country. I suspect even if President Sanders accomplished nothing, his election would lead to the elections at the state and local level of a ton of other social democrats... and maybe even a few more democratic socialists...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
But it would be a hell of a thing, America indicating that it's potentially a socialist country. I suspect even if President Sanders accomplished nothing, his election would lead to the elections at the state and local level of a ton of other social democrats... and maybe even a few more democratic socialists...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Kasich is a fake Huntsman: http://plunderbund.com/2015/07/28/john-kasich-is-not-the-jon-huntsman-of-2016/
posted by Apocryphon at 8:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 8:35 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
As for the pro-war complaints I think there are definitely plenty of people on the left that do think that an interventionist foreign policy is important to the US.
I'm not pro-war, but I am for an American foreign policy that's involved in the world. Bill Clinton sent a carrier group through the Taiwan Strait during the 1996 crisis to show that Taiwan could hold democratic elections without being threatened by China.
posted by FJT at 8:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not pro-war, but I am for an American foreign policy that's involved in the world. Bill Clinton sent a carrier group through the Taiwan Strait during the 1996 crisis to show that Taiwan could hold democratic elections without being threatened by China.
posted by FJT at 8:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
But even outside of the possible, I don't really see him making a strong "working class" appeal.
MSNBC exit poll: 67% lower-income voters voted for Bernie.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
MSNBC exit poll: 67% lower-income voters voted for Bernie.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
I have yet to see a politically feasible regulatory legislation that wouldn't be completely neutered by Republicans in the legislative process. So why Americans might benger at Wall Street having record profits while real income growth and full employment number stagnate it's hard to see how Bernie (or Warren) would actually be able to deliver on any sort of pro-regulation platform.
The regulatory laws already exist. They just aren't being enforced. And, for that matter, there are a number of laws established since the Roosevelt era and before that give the executive a great deal of power here. Breaking up the banks is possible, but even more possible is sending bank executives to prison for the laws that everyone knows they broke.
posted by dis_integration at 8:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
The regulatory laws already exist. They just aren't being enforced. And, for that matter, there are a number of laws established since the Roosevelt era and before that give the executive a great deal of power here. Breaking up the banks is possible, but even more possible is sending bank executives to prison for the laws that everyone knows they broke.
posted by dis_integration at 8:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
tBut it would be a hell of a thing, America indicating that it's potential a socialist country. I suspect even if President Sanders accomplished nothing, his election would lead to the elections at the state and local level of a ton of other social democrats... </em
Yep. If neither one of them can 'get anything done' then why not elect the person who gets something done simply by virtue of being there. The conversation shifts. I don't believe for a secondthat republicans wouldn't lockstep shift left if Bernie won. They are first and foremost concerned with winning.
posted by ian1977 at 8:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yep. If neither one of them can 'get anything done' then why not elect the person who gets something done simply by virtue of being there. The conversation shifts. I don't believe for a secondthat republicans wouldn't lockstep shift left if Bernie won. They are first and foremost concerned with winning.
posted by ian1977 at 8:43 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It seems to me that whoever gets the nomination, Sanders has achieved a huge victory that his supporters should be proud of in yanking the Overton window among Democrats drastically to the left.
I'm a registered Green voter and have never voted for a Republican or Democrat (including President Obama) in a national election before. Sanders is not my dream candidate but his campaign presents a somewhat astonishing and hard-fought opportunity to just fucking once claim an electoral victory over the corporate class who treat us and our loved ones like playthings. I am considering donating to Sanders' primary campaign, and would be tempted to vote for him instead of my party's candidate in the general election. I know there are few things most Democrats loathe more than leftists who only vote for Democratic candidates when they reflect our values, but I want you to know that regardless of how it makes you feel, we exist-- it's not just empty puffery.
posted by threeants at 8:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [37 favorites]
I'm a registered Green voter and have never voted for a Republican or Democrat (including President Obama) in a national election before. Sanders is not my dream candidate but his campaign presents a somewhat astonishing and hard-fought opportunity to just fucking once claim an electoral victory over the corporate class who treat us and our loved ones like playthings. I am considering donating to Sanders' primary campaign, and would be tempted to vote for him instead of my party's candidate in the general election. I know there are few things most Democrats loathe more than leftists who only vote for Democratic candidates when they reflect our values, but I want you to know that regardless of how it makes you feel, we exist-- it's not just empty puffery.
posted by threeants at 8:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [37 favorites]
I don't believe for a secondthat republicans wouldn't lockstep shift left if Bernie won. They are first and foremost concerned with winning.
I'm sorry, how many times have they responded to failures at the polls (or even of their own policies!) by doubling down on their ideology?
At some point one would think they have to hit rock bottom and have their moment of clarity, but I wouldn't lay any money on exactly when that would happen.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, how many times have they responded to failures at the polls (or even of their own policies!) by doubling down on their ideology?
At some point one would think they have to hit rock bottom and have their moment of clarity, but I wouldn't lay any money on exactly when that would happen.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not to mention the way her campaign's tone approached racist AND entitled that some black guy was challenging her. They went completely tone deaf after the momentum shifted to Barry and I'll never forget that
posted by glaucon at 11:26 PM on February 9
a-fucking-men and I'm not even American, just a millennial who had recently got turned onto social justice on the internet during the declining days of lj and the beginning of tumblr and twitter, and so got a front row seat. imagine how much more visceral those memories would be for people who were actually able to participate in the political process.
all these white feminists who are now lining up for Hillary - they never said shit back then, and I'll never forget that either. as far as I'm concerned, their feminism isn't the least bit intersectional; it's bullshit.
to the questions earlier in the thread about why aren't there more women excited about Hilary: this is why.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 8:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by glaucon at 11:26 PM on February 9
a-fucking-men and I'm not even American, just a millennial who had recently got turned onto social justice on the internet during the declining days of lj and the beginning of tumblr and twitter, and so got a front row seat. imagine how much more visceral those memories would be for people who were actually able to participate in the political process.
all these white feminists who are now lining up for Hillary - they never said shit back then, and I'll never forget that either. as far as I'm concerned, their feminism isn't the least bit intersectional; it's bullshit.
to the questions earlier in the thread about why aren't there more women excited about Hilary: this is why.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 8:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
I've seen thinkpieces about how what Bernie is doing is laying groundwork for a Warren run later. But I think that's dependent on him not getting the nomination, not getting it, winning, and then getting nothing done in office. The idea would be to get the conversation going in a progressive direction now. And that's definitely happening.
posted by sweetkid at 8:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
to the questions earlier in the thread about why aren't there more women excited about Hilary: this is why.
no it's not. I know a lot of white feminists who don't know much about intersectionality, or at least get really defensive when challenged on it.
posted by sweetkid at 8:47 PM on February 9, 2016
no it's not. I know a lot of white feminists who don't know much about intersectionality, or at least get really defensive when challenged on it.
posted by sweetkid at 8:47 PM on February 9, 2016
Has anyone seen Rubio's response yet?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:47 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 8:47 PM on February 9, 2016
The Republican Cause Cannot Fail, It Can Only Be Failed.
Shit's crazy but that is 100% how most of the people in that camp think.
posted by vuron at 8:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shit's crazy but that is 100% how most of the people in that camp think.
posted by vuron at 8:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party, Matt Yglesias:
"Any young and ambitious Democrat looking at the demographics of the party and the demographics of Sanders supporters has to conclude that his brand of politics is extremely promising for the future. There are racial and demographic gaps between Clinton and Sanders supporters, but the overwhelming reality is that for all groups, the young people are feeling the Bern."
posted by dialetheia at 8:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Any young and ambitious Democrat looking at the demographics of the party and the demographics of Sanders supporters has to conclude that his brand of politics is extremely promising for the future. There are racial and demographic gaps between Clinton and Sanders supporters, but the overwhelming reality is that for all groups, the young people are feeling the Bern."
posted by dialetheia at 8:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
MSNBC exit poll: 67% lower-income voters voted for Bernie.
Trump has exactly three things going for him -
1) He insults and laughs at those who insult and laugh at right-leaning voters.
2) He promises to rip out globalization trade treaties by the roots and start over. Even if he has to turn us into an inward-looking nation.
3) He'll make it so people born here won't have to compete against those who snuck in for a paycheck or a raise. Or people who have a different religion. Or skin color.
Bernie understands all three things are precariously perched upon a pile of bullshit, explains why they are eloquently and matter-of-factly, and offers nice alternatives, so will do well in the General. Hillary... I'm no longer so sure of.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump has exactly three things going for him -
1) He insults and laughs at those who insult and laugh at right-leaning voters.
2) He promises to rip out globalization trade treaties by the roots and start over. Even if he has to turn us into an inward-looking nation.
3) He'll make it so people born here won't have to compete against those who snuck in for a paycheck or a raise. Or people who have a different religion. Or skin color.
Bernie understands all three things are precariously perched upon a pile of bullshit, explains why they are eloquently and matter-of-factly, and offers nice alternatives, so will do well in the General. Hillary... I'm no longer so sure of.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
But it would be a hell of a thing, America indicating that it's potentially a socialist country.
A lot of people were making similarly hopeful arguments that Obama would usher in an era of "post-race" America, with better bipartisanship and mutual understanding. And now we're saying we're going to enter an era of "post-Socialism-is-bad" America?
I'd love that, but I can't see it. A lot of anger is being brought up now, and my fear is the anger isn't just going to dissipate on Inauguration Day.
posted by FJT at 8:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
A lot of people were making similarly hopeful arguments that Obama would usher in an era of "post-race" America, with better bipartisanship and mutual understanding. And now we're saying we're going to enter an era of "post-Socialism-is-bad" America?
I'd love that, but I can't see it. A lot of anger is being brought up now, and my fear is the anger isn't just going to dissipate on Inauguration Day.
posted by FJT at 8:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
There must be some computer magic preventing me from posting the same Rubio question a second time.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 8:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
no it's not. I know a lot of white feminists who don't know much about intersectionality, or at least get really defensive when challenged on it.
posted by sweetkid at 11:47 PM on February 9
well, if those white feminists you know aren't for Hillary either, she's got a whole other set of problems in addition to the ones I was talking about.
...unless I'm misunderstanding you?
posted by dustyasymptotes at 8:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 11:47 PM on February 9
well, if those white feminists you know aren't for Hillary either, she's got a whole other set of problems in addition to the ones I was talking about.
...unless I'm misunderstanding you?
posted by dustyasymptotes at 8:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
And now we're saying we're going to enter an era of "post-Socialism-is-bad" America?
No, but a democratic socialist just won a Presidential primary for the first time, so I'd say it's progress.
It's also the first primary ever won by a non-Christian, which I appreciate.
posted by dialetheia at 8:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
No, but a democratic socialist just won a Presidential primary for the first time, so I'd say it's progress.
It's also the first primary ever won by a non-Christian, which I appreciate.
posted by dialetheia at 8:53 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
no it's not. I know a lot of white feminists who don't know much about intersectionality, or at least get really defensive when challenged on it.
posted by sweetkid at 11:47 PM on February 9
well, if those white feminists you know aren't for Hillary either, she's got a whole other set of problems in addition to the ones I was talking about.
Yeah, you are misunderstanding me, I'm saying it's wrong to think white feminists aren't voting for Hillary because they remember the racism from the Obama campaign.
It's a nice thought but to a lot of white progressives PoC topics are secondary.
posted by sweetkid at 8:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 11:47 PM on February 9
well, if those white feminists you know aren't for Hillary either, she's got a whole other set of problems in addition to the ones I was talking about.
Yeah, you are misunderstanding me, I'm saying it's wrong to think white feminists aren't voting for Hillary because they remember the racism from the Obama campaign.
It's a nice thought but to a lot of white progressives PoC topics are secondary.
posted by sweetkid at 8:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
But Obama is a Muslim dialethia ;) Oh and JFK was Catholic and they aren't real Christians either.
What's funny/scary is that I still encounter the Catholics aren't real Christians rhetoric on occasion.
posted by vuron at 8:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's funny/scary is that I still encounter the Catholics aren't real Christians rhetoric on occasion.
posted by vuron at 8:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jeb: cobra commander
Trump: serpentor
Sanders: Orko
okay you can't just start taking characters from different shows
posted by triggerfinger at 8:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump: serpentor
Sanders: Orko
okay you can't just start taking characters from different shows
posted by triggerfinger at 8:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ian Welsh points out that according to tonight's CNN exit poll Sanders took 49% of the non-white vote to Clinton's 50% in New Hampshire. Much better than his performance in Iowa, where he only took 36% of the non-white vote. Hard to put too much weight on these numbers, but if in fact Sanders' standing is improving among non-white voters that could put an end to Clinton's 'firewall' among majority African-American states -- i.e. Sanders could in fact win it all.
posted by crazy with stars at 8:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by crazy with stars at 8:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
okay you can't just start taking characters from different shows
We're in a post-characters-from-a-single-show America. Intersectionality among fictional universes, as it were.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
We're in a post-characters-from-a-single-show America. Intersectionality among fictional universes, as it were.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
#AllVillainsMatter
posted by tonycpsu at 9:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders is Shipwreck! Useless, Jack-Nicholson-sounding throwaway comedy character in a little sailor hat! Kicks incredible amounts of ass when it's all on the line.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm saying it's wrong to think white feminists aren't voting for Hillary because they remember the racism from the Obama campaign.
Huh? That's definitely one of the reasons I'm not supporting her. I remember very clearly vowing not to support her ever again after she made Obama "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement in that debate in 2008. That was the last straw. I vowed all over again when she said she was still in the race because "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June." I'm appalled all over again digging up those links.
posted by dialetheia at 9:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Huh? That's definitely one of the reasons I'm not supporting her. I remember very clearly vowing not to support her ever again after she made Obama "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement in that debate in 2008. That was the last straw. I vowed all over again when she said she was still in the race because "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June." I'm appalled all over again digging up those links.
posted by dialetheia at 9:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
Just watched Sanders' victory speech and his call out of Republicans on climate change almost brought tears to my eyes.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I enjoy that 526 people voted for Martin O'Malley. Sympathy votes?
posted by eagles123 at 9:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by eagles123 at 9:09 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just watched Sanders' victory speech and his call out of Republicans on climate change almost brought tears to my eyes.
Yes, thank you for bringing this up! I work in climate research and that is one of the main reasons Sanders that appeals to me. Clinton's climate plan is very weak compared to Sanders' - extremely sketchy, no commitments on pipelines, and from her stump speech it seems like she just wants to give us a few new solar panels and call it good. Her lack of leadership on Keystone XL really disappointed me, too.
posted by dialetheia at 9:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
Yes, thank you for bringing this up! I work in climate research and that is one of the main reasons Sanders that appeals to me. Clinton's climate plan is very weak compared to Sanders' - extremely sketchy, no commitments on pipelines, and from her stump speech it seems like she just wants to give us a few new solar panels and call it good. Her lack of leadership on Keystone XL really disappointed me, too.
posted by dialetheia at 9:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
The donation website seems to be up and running. I just donated $50.00 to Sanders' campaign and I encourage every right thinking progressive to go give what they can.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm saying it's wrong to think white feminists aren't voting for Hillary because they remember the racism from the Obama campaign.
Huh? That's definitely one of the reasons I'm not supporting her.
En masse, I don't think that's the case. I've never felt like most white feminists support intersectionality.
posted by sweetkid at 9:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is Sergeant Hatred
Rubio is John Jackson
Cruz is Jack Johnson
Jeb! is Tansit
posted by Existential Dread at 9:14 PM on February 9, 2016
Rubio is John Jackson
Cruz is Jack Johnson
Jeb! is Tansit
posted by Existential Dread at 9:14 PM on February 9, 2016
I enjoy that 526 people voted for Martin O'Malley. Sympathy votes?
People who intensely dislike both Clinton and Sanders, most likely.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
People who intensely dislike both Clinton and Sanders, most likely.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:15 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders is now at 60% - 39% and on Saturday the New York Times quoted unnamed Clinton insider as saying they were hoping to stay within 5%.
Clinton has been landslided (in New Hampshire).
posted by bukvich at 9:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton has been landslided (in New Hampshire).
posted by bukvich at 9:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes, thank you for bringing this up! I work in climate research and that is one of the main reasons Sanders that appeals to me.
Yeah, me too. My study of Quaternary climate change and hominin evolution tells me one thing: we had better get ready, because anthropogenic climate change, or not, it's coming.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, me too. My study of Quaternary climate change and hominin evolution tells me one thing: we had better get ready, because anthropogenic climate change, or not, it's coming.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders a few years ago stood and gave an eight and a half hour speech. It wasn't an official filibuster it was just a pissed off Sanders. At one point he gets out letters that he received from constituents.
He reads, he pauses, to explain realities like dented can stores, difficult decisions and impact on dignity and expounds upon unfairness. He ends by saying that when he first got the letters he couldn't read more than a half dozen at a time because they took too much out of him. This man feels others pain on a visceral level. He knows fairness in his gut.
The clip starts here at 6hrs40min25sec and goes to around 7hrs10min10sec when he expresses how hard they were to receive and suggests the Congress could use a couple days discussing letters from hurting Americans. While it is a half hour, I think it provide a valuable window into what propels Bernie on a very human level.
I would have no fear at all of Bernie against any Republican because he doesn't tolerate bullying and will confront any attack head on, and if anything he gets more energy and righteous indignation when taking flak. In Congress and hearings Bernie shows up, prepared, interested and demanding of answers. Bernie can stand toe to toe with anyone and has and does.
I have cheered for Bernie for years, but see there are people who are less familiar with him outside the current race, so suggest the clip to get a feel for what drives Sanders.
posted by phoque at 9:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [88 favorites]
He reads, he pauses, to explain realities like dented can stores, difficult decisions and impact on dignity and expounds upon unfairness. He ends by saying that when he first got the letters he couldn't read more than a half dozen at a time because they took too much out of him. This man feels others pain on a visceral level. He knows fairness in his gut.
The clip starts here at 6hrs40min25sec and goes to around 7hrs10min10sec when he expresses how hard they were to receive and suggests the Congress could use a couple days discussing letters from hurting Americans. While it is a half hour, I think it provide a valuable window into what propels Bernie on a very human level.
I would have no fear at all of Bernie against any Republican because he doesn't tolerate bullying and will confront any attack head on, and if anything he gets more energy and righteous indignation when taking flak. In Congress and hearings Bernie shows up, prepared, interested and demanding of answers. Bernie can stand toe to toe with anyone and has and does.
I have cheered for Bernie for years, but see there are people who are less familiar with him outside the current race, so suggest the clip to get a feel for what drives Sanders.
posted by phoque at 9:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [88 favorites]
> A lot of people were making similarly hopeful arguments that Obama would usher in an era of "post-race" America, with better bipartisanship and mutual understanding. And now we're saying we're going to enter an era of "post-Socialism-is-bad" America?
well, no one serious (I do not count the American media elite as serious) bought into the "post-race" thing. Obama wasn't elected on a platform of ending white supremacy — he gets jumped on for even indicating that white supremacy exists — he was elected on a platform of liberalism dressed up as progressivism.
I mean that kind of blows the analogy from the start. but yeah, the language I've heard on the far left for what you're talking about — the idea that it might be a bad idea to elect someone who represents the left, because the left is too weak at the moment to capitalize and would get disciplined into oblivion — is "triumphalism." Under this framework, Sanders's election might represent an attempt to seize power before the moment was ripe, or whatever, and would result in setbacks for socialism on the whole.
I tend to think that people who buy into the idea that there will be a moment that is ripe, that we will recognize it, and that we should wait until we get there are wrongheaded. I think it's indicative of holding an overly schematic view of how social change works. I believe instead that despite the existence of underlying tendencies within society (for example, the tendency of market exchange to concentrate wealth and power in a few hands), history is in large part something contingent and unpredictable, rather than certain and predictable.
basically the way we make something like a Sanders victory into a real victory is by going out and making it a victory, by campaigning hard and lobbying hard and protesting hard for left causes at every single level, relentlessly, forcing concessions wherever we can.. Giving in preemptively, or carping from the sidelines while waiting for
･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ the revolutionary moment ･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ ,
(which is tantamount to giving in) is, well, it's sort of self-sabotaging if nothing else.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
well, no one serious (I do not count the American media elite as serious) bought into the "post-race" thing. Obama wasn't elected on a platform of ending white supremacy — he gets jumped on for even indicating that white supremacy exists — he was elected on a platform of liberalism dressed up as progressivism.
I mean that kind of blows the analogy from the start. but yeah, the language I've heard on the far left for what you're talking about — the idea that it might be a bad idea to elect someone who represents the left, because the left is too weak at the moment to capitalize and would get disciplined into oblivion — is "triumphalism." Under this framework, Sanders's election might represent an attempt to seize power before the moment was ripe, or whatever, and would result in setbacks for socialism on the whole.
I tend to think that people who buy into the idea that there will be a moment that is ripe, that we will recognize it, and that we should wait until we get there are wrongheaded. I think it's indicative of holding an overly schematic view of how social change works. I believe instead that despite the existence of underlying tendencies within society (for example, the tendency of market exchange to concentrate wealth and power in a few hands), history is in large part something contingent and unpredictable, rather than certain and predictable.
basically the way we make something like a Sanders victory into a real victory is by going out and making it a victory, by campaigning hard and lobbying hard and protesting hard for left causes at every single level, relentlessly, forcing concessions wherever we can.. Giving in preemptively, or carping from the sidelines while waiting for
･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ the revolutionary moment ･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ ,
(which is tantamount to giving in) is, well, it's sort of self-sabotaging if nothing else.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Many years later; I have *no* idea who Hilary Clinton is.
Trump is going to be an absolute terror once he gets to the rust belt. Not to be partisian; but good luck stopping that item when it occurs.
posted by buzzman at 9:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump is going to be an absolute terror once he gets to the rust belt. Not to be partisian; but good luck stopping that item when it occurs.
posted by buzzman at 9:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
>The donation website seems to be up and running. I just donated $50.00 to Sanders' campaign >and I encourage every right thinking progressive to go give what they can.
I've been donating to the campaign for awhile.
The money thing is interesting because Sanders apparently out-raised Clinton in January. I have seen some talk to the effect that the Sanders campaign actually may have a greater staying power than the Clinton campaign because Sanders can go to his much larger pool of small dollar donors more often than Clinton can tap her much smaller pool of big dollar donors. The Clinton campaign also seems to require more money to run on a day to day basis than the Sanders campaign.
Of course, SuperPacs still exist, but it has to be hard to coordinate a campaign when you can't officially coordinate with the people financially supporting you.
posted by eagles123 at 9:27 PM on February 9, 2016
I've been donating to the campaign for awhile.
The money thing is interesting because Sanders apparently out-raised Clinton in January. I have seen some talk to the effect that the Sanders campaign actually may have a greater staying power than the Clinton campaign because Sanders can go to his much larger pool of small dollar donors more often than Clinton can tap her much smaller pool of big dollar donors. The Clinton campaign also seems to require more money to run on a day to day basis than the Sanders campaign.
Of course, SuperPacs still exist, but it has to be hard to coordinate a campaign when you can't officially coordinate with the people financially supporting you.
posted by eagles123 at 9:27 PM on February 9, 2016
Yeah, you are misunderstanding me, I'm saying it's wrong to think white feminists aren't voting for Hillary because they remember the racism from the Obama campaign.
It's a nice thought but to a lot of white progressives PoC topics are secondary.
ok, then you've misunderstood me. my comment was not about white feminists not voting for Hillary. it was the opposite - the only people I see really invested in Hillary on the basis of the importance of her electoral success for feminism are anti-intersectional white feminists. the same ones who were horribly racist in 2008.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 9:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a nice thought but to a lot of white progressives PoC topics are secondary.
ok, then you've misunderstood me. my comment was not about white feminists not voting for Hillary. it was the opposite - the only people I see really invested in Hillary on the basis of the importance of her electoral success for feminism are anti-intersectional white feminists. the same ones who were horribly racist in 2008.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 9:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump is going to be an absolute terror once he gets to the rust belt. Not to be partisian; but good luck stopping that item when it occurs.
This is my biggest fear too. Sanders won 67% of low-income voters and dominated with voters with less education tonight - hopefully that would bode well for limiting Trump's gains in the Reagan Democrat category.
posted by dialetheia at 9:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is my biggest fear too. Sanders won 67% of low-income voters and dominated with voters with less education tonight - hopefully that would bode well for limiting Trump's gains in the Reagan Democrat category.
posted by dialetheia at 9:30 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think a lot of white feminists are anti intersectional - they just don't know, care or understand it.
But I also don't think all white feminist Hillary supporters are racists, sorry.
posted by sweetkid at 9:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
But I also don't think all white feminist Hillary supporters are racists, sorry.
posted by sweetkid at 9:31 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Their brand of feminist is though. Racist, imperialist, colonialist, the whole shebang. The fact she is representative of that kind of feminism is why lots of people (and I'm not talking about white people here) aren't more excited.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 9:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dustyasymptotes at 9:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I mean, the same argument could be made about Bernie's socialism. I said so as much in the thread about reparations.
posted by dustyasymptotes at 9:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dustyasymptotes at 9:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure if that's why I'm not more excited. It could be.
posted by sweetkid at 9:35 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 9:35 PM on February 9, 2016
we got hella ideological diversity here. we got socialists. we got anarchists. we got social democrats, we got democratic socialists. we got syndicalists and regular old commies and I think we've got a Maoist or two. We even have a couple of liberals! Metafilter on the whole is to the left of the United States, but that doesn't make us lockstep, ideologically rigid, or shallow.
for my part, though, I'll cop to being shallow. I've got a lot of complexity, but not very much depth. I'm textured.
and yeah, Sanders is kind of learning intersectionality as he goes. The reason why I'm finding myself excited by him, though, is that he seems to be a real fast learner.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
for my part, though, I'll cop to being shallow. I've got a lot of complexity, but not very much depth. I'm textured.
and yeah, Sanders is kind of learning intersectionality as he goes. The reason why I'm finding myself excited by him, though, is that he seems to be a real fast learner.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
Sanders didn't have home field advantage, Hillary led him by 50 points when he entered the race, and he didn't start rising for months.
posted by rhizome at 9:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 9:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Our campaign is about thinking big, not small. It's about having the courage to reject the status quo. It's about saying that in a time when every major country on earth guarantees healthcare to all of their people we should be doing the same in our great country. In my view, under president Obama's leadership, the Affordable Care Act has been an important step forward, no question about it, but we can and must do better. 29 million Americans should not remain uninsured and an even greater number should not be under-insured with large deductibles and copayments. We should not be paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs at a time, listen to this, when the top three drug companies in this country made 45 billion dollars of profit last year. That is an obscenity.
- Bernie Sanders, NH victory speech
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
- Bernie Sanders, NH victory speech
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:39 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
dances_with_sneetches : I wonder what a woman has to do be acceptable.
Room 641-A: Right now, today? Be Elizabeth Warren. [...] If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trounced. Why is that?
Well, because she's obviously a way better candidate than Hillary. But people keep responding to points about double-standards for women politicians with hypothetical examples where Elizabeth Warren is running against Hillary Clinton. Yeah, of course if there were a beautiful alternate reality where only women were running for president, a woman would "be acceptable." There'd be literally no alternative.
But what if Elizabeth Warren was running against Bernie Sanders? Do we really think that would be a race free of double-standards? A race where Elizabeth Warren could stop brushing her hair and still get equal respect?
This is not bashing Bernie, or promoting Clinton's campaign, but pointing out that double-standards are real and they won't go away as long as we pretend like this is only an issue because it's Clinton, and sexist standards wouldn't be a problem if we had the right female candidate.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Room 641-A: Right now, today? Be Elizabeth Warren. [...] If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trounced. Why is that?
Well, because she's obviously a way better candidate than Hillary. But people keep responding to points about double-standards for women politicians with hypothetical examples where Elizabeth Warren is running against Hillary Clinton. Yeah, of course if there were a beautiful alternate reality where only women were running for president, a woman would "be acceptable." There'd be literally no alternative.
But what if Elizabeth Warren was running against Bernie Sanders? Do we really think that would be a race free of double-standards? A race where Elizabeth Warren could stop brushing her hair and still get equal respect?
This is not bashing Bernie, or promoting Clinton's campaign, but pointing out that double-standards are real and they won't go away as long as we pretend like this is only an issue because it's Clinton, and sexist standards wouldn't be a problem if we had the right female candidate.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Bernie wouldn't run against Warren.
posted by an animate objects at 9:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 9:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren is smart as shit to sit this one out and see how the Dem establishment shakes out.
posted by rhizome at 9:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 9:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
I am a Hillary supporter, but her campaign has not given me confidence in her ability to win either. She reminds me of Gore and John Kerry.
posted by humanfont at 9:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 9:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Why not?
I think Bernie Sanders would rather vote for Elizabeth Warren than run for president.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
I think Bernie Sanders would rather vote for Elizabeth Warren than run for president.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
Sanders is pushing the Overton window in Warren's favor, for a future candidacy.
posted by yesster at 9:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by yesster at 9:46 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Bernie wouldn't run against Warren.
I'm not trying to argue about whether Bernie Sanders is a pure angel of anti-sexism or whatever. Suspend your disbelief and play along with the point of the thought experiment for a mo. What if he did? You think double-standards and sexism wouldn't enter into that race at all?
If it helps, replace the names "Elizabeth Warren" and "Bernie Sanders" with "well-credentialed progressive female candidate" and "well-credentialed progressive male candidate." If you think that's not a race that sees sexism rear its ugly head, you haven't paid attention to American history so far.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm not trying to argue about whether Bernie Sanders is a pure angel of anti-sexism or whatever. Suspend your disbelief and play along with the point of the thought experiment for a mo. What if he did? You think double-standards and sexism wouldn't enter into that race at all?
If it helps, replace the names "Elizabeth Warren" and "Bernie Sanders" with "well-credentialed progressive female candidate" and "well-credentialed progressive male candidate." If you think that's not a race that sees sexism rear its ugly head, you haven't paid attention to American history so far.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
but pointing out that double-standards are real and they won't go away as long as we pretend like this is only an issue because it's Clinton
Yes, but where are the lines drawn with her? She is so interwoven with American establishment politics that everything can be cast one way or another. I think with Warren it would be more stark and obvious, but Hillary is mostly gray-area as far as current liberal trends (apparently) are leaning.
posted by rhizome at 9:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, but where are the lines drawn with her? She is so interwoven with American establishment politics that everything can be cast one way or another. I think with Warren it would be more stark and obvious, but Hillary is mostly gray-area as far as current liberal trends (apparently) are leaning.
posted by rhizome at 9:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why not?
Because they have the same goals. There would be no reason to run against her.
posted by dialetheia at 9:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because they have the same goals. There would be no reason to run against her.
posted by dialetheia at 9:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
New Hampshire’s unemployment rate is only 3.1 percent. New Hampshire’s average gasoline price is only $1.98 per gallon. New Hampshire’s murder rate is the lowest in the country, and so is New Hampshire’s poverty rate.posted by gwint at 9:48 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also: New Hampshire’s voters want serious change.
You think double-standards and sexism wouldn't enter into that race?
What does a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question gain us? Not really sure of the point here, but it sounds like whataboutism.
posted by rhizome at 9:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
What does a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question gain us? Not really sure of the point here, but it sounds like whataboutism.
posted by rhizome at 9:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
If Bernie's goal is to be President, then his goals will not be compatible with anyone else's. That's...what people who run for President are like. There's egotism involved.
posted by sweetkid at 9:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 9:50 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie is running because he feels responsible. Hillary is running because she feels entitled. This might not be entirely true but it's how it feels to me, and I think to many others.
posted by an animate objects at 9:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [46 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 9:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [46 favorites]
What does a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question gain us? Not really sure of the point here, but it sounds like whataboutism.
I don't see acknowledging that double-standards exist for women politicians in a political debate where people have tried to equivocate on that fact as "whataboutism".
This is not me trying to trick anyone into backing Clinton, or whatever people are afraid they'll concede by acknowledging that sexism exist. I said as much just above! I've said multiple times I'm a probable Bernie voter! Wow. This is me asking people to acknowledge a truth of the American political system. What does it gain you? I don't know. It's recognizing a truth about inequity in our world, so... whatever you find that worth.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't see acknowledging that double-standards exist for women politicians in a political debate where people have tried to equivocate on that fact as "whataboutism".
This is not me trying to trick anyone into backing Clinton, or whatever people are afraid they'll concede by acknowledging that sexism exist. I said as much just above! I've said multiple times I'm a probable Bernie voter! Wow. This is me asking people to acknowledge a truth of the American political system. What does it gain you? I don't know. It's recognizing a truth about inequity in our world, so... whatever you find that worth.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
If you think that's not a race that sees sexism rear its ugly head, you haven't paid attention to American history so far.
Honestly, at that point I think ageism would turn out to be more relevant. Elizabeth Warren is fully eight years younger than Sanders; she can project the "legal scholar at the height of their career" image that Bernie can't. Bernie comes off at times as the crotchety old radical who's spent his whole life as a thankless Cassandra, while Warren seems like the sort of ultra-competent and influential professor you try extra-hard to jockey for a clerkship recommendation from.
posted by fifthrider at 9:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Honestly, at that point I think ageism would turn out to be more relevant. Elizabeth Warren is fully eight years younger than Sanders; she can project the "legal scholar at the height of their career" image that Bernie can't. Bernie comes off at times as the crotchety old radical who's spent his whole life as a thankless Cassandra, while Warren seems like the sort of ultra-competent and influential professor you try extra-hard to jockey for a clerkship recommendation from.
posted by fifthrider at 9:54 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, because she's obviously a way better candidate than Hillary. But people keep responding to points about double-standards for women politicians with hypothetical examples where Elizabeth Warren is running against Hillary Clinton. Yeah, of course if there were a beautiful alternate reality where only women were running for president, a woman would "be acceptable." There'd be literally no alternative.
But what if Elizabeth Warren was running against Bernie Sanders? Do we really think that would be a race free of double-standards? A race where Elizabeth Warren could stop brushing her hair and still get equal respect?
That -- that -- is when all the women would say, You're a good guy, Bernie, but we're voting for the woman this time." But there's a huge gap between Clinton and Warren, and women voters would do the same thing for many other women along that spectrum. It appears that Hillary is just too far to be one of those women. I mean FFS, give women a little credit.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
But what if Elizabeth Warren was running against Bernie Sanders? Do we really think that would be a race free of double-standards? A race where Elizabeth Warren could stop brushing her hair and still get equal respect?
That -- that -- is when all the women would say, You're a good guy, Bernie, but we're voting for the woman this time." But there's a huge gap between Clinton and Warren, and women voters would do the same thing for many other women along that spectrum. It appears that Hillary is just too far to be one of those women. I mean FFS, give women a little credit.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:55 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
This is not me trying to trick anyone into backing Clinton, or whatever people are afraid they'll concede by acknowledging that sexism exist.
Who is saying sexism doesn't exist?
posted by Room 641-A at 9:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Who is saying sexism doesn't exist?
posted by Room 641-A at 9:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie, on why he is running:
"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 9:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
"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 9:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Bernie comes off at times as the crotchety old radical who's spent his whole life as a thankless Cassandra, while Warren seems like the sort of ultra-competent and influential professor you try extra-hard to jockey for a clerkship recommendation from.
Right, because Warren doesn't have the luxury of being a crotchety radical and not brushing her hair. She had to build this image to gain the political power she has today. There's no other option for her.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Right, because Warren doesn't have the luxury of being a crotchety radical and not brushing her hair. She had to build this image to gain the political power she has today. There's no other option for her.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:56 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I honestly don't believe that Bernie thinks of things that way. His goal isn't to be President, his goal is to have the country well presided. In the current field, he thinks he's the best option. I'm tending to agree.
posted by yesster at 9:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by yesster at 9:57 PM on February 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
That -- that -- is when all the women would say, You're a good guy, Bernie, but we're voting for the woman this time." But there's a huge gap between Clinton and Warren, and women voters would do the same thing for many other women along that spectrum. It appears that Hillary is just too far to be one of those women. I mean FFS, give women a little credit.
... I am a woman. I don't dismiss the power of women to get shit done. Part of my question is, what do all the MEN do in that circumstance?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
... I am a woman. I don't dismiss the power of women to get shit done. Part of my question is, what do all the MEN do in that circumstance?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
because Warren doesn't have the luxury of being a crotchety radical and not brushing her hair
Just throwing this out there, but I've found that being disheveled and being a top-tier professor is often positively correlated, male or female. Something something tenure.
posted by fifthrider at 9:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just throwing this out there, but I've found that being disheveled and being a top-tier professor is often positively correlated, male or female. Something something tenure.
posted by fifthrider at 9:58 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If it does really come down to Trump v. Sanders, that's a world of American politics that has no modern parallel, and anyone who thinks they have any idea how that turns out is insane.
It could be one of those Democratic moments like 1860 Lincoln v. Breckenridge, or maybe 1856 is more apt, down to and including the Know Nothing "republicans".
Maybe if they had Metafilter and Twitter in 1856 we could all be arguing about John Fremont v. John McLean, while James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Stephan A. Douglas shambled towards a brokered convention and the Presidency, ahead of the 1860 regrouping around Lincoln.
Although I'm not sure the modern world can survive 4 years of Trump to regroup around Warren.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
It could be one of those Democratic moments like 1860 Lincoln v. Breckenridge, or maybe 1856 is more apt, down to and including the Know Nothing "republicans".
Maybe if they had Metafilter and Twitter in 1856 we could all be arguing about John Fremont v. John McLean, while James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Stephan A. Douglas shambled towards a brokered convention and the Presidency, ahead of the 1860 regrouping around Lincoln.
Although I'm not sure the modern world can survive 4 years of Trump to regroup around Warren.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
It looks like this was leaked:
Just heard on MSNBC that Harry Belafonte will be endorsing Bernie
posted by Room 641-A at 9:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Just heard on MSNBC that Harry Belafonte will be endorsing Bernie
posted by Room 641-A at 9:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Elizabeth warren would not be able to stop brushing her hair and still get respect. But she also wouldn't stop brushing her hair...she looks the part in a way that I feel people don't give her credit for. She looks like a polished politician to me.
I don't mean anyone here btw. I just see Warren referred to as sort of unkempt or like she doesn't care but she looks put together to me, if plainer.
posted by sweetkid at 9:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't mean anyone here btw. I just see Warren referred to as sort of unkempt or like she doesn't care but she looks put together to me, if plainer.
posted by sweetkid at 9:59 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am only nearing 40 and already I can feel all vestiges of 'ambition' fading pretty fast. I cannot for the life of me imagine having an ego big enough to want to run for president. I mean, I can play pretend and think oh I'd be a wonderful president, but at the end of the day I can't imagine actually wanting to run. Who wants to put themselves through that? Anyone that can already is living a comfy enough life right? Regardless of what they believe they are already comfy and will continue to be comfy as they want to be...I think? So who wants to run? Either they are true believers and they want to do what they think is right or they are sociopathic crazy people who just want more power, more money and more influence.
It's a scary sobering thought I think.
posted by ian1977 at 10:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a scary sobering thought I think.
posted by ian1977 at 10:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just throwing this out there, but I've found that being disheveled and being a top-tier professor is often positively correlated, male or female. Something something tenure.
Even for Senators and Representatives, which is what we're discussing? Disheveled?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even for Senators and Representatives, which is what we're discussing? Disheveled?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:00 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
what do all the MEN do in that circumstance?
Hopefully vote for the progressive candidate (along with all the WOMEN), and not the candidate who has proven themselves to be bought and paid for by multinational corporations and special interests.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hopefully vote for the progressive candidate (along with all the WOMEN), and not the candidate who has proven themselves to be bought and paid for by multinational corporations and special interests.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:01 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah all candidates say they are running for America and not themselves.
posted by sweetkid at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2016
don't dismiss the power of women to get shit done. Part of my question is, what do all the MEN do in that circumstance?
Who gives a fuck? We're the majority and we get shit done.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who gives a fuck? We're the majority and we get shit done.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hopefully vote for the progressive candidate (along with all the WOMEN), and not the candidate who has proven themselves to be bought and paid for by multinational corporations and special interests.
We're talking about what the men would do in a race of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2016
We're talking about what the men would do in a race of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2016
I'm getting really lost in the hypothetical scenarios flying around here.
posted by teponaztli at 10:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 10:04 PM on February 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Again, he would never run against her anyway, though. He really is a true believer (check out his old C-SPAN speeches if you don't believe me). I'm sure he has a little ego wrapped up in this, but his attitude about the whole thing so far seems to be "somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be me."
posted by dialetheia at 10:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Even for Senators and Representatives, which is what we're discussing? Disheveled?
You're putting words in my mouth; I wasn't talking about congresscritters. Elizabeth Warren got where she is today by being a legendarily good bankruptcy professor at Harvard Law. Yes, she then parlayed that into a congressional bid, but she won because she was willing to attack the "class warfare" FUD head-on, not because it was some kind of beauty contest - unpleasant as he may be, politically, Scott Brown is one suave bastard.
posted by fifthrider at 10:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You're putting words in my mouth; I wasn't talking about congresscritters. Elizabeth Warren got where she is today by being a legendarily good bankruptcy professor at Harvard Law. Yes, she then parlayed that into a congressional bid, but she won because she was willing to attack the "class warfare" FUD head-on, not because it was some kind of beauty contest - unpleasant as he may be, politically, Scott Brown is one suave bastard.
posted by fifthrider at 10:05 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
We're talking about what the men would do in a race of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren.
Why are "we" talking about it? It is nothing but hypothetical. Warren isn't running.
posted by futz at 10:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Why are "we" talking about it? It is nothing but hypothetical. Warren isn't running.
posted by futz at 10:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I just see Warren referred to as sort of unkempt or like she doesn't care but she looks put together to me, if plainer.
No way is she unkempt by any definition. I know unkempt.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
No way is she unkempt by any definition. I know unkempt.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I really have no idea what the point of all this "unkempt Warren" bullshit is about. Can you bring the point home, please, promoters of this angle?
posted by rhizome at 10:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 10:10 PM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's one hypothetical scenario, and I wasn't even the one who brought it up! Other people brought up the idea of Elizabeth Warren running, but then it was framed it as a thing where she'd be running against Clinton, instead of the more realistic scenario where she'd be running against some progressive male darling, and I wanted to question that because I think it sidesteps around the issue of what double-standards women politicians face.
I even explained that I'm a probable Bernie voter, so that people wouldn't feel so defensive, and a bunch of posters still jumped down my throat about it. But if anyone else wants to jump on the pile about how this is a dumb thing to talk about, I guess we can go back to sharing memes about who's Mr. Big in this political race or whatever.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I even explained that I'm a probable Bernie voter, so that people wouldn't feel so defensive, and a bunch of posters still jumped down my throat about it. But if anyone else wants to jump on the pile about how this is a dumb thing to talk about, I guess we can go back to sharing memes about who's Mr. Big in this political race or whatever.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Agreed, this took a shockingly sexist turn for someone just skimming through.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
We're talking about what the men would do in a race of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren.
Speaking just for myself, I would be very thankful that I didn't really have to worry about who won, since both are (mostly) excellent on the things I most care about.
Are you asking us to quantify the effect of sexism in a hypothetical race between Sanders and Warren? That seems very, very hard to do. If I had to put a number to it, I would say somewhere between two or three percentage points at most. But that might actually be an over-estimate in a Democratic primary, since you would have many women and not a small number of men (like me) voting for Warren precisely because when the two candidates are a tie on the issues, affirmative action seems appropriate.
What do you suppose the conversation would look like if the political positions of Sanders and Clinton were reversed? Do you think the youth vote would still be going for Sanders? Or do you think Clinton would have won Iowa and New Hampshire by large margins? My guess is the latter.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Speaking just for myself, I would be very thankful that I didn't really have to worry about who won, since both are (mostly) excellent on the things I most care about.
Are you asking us to quantify the effect of sexism in a hypothetical race between Sanders and Warren? That seems very, very hard to do. If I had to put a number to it, I would say somewhere between two or three percentage points at most. But that might actually be an over-estimate in a Democratic primary, since you would have many women and not a small number of men (like me) voting for Warren precisely because when the two candidates are a tie on the issues, affirmative action seems appropriate.
What do you suppose the conversation would look like if the political positions of Sanders and Clinton were reversed? Do you think the youth vote would still be going for Sanders? Or do you think Clinton would have won Iowa and New Hampshire by large margins? My guess is the latter.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
If I edited the dictionary, this picture would appear next to the word "kempt."
posted by zachlipton at 10:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 10:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why wouldn't Elizabeth Warren be running against Clinton? Clinton was always going to run. Warren was always the candidate the Clinton campaign feared the most in the primary.
Personally, I think Warren is happy being a Senator and isn't interested in being President.
posted by eagles123 at 10:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Personally, I think Warren is happy being a Senator and isn't interested in being President.
posted by eagles123 at 10:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie 60.0% of vote with 88.33% reporting ... I believe this calls for some music Revolution! (Feel the Bern) by Sandy and Richard Riccardi
posted by phoque at 10:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by phoque at 10:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
If Sanders is right, and people are ready for a politician who says "higher taxes", it'll be a momentous shift.
I just had a thought about this. When Republicans scream about Obummer rasing everyone's taxes and getting everyone all het up it's really a smokescreen. The poor people might get some crumbs from a tax-cut bill, but the real protections are for the corporations and billionaires.
What needs to happen is someone needs to get through to all these people and explain to them when you scream about your taxes and how you pay to much and the gummit is taking your tax money to kill babby you are being duped by people who pay zero taxes and earn billions. If we got rid of that tax bill, yes, your taxes might go up a few dollars but now we will have billions and billions of new tax money coming in and we will be able to provide services that will save you money.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I just had a thought about this. When Republicans scream about Obummer rasing everyone's taxes and getting everyone all het up it's really a smokescreen. The poor people might get some crumbs from a tax-cut bill, but the real protections are for the corporations and billionaires.
What needs to happen is someone needs to get through to all these people and explain to them when you scream about your taxes and how you pay to much and the gummit is taking your tax money to kill babby you are being duped by people who pay zero taxes and earn billions. If we got rid of that tax bill, yes, your taxes might go up a few dollars but now we will have billions and billions of new tax money coming in and we will be able to provide services that will save you money.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Was literally about to post that phoque, since few people have talked about this actuall primary in like an hour.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:17 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
We're talking about what the men would do in a race of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren.
I would hope that they would vote for whichever candidate best supports their views. I really don't know what this exercise is supposed to accomplish. Is sexism and misogyny a thing in America? Yes, most certainly, but I fail to see what the point of this exercise is other than to try and somehow propagate the idea that people are only voting for Sanders because he's a man. An idea that I would think progressive women find distasteful and insulting.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would hope that they would vote for whichever candidate best supports their views. I really don't know what this exercise is supposed to accomplish. Is sexism and misogyny a thing in America? Yes, most certainly, but I fail to see what the point of this exercise is other than to try and somehow propagate the idea that people are only voting for Sanders because he's a man. An idea that I would think progressive women find distasteful and insulting.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:21 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to Ann Coulter of all people (via), Fox News decided to show 5th place Rubio's speech instead of 2nd place Kasich's. You'd think a former Fox News commentator could get a helpful bump from his former employer, but, no, they're trying to make Marco Rubio: Serious Contender happen. Hilarious.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whoa, all these Bernie songs are so cool!
posted by Room 641-A at 10:22 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 10:22 PM on February 9, 2016
An idea, I would point out, that has in my opinion severely hurt Clinton during the last of news cycle.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rubio really screwed himself with his debate performance. His press conferences are pretty much all about him admitting it. Wonder which speech writer/staff member is actually going to take the hard hit for the whole "Obama knows exactly what he's doing" horrible rhetorical strategy.
posted by yesster at 10:24 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by yesster at 10:24 PM on February 9, 2016
We're talking about what the men would do in a race of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren.
What bothers me about the kempt/unkempt noise is that Sanders explicitly called out a journalist who asked questions about his opponent's appearance some time ago. If we're gonna have this nonsense hypothetical, pick some other candidate than someone with a history of calling out this bullshit, like Sanders. It's pretty insulting.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
What bothers me about the kempt/unkempt noise is that Sanders explicitly called out a journalist who asked questions about his opponent's appearance some time ago. If we're gonna have this nonsense hypothetical, pick some other candidate than someone with a history of calling out this bullshit, like Sanders. It's pretty insulting.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
what do all the MEN do in that circumstance?
Well personally, I would watch the debates between Sanders and Warren, read about their platforms, and make my decision based on who had the more cohesive and realistic plan.
posted by foobaz at 10:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Well personally, I would watch the debates between Sanders and Warren, read about their platforms, and make my decision based on who had the more cohesive and realistic plan.
posted by foobaz at 10:26 PM on February 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Up-thread, I said:
I'm just imagining him out on the court draining three balls in Larry Bird-era NBA Celtics shorts while practicing his victory speech.
but sadly, Fox News has video of Bernie hoopin', and it looks like he's focusing on his mid-range game. I don't know what this says about his electoral strategy, but it does make for some fun video on a night of celebration.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm just imagining him out on the court draining three balls in Larry Bird-era NBA Celtics shorts while practicing his victory speech.
but sadly, Fox News has video of Bernie hoopin', and it looks like he's focusing on his mid-range game. I don't know what this says about his electoral strategy, but it does make for some fun video on a night of celebration.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's partly just tough to imagine a primary that had actually settled down leaving Sanders vs. Warren as the main battle, because their policies seem like they wouldn't be as dissimilar (I assume, anyway?), and so it seems really unlikely that some other Democrat wouldn't try to claim the parts of the field Clinton is staking out (socially liberal, Obama-style centrist/technocratic on economic policy, relatively hawkish on foreign policy). Maybe a more informative counterfactual would be if Elizabeth Warren were running against a man with a similar record to Clinton, like John Kerry?
posted by en forme de poire at 10:28 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 10:28 PM on February 9, 2016
I fail to see what the point of this exercise is other than to try and somehow propagate the idea that people are only voting for Sanders because he's a man. An idea that I would think progressive women find distasteful and insulting.
I am a progressive woman. I've said multiple times in the past few comments I back Bernie Sanders. The folks down here have made it 100% clear that they don't want to talk about this, I get it, I stopped discussing it a half hour ago. Can we quit it with the circular firing squad already? Jesus christ. This thread is an awful place.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
I am a progressive woman. I've said multiple times in the past few comments I back Bernie Sanders. The folks down here have made it 100% clear that they don't want to talk about this, I get it, I stopped discussing it a half hour ago. Can we quit it with the circular firing squad already? Jesus christ. This thread is an awful place.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Personally, I think Warren is happy being a Senator and isn't interested in being President.
This. I would love it if Warren were interested in being president, too, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But there are gigantic tons of reasons why any sane person would not want to be president. Let's face it, if you have a shred of empathy, huge swaths of that job will absolutely always suck no matter what you do. And that's to say nothing of the impact it has on your daily life, family, etc, etc.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
This. I would love it if Warren were interested in being president, too, and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But there are gigantic tons of reasons why any sane person would not want to be president. Let's face it, if you have a shred of empathy, huge swaths of that job will absolutely always suck no matter what you do. And that's to say nothing of the impact it has on your daily life, family, etc, etc.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it takes a special kind of person to want to be President. It seems to me there are way more fun ways to become rich and famous.
I think Warren would be the prohibitive favorite if she had decided to run, though.
posted by eagles123 at 10:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Warren would be the prohibitive favorite if she had decided to run, though.
posted by eagles123 at 10:32 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
(unless like Cthulhu were to suddenly get in the race and become the Democratic nominee, and even then I might vote for him over Trump)
Is Cthulhu really male, though? It just seems to be a thing unto itself, neither male nor female. This would confuse the strange identity politics arguments going on here quite a bit, though.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is Cthulhu really male, though? It just seems to be a thing unto itself, neither male nor female. This would confuse the strange identity politics arguments going on here quite a bit, though.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:34 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I get it, I stopped discussing it a half hour ago. Can we quit it with the circular firing squad already? Jesus christ. This thread is an awful place.
It is hard to stop a discussion once it gets going. The mods don't seem to have a problem with it. I understand that you are done talking about it but others don't seem to be.
posted by futz at 10:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is hard to stop a discussion once it gets going. The mods don't seem to have a problem with it. I understand that you are done talking about it but others don't seem to be.
posted by futz at 10:36 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fine with me, but I'd wish they'd stop replying to me like "why are you discussing this?! stop it!"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:37 PM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The folks down here have made it 100% clear that they don't want to talk about this, I get it, I stopped discussing it a half hour ago.
Good, it's a pointless conversation to have at this point. Yes sexism and misogyny are a thing. Why on god's green earth you would want to pit the two most progressive icons in America against each other in some hypothetical dog race is beyond me. That's all I will say about it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Good, it's a pointless conversation to have at this point. Yes sexism and misogyny are a thing. Why on god's green earth you would want to pit the two most progressive icons in America against each other in some hypothetical dog race is beyond me. That's all I will say about it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:40 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mod note: The mods are sighing heavily and cursing the invention of democracy, but if we could cut the circular conversations a bit shorter they'd sleep better, thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Dave Moore - #feelthebern This is one of my favorite Bernie songs.
These are fun too
Bernie Sanders Rap - "Bern It Up" by DJ Steve Porter
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie by Pants Velour
Whatta Mensch by Schmaltz and Schlepper
Bernie Sings “This Land Is Your Land” with 12 Year Old Rapper BERNIEBOY by Jonathan Mann
Vote for Bernie: Green Day Parody Song by Keith52Yo
FEEL THE BERN the Music Video - An Anthem for BERNIE SANDERS by Alex Vans
BERNIE SANDERS SONG FEEL THE BERN!!! by Tony Tig
2016 Election (Feat. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders) Rap Video by Brian Hanley
This is a thing people are making music for Bernie in a way that doesn't exist for anyone else. This is an unmeasured metric. Trump gets some music but it is mainly lampooning.
posted by phoque at 10:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
These are fun too
Bernie Sanders Rap - "Bern It Up" by DJ Steve Porter
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie by Pants Velour
Whatta Mensch by Schmaltz and Schlepper
Bernie Sings “This Land Is Your Land” with 12 Year Old Rapper BERNIEBOY by Jonathan Mann
Vote for Bernie: Green Day Parody Song by Keith52Yo
FEEL THE BERN the Music Video - An Anthem for BERNIE SANDERS by Alex Vans
BERNIE SANDERS SONG FEEL THE BERN!!! by Tony Tig
2016 Election (Feat. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders) Rap Video by Brian Hanley
This is a thing people are making music for Bernie in a way that doesn't exist for anyone else. This is an unmeasured metric. Trump gets some music but it is mainly lampooning.
posted by phoque at 10:45 PM on February 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
NY Daily News calls voters 'mindless zombies' over Trump win
posted by zachlipton at 10:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zachlipton at 10:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it takes a special kind of person to want to be President. It seems to me there are way more fun ways to become rich and famous.
I think Warren would be the prohibitive favorite if she had decided to run, though.
I think Warren isn't running for the same reason a lot of obvious strong candidates decided not to run this cycle -- they all thought Clinton had it in the bag.
In a more open race we would've seen Joe Biden come out, and maybe Warren, but they and a lot of operators calculated that they had no shot to take it from Clinton.
posted by grobstein at 10:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think Warren would be the prohibitive favorite if she had decided to run, though.
I think Warren isn't running for the same reason a lot of obvious strong candidates decided not to run this cycle -- they all thought Clinton had it in the bag.
In a more open race we would've seen Joe Biden come out, and maybe Warren, but they and a lot of operators calculated that they had no shot to take it from Clinton.
posted by grobstein at 10:47 PM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I mean it seems like the thread's a reasonable discussion rather than like a circular firing squad or whatever, though yeah some of the stuff with the hypotheticals was just a big ? for me.
For my part: between Sanders and Warren I'd probably choose... oh wow. that's hard. I have legit never thought about this before, and I'm not sure who I'd pick. It confuses me when I don't have a strong opinion about a political topic, since I'm basically made of nothing but strong political opinions and references to Tina Fey shows. It might for reals depend on the campaign platforms and the quality of the organizations put together by the respective candidates for the campaign. Regardless of which one won, I would desperately want the other to be Senate majority leader.
ughhh I'd probably vote for Warren SORRY SANDERS I LOVE YOUR ACCENT AND YOUR ANTICS AND I TOTES HEAR THAT DOGWHISTLE EVERY TIME YOU SAY YOU'RE A "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST" INSTEAD OF A "SOCIAL DEMOCRAT" but Warren would be better I think.
though all it would take for me to go from leaning-Warren to strong-Warren is Warren saying the word "revolution" two or three times. I am so shallow.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
For my part: between Sanders and Warren I'd probably choose... oh wow. that's hard. I have legit never thought about this before, and I'm not sure who I'd pick. It confuses me when I don't have a strong opinion about a political topic, since I'm basically made of nothing but strong political opinions and references to Tina Fey shows. It might for reals depend on the campaign platforms and the quality of the organizations put together by the respective candidates for the campaign. Regardless of which one won, I would desperately want the other to be Senate majority leader.
ughhh I'd probably vote for Warren SORRY SANDERS I LOVE YOUR ACCENT AND YOUR ANTICS AND I TOTES HEAR THAT DOGWHISTLE EVERY TIME YOU SAY YOU'RE A "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST" INSTEAD OF A "SOCIAL DEMOCRAT" but Warren would be better I think.
though all it would take for me to go from leaning-Warren to strong-Warren is Warren saying the word "revolution" two or three times. I am so shallow.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:49 PM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Dick Morris: Clinton deploys B Team
Dick Morris: Activatedposted by rhizome at 10:51 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
A link to a Dick Morris article about Hillary Clinton is almost prima facie an act of bad faith.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:52 PM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
If Bernie's goal is to be President, then his goals will not be compatible with anyone else's. That's...what people who run for President are like. There's egotism involved.
posted by sweetkid at 9:50 PM on February 9 [1 favorite +] [!]
You should watch the forum (in new york, i forget on which issue) in which Sanders was first considering a run for president. This person
1) would not run on anything but issues
2) the candidate is running to build the democratic party into a winning, left coalition.
I mean Sanders even states as much almost every campaign speech. The Sanders campaign does as much with their micro donations and large field teams. But I really wish I remembered the name of this forum where Sanders explains the decision making process for running at all.
posted by eustatic at 11:03 PM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Seriously I'm continually amazed that Dick Morris hasn't just dropped dead from shame yet. think how unpleasant it would be to wake up each morning and realize anew that you're Dick Morris.
I actually have trouble looking directly at him, for the same reason that I have trouble watching cringe comedy. it's like he radiates waves of fremdschämen, fremdschämen just cascading right off of him, generating a field too intense to be borne by anyone who still has a soul.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I actually have trouble looking directly at him, for the same reason that I have trouble watching cringe comedy. it's like he radiates waves of fremdschämen, fremdschämen just cascading right off of him, generating a field too intense to be borne by anyone who still has a soul.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:07 PM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren is my pick for Bernie Sanders' Secretary of the Treasury. There's a reason the Corporate world is terrified of Sanders, and that's one of them.
posted by mikelieman at 11:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 11:08 PM on February 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
I think it was 2008 when Dick Morris said Hilary would "run behind mommy's apron strings" when "the big boys" pick on her.
I mean, regardless of who you're voting for, regardless of what your politics are, we should all agree - Dick Morris is an absolute sack of shit.
posted by teponaztli at 11:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, regardless of who you're voting for, regardless of what your politics are, we should all agree - Dick Morris is an absolute sack of shit.
posted by teponaztli at 11:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Seriously I'm continually amazed that Dick Morris hasn't just dropped dead from shame yet. think how unpleasant it would be to wake up each morning and realize anew that you're Dick Morris.
Yep he's a piece of shit. The same can be said of David Brock. The difference is that one is actively a part of Hillary's campaign and the other is not a part of Sanders'.
Brock: Time for Bernie's 'purity bubble' to be burst
I apologize for linking to either, but piece of shit or not, I honestly thought that Morris was pointing out some critical flaws in Clinton's strategy. What do you think of the Brock piece I just linked to?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yep he's a piece of shit. The same can be said of David Brock. The difference is that one is actively a part of Hillary's campaign and the other is not a part of Sanders'.
Brock: Time for Bernie's 'purity bubble' to be burst
I apologize for linking to either, but piece of shit or not, I honestly thought that Morris was pointing out some critical flaws in Clinton's strategy. What do you think of the Brock piece I just linked to?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:14 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
David Brock's argument is bad, but he's not on the same (low, low) level as Dick Morris.
posted by teponaztli at 11:20 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 11:20 PM on February 9, 2016
There's something really bizarre in the notion that Dick Morris has ever actually been on the Clintons' side. I mean whether or not the Clintons themselves actually believe he is or ever was is a strange enough thing, but to observe from the outside and think of him as an actual ally is just...ugh. That fucking guy.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:22 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love how the Sanders' campaign doesn't reply with comments when questioned about anything but policy.
posted by mikelieman at 11:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 11:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
you know what should happen to people like dick morris they should be disgraced and forced to resign as a result of the public disclosure of their deep weird dark behaviors and then they should be made to keep going out in the world day after day, decade after decade, doing news shows and selling a message and trying desperately to pretend that maybe people will some day look at them without thinking about said deep weird dark behaviors.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:23 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean Bill Kristol made opinion/prediction noises tonight, too, but why would anyone even bother linking those?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love how the Sanders' campaign doesn't reply with comments when questioned about anything but policy.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
posted by teponaztli at 11:25 PM on February 9, 2016
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
posted by teponaztli at 11:25 PM on February 9, 2016
Re: Brock/Morris.
I've sat around a lot of conference tables and smelled fear and desperation ( When I was with the insurance/finance company M&A was a big thing for us ), and that's the vibe I'm getting off the Clinton campaign when they're pivoting wildly to find a workable message. Which is impossible, since she can't triangulate left, and the people who had been in her corner are starting to see a rerun of 2008.
Now Trump is using essentially Bernie Sanders' messaging. This would be interesting, because I think the people who support Trump because they hate everyone else for good reason, but can read, will end up supporting Bernie Sanders, because if you want radical reform, a Corporate CEO buying the White House isn't going to deliver, but Bernie will.
posted by mikelieman at 11:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've sat around a lot of conference tables and smelled fear and desperation ( When I was with the insurance/finance company M&A was a big thing for us ), and that's the vibe I'm getting off the Clinton campaign when they're pivoting wildly to find a workable message. Which is impossible, since she can't triangulate left, and the people who had been in her corner are starting to see a rerun of 2008.
Now Trump is using essentially Bernie Sanders' messaging. This would be interesting, because I think the people who support Trump because they hate everyone else for good reason, but can read, will end up supporting Bernie Sanders, because if you want radical reform, a Corporate CEO buying the White House isn't going to deliver, but Bernie will.
posted by mikelieman at 11:27 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I mean Bill Kristol made opinion/prediction noises tonight, too, but why would anyone even bother linking those?
Well, his uninterrupted streak of being wrong means that the path of success is doing the exact opposite of whatever he suggests.
posted by mikelieman at 11:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, his uninterrupted streak of being wrong means that the path of success is doing the exact opposite of whatever he suggests.
posted by mikelieman at 11:29 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Sorry, that's my own comment - I stated that badly. Are you talking about requests for comment regarding strategy?
posted by teponaztli at 11:34 PM on February 9, 2016
Sorry, that's my own comment - I stated that badly. Are you talking about requests for comment regarding strategy?
posted by teponaztli at 11:34 PM on February 9, 2016
you know what should happen to people like dick morris they should be disgraced and forced to resign as a result of the public disclosure of their deep weird dark behaviors and then they should be made to keep going out in the world day after day, decade after decade, doing news shows and selling a message and trying desperately to pretend that maybe people will some day look at them without thinking about said weird dark behavior.
Yep, but don't shoot the messenger. Morris, as reprehensible as he may be, succinctly pin pointed many of the same flaws with Clinton's campaign that have been identified here on metafilter over the past week in the Iowa Caucus and Steinem threads. That is all. Yes I agree he's shitty, but his analysis is spot on as far as I can see. I guess instead I could have taken several hours to go back through the threads and individually linked to all the pertinent comments, but this just seemed to be a bit less time consuming.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:35 PM on February 9, 2016
Yep, but don't shoot the messenger. Morris, as reprehensible as he may be, succinctly pin pointed many of the same flaws with Clinton's campaign that have been identified here on metafilter over the past week in the Iowa Caucus and Steinem threads. That is all. Yes I agree he's shitty, but his analysis is spot on as far as I can see. I guess instead I could have taken several hours to go back through the threads and individually linked to all the pertinent comments, but this just seemed to be a bit less time consuming.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:35 PM on February 9, 2016
I apologize teponaztil, about the lack of context...
One of the earlier linked articles had a piece where they wrote that the Sanders' campaign didn't respond when asked about the negative comments coming from Bill Clinton. I thought that perfect. The willow bends in the wind...
posted by mikelieman at 11:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
One of the earlier linked articles had a piece where they wrote that the Sanders' campaign didn't respond when asked about the negative comments coming from Bill Clinton. I thought that perfect. The willow bends in the wind...
posted by mikelieman at 11:38 PM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s anti-Sanders smears are completely out of control: Why her latest Bernie broadside is utterly hypocritical
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:41 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh oh, I see, thanks.
posted by teponaztli at 11:47 PM on February 9, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 11:47 PM on February 9, 2016
Mod note: A couple of earlier comments deleted. Don't make things personal; focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:19 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by taz (staff) at 12:19 AM on February 10, 2016
Everytime I'm reminded of how loathsome Dick Morris is, I take a moment to remember how he got his start. He was a crucial figure in the Clinton administration, not just some rando oppo hack:
"He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by advising the President to adopt more moderate policies. The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994. Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said, "Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president." Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President."
And I warmly remember the months and months of 1996 when we got to have a National Conversation about his predilection for sucking on toes, instead of working toward enacting liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 12:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
"He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by advising the President to adopt more moderate policies. The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994. Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said, "Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president." Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President."
And I warmly remember the months and months of 1996 when we got to have a National Conversation about his predilection for sucking on toes, instead of working toward enacting liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 12:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
(via Wikipedia)
posted by en forme de poire at 12:47 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
In October 2012, Morris was a speaker at a special meeting of the Republican Caucus of the Georgia House of Representatives to discuss claims that Obama was using 'mind-control' techniques to create a Communist dictatorship controlled by the United Nations under the guise of promoting sustainability and public transportation. Speaking at the event, Morris argued that Obama's aim was to join with the United Nations to "force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."[45]Um,
posted by en forme de poire at 12:47 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Wow - NBC is saying that this is an unprecedented margin of victory, and no Democrat has ever won the NH primary by more than 16 points. His margin is currently at 21.5%.
posted by dialetheia at 12:53 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 12:53 AM on February 10, 2016
no Democrat has ever won the NH primary by more than 16 points
In 1960, JFK got 85% of the New Hampshire primary votes, with second place going to Paul Fisher at 13%.
posted by foobaz at 1:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 1960, JFK got 85% of the New Hampshire primary votes, with second place going to Paul Fisher at 13%.
posted by foobaz at 1:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ha - yup, tweet already deleted. Apologies!
posted by dialetheia at 1:14 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 1:14 AM on February 10, 2016
I keep thinking that Jeremy Corbyn's savaging in the press, even from papers which should be sympathetic to him, is just a preview of what Sanders-as-nominee would endure.
I think Corbyn's more like Trump, actually. They were each seen as joke candidates, and they got into the race because they had some fervent supporters and were (are) running against lackluster alternatives.
Corbyn gets bad press because he has an embarrassing history and a seeming inability to reverse himself or apologise. Some people really, really hate him, and they happen to include editors from normally pro-Labour media. I'm not aware of Sanders having a similarly embarrassing history, and he's been quite frank in addressing things like misogyny among his supporters. That's not to say that Sanders won't be savaged if/when, but the way Sanders handled relations with #BlackLivesMatter is quite different from the way Corbyn dug his heels in over, e.g., his association with Holocaust deniers ("I can't remember, you don't have a photo of me there, and he wasn't a Holocaust denier at the time.")
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:36 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Corbyn's more like Trump, actually. They were each seen as joke candidates, and they got into the race because they had some fervent supporters and were (are) running against lackluster alternatives.
Corbyn gets bad press because he has an embarrassing history and a seeming inability to reverse himself or apologise. Some people really, really hate him, and they happen to include editors from normally pro-Labour media. I'm not aware of Sanders having a similarly embarrassing history, and he's been quite frank in addressing things like misogyny among his supporters. That's not to say that Sanders won't be savaged if/when, but the way Sanders handled relations with #BlackLivesMatter is quite different from the way Corbyn dug his heels in over, e.g., his association with Holocaust deniers ("I can't remember, you don't have a photo of me there, and he wasn't a Holocaust denier at the time.")
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:36 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
NRO: Donald Trump Won a Triple Victory in New Hampshire
posted by Drinky Die at 1:38 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 1:38 AM on February 10, 2016
Bout to get nasty.
Bush and Rubio race to the bottom
'South Carolina is gonna be a bloodbath,' one Rubio aide says.
-
Marco Rubio’s “Knife Fighters”: The Rubio campaign is being helmed by a combative strategist, Terry Sullivan, who once (allegedly) dispatched interns dressed in prison stripes to crash a 2007 Mike Huckabee rally and protest the former governor’s controversial parole record.
The leading pro-Rubio super PAC is headed by Warren Tompkins, an infamous South Carolina operative who was widely suspected of orchestrating a whisper campaign during the 2000 Republican presidential primaries to convince voters that John McCain was hiding a black love child.
And in a more recent episode that could have lasting political repercussions in next year’s primaries, Rubio’s chief digital strategist, Wesley Donehue, is said to have actively hyped unsubstantiated rumors in 2010 that Nikki Haley had an affair with a local South Carolina blogger.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bush and Rubio race to the bottom
'South Carolina is gonna be a bloodbath,' one Rubio aide says.
-
Marco Rubio’s “Knife Fighters”: The Rubio campaign is being helmed by a combative strategist, Terry Sullivan, who once (allegedly) dispatched interns dressed in prison stripes to crash a 2007 Mike Huckabee rally and protest the former governor’s controversial parole record.
The leading pro-Rubio super PAC is headed by Warren Tompkins, an infamous South Carolina operative who was widely suspected of orchestrating a whisper campaign during the 2000 Republican presidential primaries to convince voters that John McCain was hiding a black love child.
And in a more recent episode that could have lasting political repercussions in next year’s primaries, Rubio’s chief digital strategist, Wesley Donehue, is said to have actively hyped unsubstantiated rumors in 2010 that Nikki Haley had an affair with a local South Carolina blogger.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
You know, the Republicans and blue dogs aren't wrong when they say and act as if it is precisely our military and financial sector that are the primary drivers of US hegemony over the world that has lasted, more or less, since the end of WWII.
I'd agree with the position that it isn't worth the moral and human cost to maintain, but ignoring that fact when calling for reductions in the military and reining in the banks and worse, not having a clear plan for how to divest ourselves of those things without going through the doldrums of the post-colonial UK doesn't seem great to me.
Of course, the people who do seem to realize that seem to have an unavoidable tendency to use it as an excuse for interventionist policies that dismantle that power as surely as an intentional policy shift away from world domination would. (See Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.)
Say what you will about Hillary, but at least she appears to understand where our power, wealth, and influence comes from, even if she is likely to squander it on yet more unnecessary foreign adventures. (I can hope she learned the lesson after Iraq and Libya, but probably not..she seems to think that Syria is going just swimmingly) From a purely selfish perspective, I would be less against continuing our subjugation of the rest of the world if the spoils were being shared more equally amongst us. Better to get out of the business, though. That's why I'm hoping Bernie beats Hillary, and that he can beat Trump or whomever ends up getting the nod on the Republican side.
And it is just hope for me. I remember when pretty much everyone was convinced GWB was a joke on par with Rubio or Cruz and could never win the general. I seriously considered voting for Nader precisely because I thought there was no way Bush could be taken seriously by enough people to be a real threat to Gore's success. Yet here we are, saying the same things about the current crop of Republicans (and Trump!)
posted by wierdo at 2:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd agree with the position that it isn't worth the moral and human cost to maintain, but ignoring that fact when calling for reductions in the military and reining in the banks and worse, not having a clear plan for how to divest ourselves of those things without going through the doldrums of the post-colonial UK doesn't seem great to me.
Of course, the people who do seem to realize that seem to have an unavoidable tendency to use it as an excuse for interventionist policies that dismantle that power as surely as an intentional policy shift away from world domination would. (See Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.)
Say what you will about Hillary, but at least she appears to understand where our power, wealth, and influence comes from, even if she is likely to squander it on yet more unnecessary foreign adventures. (I can hope she learned the lesson after Iraq and Libya, but probably not..she seems to think that Syria is going just swimmingly) From a purely selfish perspective, I would be less against continuing our subjugation of the rest of the world if the spoils were being shared more equally amongst us. Better to get out of the business, though. That's why I'm hoping Bernie beats Hillary, and that he can beat Trump or whomever ends up getting the nod on the Republican side.
And it is just hope for me. I remember when pretty much everyone was convinced GWB was a joke on par with Rubio or Cruz and could never win the general. I seriously considered voting for Nader precisely because I thought there was no way Bush could be taken seriously by enough people to be a real threat to Gore's success. Yet here we are, saying the same things about the current crop of Republicans (and Trump!)
posted by wierdo at 2:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Say what you will about Hillary, but at least she appears to understand where our power, wealth, and influence comes from
I'd rather have space based solar power satellites beaming phase-locked power to ground stations which are retired power plants covered in rectennas...
That's a better place for power, wealth, and influence to come from. 100% less death and despair. 100% more good-paying union space-construction jobs.
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 AM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'd rather have space based solar power satellites beaming phase-locked power to ground stations which are retired power plants covered in rectennas...
That's a better place for power, wealth, and influence to come from. 100% less death and despair. 100% more good-paying union space-construction jobs.
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 AM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
I think Corbyn's more like Trump, actually. They were each seen as joke candidates, and they got into the race because they had some fervent supporters and were (are) running against lackluster alternatives.
Rubbish - Corbyn has the backing of an *overwhelming* number of actual Labour voters because he stands for actual Labour party core tenets instead of "Tory Lite". Kind of similar to Bernie.
Corbyn gets bad press because he has an embarrassing history and a seeming inability to reverse himself or apologise.
He has a history of sticking to his principles (which I and many Labour voters admire) in comparison to the dance of the spin-doctors that other candidates practiced. He apologises where appropriate but he doesn't put up with bullshit smear attempts.
Some people really, really hate him, and they happen to include editors from normally pro-Labour media.
The Guardian (literally the only "pro-Labour" broadsheet) has made it clear that it's editorial staff primarily sides with the PLP and not with actual Labour voters, yes. You have also made it abundantly clear that you dislike him as you mention it every time his name comes up. We both know why that is...
...the way Sanders handled relations with #BlackLivesMatter is quite different from the way Corbyn dug his heels in over, e.g., his association with Holocaust deniers ("I can't remember, you don't have a photo of me there, and he wasn't a Holocaust denier at the time.")
...and this is the crux of your issue with Corbyn. We've done this before. Perhaps you could keep it to one of the threads where it's appropriate and not re-hash it yet again, particularly as your reading of those events lacks any nuance whatsoever (and I do understand *why* that is - I just think that you're really, super, super wrong).
posted by longbaugh at 3:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Rubbish - Corbyn has the backing of an *overwhelming* number of actual Labour voters because he stands for actual Labour party core tenets instead of "Tory Lite". Kind of similar to Bernie.
Corbyn gets bad press because he has an embarrassing history and a seeming inability to reverse himself or apologise.
He has a history of sticking to his principles (which I and many Labour voters admire) in comparison to the dance of the spin-doctors that other candidates practiced. He apologises where appropriate but he doesn't put up with bullshit smear attempts.
Some people really, really hate him, and they happen to include editors from normally pro-Labour media.
The Guardian (literally the only "pro-Labour" broadsheet) has made it clear that it's editorial staff primarily sides with the PLP and not with actual Labour voters, yes. You have also made it abundantly clear that you dislike him as you mention it every time his name comes up. We both know why that is...
...the way Sanders handled relations with #BlackLivesMatter is quite different from the way Corbyn dug his heels in over, e.g., his association with Holocaust deniers ("I can't remember, you don't have a photo of me there, and he wasn't a Holocaust denier at the time.")
...and this is the crux of your issue with Corbyn. We've done this before. Perhaps you could keep it to one of the threads where it's appropriate and not re-hash it yet again, particularly as your reading of those events lacks any nuance whatsoever (and I do understand *why* that is - I just think that you're really, super, super wrong).
posted by longbaugh at 3:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
WaPo: Donald Trump might be serious about running for president. He’s still irrelevant.
By Chris Cillizza
February 26, 2015
How far we have come. I don't know anybody who disagreed.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
By Chris Cillizza
February 26, 2015
How far we have come. I don't know anybody who disagreed.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
not having a clear plan for how to divest ourselves of those things without going through the doldrums of the post-colonial UK
i'm trying to find evidence that the uk suffered more than it "should have", or that it mis-managed things in some way (from the "selfish political" pov, not from the colonized pov). as far as i can see it punches at about the weight you'd expect for the kind of country it is (ie similar to france). so i'm curious what you're referring to here.
posted by andrewcooke at 3:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
i'm trying to find evidence that the uk suffered more than it "should have", or that it mis-managed things in some way (from the "selfish political" pov, not from the colonized pov). as far as i can see it punches at about the weight you'd expect for the kind of country it is (ie similar to france). so i'm curious what you're referring to here.
posted by andrewcooke at 3:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
About the within-the-realm-of-possibility chance that Donald Trump could become president: how long before we face our first constitutional crisis under President Trump? Bonus question: answer for all R candidates.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 4:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Trump will be able to make deals with Republicans in Congress. I'd be more worried about Cruz, he has shown a tendency towards destructive political brinkmanship and cultivating dislike among would be allies.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:31 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:31 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm glad you're all happy, but these results have me anxiously think about my pack of emergency cigarettes.
I think that if Trump and Sanders are the noms, there's a real good chance of civil unrest. Maybe Trump OR Sanders.
I'm not saying that Sanders supporters are wrong to believe that his proposals are right on; I agree that they are good. So I don't mean this as an insult to any Sanders supporters.
posted by angrycat at 4:46 AM on February 10, 2016
I think that if Trump and Sanders are the noms, there's a real good chance of civil unrest. Maybe Trump OR Sanders.
I'm not saying that Sanders supporters are wrong to believe that his proposals are right on; I agree that they are good. So I don't mean this as an insult to any Sanders supporters.
posted by angrycat at 4:46 AM on February 10, 2016
One "nice" thing about being a billionaire and president is that you can literally buy congress if you need to. Divert some cash to start a Heritage-esque foundation whose sole (real) purpose is handsomely rewarding those whose votes you need with speakerships and what-not once their terms are over. Get some of your Cayman Islands stash working in the other direction, squashing those who have the temerity to oppose you by putting impossible-to-counter amounts of money on the ground.
Plus the kind of fascist folk who seem drawn to him would like nothing better than to be an informal private enforcement squad of sorts, positioned as campaign workers.
If Trump was president I would expect him to push further and harder and undoubtedly without regard of legal niceties as to what powers the president actually can wield with no oversight. I suspect it's actually quite a large amount.
This is where having agencies like the NSA which are beheld to no one, and secret courts whose workings are classified come to your rescue as you leverage those to silence your opponents.
Hell, you don't have to take out many troublemakers, as long as the rest know it was you. Especially if you don't care about legacies and history. Hell, GWB showed all you need to do is give a bit of a "stimulus" tax refund and the public will ignore actual crimes in their gratefulness.
posted by maxwelton at 4:55 AM on February 10, 2016
Plus the kind of fascist folk who seem drawn to him would like nothing better than to be an informal private enforcement squad of sorts, positioned as campaign workers.
If Trump was president I would expect him to push further and harder and undoubtedly without regard of legal niceties as to what powers the president actually can wield with no oversight. I suspect it's actually quite a large amount.
This is where having agencies like the NSA which are beheld to no one, and secret courts whose workings are classified come to your rescue as you leverage those to silence your opponents.
Hell, you don't have to take out many troublemakers, as long as the rest know it was you. Especially if you don't care about legacies and history. Hell, GWB showed all you need to do is give a bit of a "stimulus" tax refund and the public will ignore actual crimes in their gratefulness.
posted by maxwelton at 4:55 AM on February 10, 2016
Just heard on MSNBC that Harry Belafonte will be endorsing Bernie
This is a big f*cking deal (UUUUUGE). Belafonte is the gold standard of human beings.
posted by sallybrown at 4:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is a big f*cking deal (UUUUUGE). Belafonte is the gold standard of human beings.
posted by sallybrown at 4:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The road ahead for Bernie.
I can't really see a path to victory.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't really see a path to victory.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that if Trump and Sanders are the noms, there's a real good chance of civil unrest. Maybe Trump OR Sanders.
In that situation, Michael Bloomberg becomes POTUS.
As for the Bernie's "road to victory", I think most of us believe those polling numbers are going to have to change dramatically in the next week and a half, for Nevada at least. And they well might with the new endorsements today and stories about how everyone and their children voted for him in New Hampshire. If the press stays focused on Clinton's crumbling campaign, that's not going to be good for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
In that situation, Michael Bloomberg becomes POTUS.
As for the Bernie's "road to victory", I think most of us believe those polling numbers are going to have to change dramatically in the next week and a half, for Nevada at least. And they well might with the new endorsements today and stories about how everyone and their children voted for him in New Hampshire. If the press stays focused on Clinton's crumbling campaign, that's not going to be good for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you mean left-wing political violence -- I doubt it, even the most wild-eyed Sandernistas get that "revolution" in this context basically is a sexy way of saying "voter mobilization".
I give better than even odds to isolated acts of violence from Trump thugs, on the other hand. As a gay brown lad, I never want to find myself inadvertently nearby when one of those terrifying, protofascist hate-rallies lets out.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:05 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I give better than even odds to isolated acts of violence from Trump thugs, on the other hand. As a gay brown lad, I never want to find myself inadvertently nearby when one of those terrifying, protofascist hate-rallies lets out.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:05 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
(unless like Cthulhu were to suddenly get in the race and become the Democratic nominee, and even then I might vote for him over Trump).
I think Cthulhu is seen as quite soft on immigration and abortion, so he might be a tough sell to the general public.
posted by sour cream at 5:10 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think Cthulhu is seen as quite soft on immigration and abortion, so he might be a tough sell to the general public.
posted by sour cream at 5:10 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Politico: GOP establishment stares into the abyss
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:11 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:11 AM on February 10, 2016
Drinky Die: "The road ahead for Bernie.
I can't really see a path to victory."
I never did see one.
posted by octothorpe at 5:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can't really see a path to victory."
I never did see one.
posted by octothorpe at 5:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think that if Trump and Sanders are the noms, there's a real good chance of civil unrest. Maybe Trump OR Sanders.
I'm not saying that Sanders supporters are wrong to believe that his proposals are right on; I agree that they are good. So I don't mean this as an insult to any Sanders supporters.
No, I think there's this unspoken tension that this election will signify a shift in the direction this country will be heading. It's hard to ignore that the two most unlikely candidates have the upper hand, and in that sense, apart from all the other stuff, Hillary seems like the wrong campaign at the wrong time. At least if the revolution is started by Trump it will still be a few months before the Rs can send the military out into the streets.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:13 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not saying that Sanders supporters are wrong to believe that his proposals are right on; I agree that they are good. So I don't mean this as an insult to any Sanders supporters.
No, I think there's this unspoken tension that this election will signify a shift in the direction this country will be heading. It's hard to ignore that the two most unlikely candidates have the upper hand, and in that sense, apart from all the other stuff, Hillary seems like the wrong campaign at the wrong time. At least if the revolution is started by Trump it will still be a few months before the Rs can send the military out into the streets.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:13 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders is an interesting spoiler for Clinton's campaign. If she should win the nomination (which she might, but I don't think so, at this point), and Trump wins the nomination, there's a decent chance that people currently voting for Sanders stay home or pull the lever for Trump.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:16 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:16 AM on February 10, 2016
Feminism, Hell and Hillary Clinton, by Frank Bruni for the New York Times
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 AM on February 10, 2016
...there's a decent chance that people currently voting for Sanders stay home or pull the lever for Trump.
"I'm soooo mad that the socialist candidate fighting for the little guy lost to Hillary Clinton that I'm gonna vote for the billionaire psychopath instead!!"
posted by sour cream at 5:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [32 favorites]
"I'm soooo mad that the socialist candidate fighting for the little guy lost to Hillary Clinton that I'm gonna vote for the billionaire psychopath instead!!"
posted by sour cream at 5:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [32 favorites]
The "Bernie has no chance" notion presumes that young Latino, blue collar, and economically marginalized African Americans are structurally more likely to subscribe to Clinton's message of "it's my turn to be the liberal Ivy League millionaire status quo maintainer" than were the mostly well-off and well-educated white voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. It requires the speaker be stupid or he speaker assumes those of whom he speaks are stupid. Not pretty in either case.
posted by MattD at 5:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by MattD at 5:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
Trump, Sanders and Cruz are "change" candidates -- the most radical change candidates with a real shot we've seen in decades. Clinton, Bush, Rubio and Kasich are "more of the same" candidates. It makes perfect sense for many voters to stay in the "change" column even if the particulars vary. I haven't voted for a Democrat in 20 years, and I would be tempted to vote for Sanders over Bush.
posted by MattD at 5:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by MattD at 5:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stop Pitting Women Against Each Other Over Hillary Clinton
I thought this was a really thoughtful piece about how intersectionality separates some younger feminists from some older ones.
...there's a decent chance that people currently voting for Sanders stay home or pull the lever for Trump.
You've mentioned that in your circle the Bernie supporters are basically Bernie or nothing, but I'm really pushing back on this because it is totally incompatible with what I've witnessed from inside the campaign on the volunteer side. As well, I only know one person who has said she will never vote for Hillary because as an African-American woman there is too much as stake by staying the course.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I thought this was a really thoughtful piece about how intersectionality separates some younger feminists from some older ones.
...there's a decent chance that people currently voting for Sanders stay home or pull the lever for Trump.
You've mentioned that in your circle the Bernie supporters are basically Bernie or nothing, but I'm really pushing back on this because it is totally incompatible with what I've witnessed from inside the campaign on the volunteer side. As well, I only know one person who has said she will never vote for Hillary because as an African-American woman there is too much as stake by staying the course.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
"I'm soooo mad that the socialist candidate fighting for the little guy lost to Hillary Clinton that I'm gonna vote for the billionaire psychopath instead!!"
Mad, no. Read back through this thread how many of us are saying we won't vote for Clinton. It's her politics, not our anger.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mad, no. Read back through this thread how many of us are saying we won't vote for Clinton. It's her politics, not our anger.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Please, please, please do not send this election to the House.
posted by schmod at 5:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by schmod at 5:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mad, no. Read back through this thread how many of us are saying we won't vote for Clinton. It's her politics, not our anger.
I read a lot of comments of people preferring Sanders over Clinton, not that they won't vote for Clinton in the general election.
posted by Pendragon at 5:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I read a lot of comments of people preferring Sanders over Clinton, not that they won't vote for Clinton in the general election.
posted by Pendragon at 5:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The overwhelming majority of Sen. Sanders' supporters are not going to vote Trump over Clinton in a million years. But it's plausible, if not likely, that some of his support in the last few weeks has come from that disaffected young white bloc, the kinds of people who may have once been for Rand Paul.
I suspect that a lot of the BernieBros bullshit is coming from this same demographic. And if they don't find a home on the Left they might easily swing back hard-right.
People without a lot of options will either go social-democrat or fascist.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I suspect that a lot of the BernieBros bullshit is coming from this same demographic. And if they don't find a home on the Left they might easily swing back hard-right.
People without a lot of options will either go social-democrat or fascist.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the argument about whether Sanders voters will or won't vote for Clinton.
posted by sallybrown at 6:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
Puppymonkeybaby proves Rubio talking point — Obama is destroying America!
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 AM on February 10, 2016
I can't really see a path to victory.
I understand the subject is this current election. But, if one takes the longer view and considers politics as a long game, then this is already a victory. This is precisely what Occupy wasn't--a populist movement with an actual programmatic set of goals.
A few days ago I was chatting with a lawyer friend. She just had a birthday, pushing 40, and she was in a bit of a reflective mood. As the conversation turned towards politics, I noted that many of the best people pushing for financial reform were women: Brooksley Born, Sheila Bair, Christina Romer, Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, and a few others. Real role models for youngsters just coming into their political activism. These women represent a dynamic combo of toughness and compassion that our politics sorely needs, imo.
Last night, as I reviewed results (and read through this thread), something unusual for me happened. My eyes actually welled up with tears as I thought about the strong wave of youth coming out for Sanders. And I freely admit, it's partly selfish and personal. But it's also strategic, too.
Those old fogies among us who have been fighting for more equitable economic policy since before the 87 meltdown have had more than a few moments in which we stared despair in the face. We consoled ourselves with the notion that this is a long, uneven, process. That's the selfish part.
Most importantly, what is happening is this: These young adults, just beginning to engage in politics as citizens, know that the deck is stacked against them. It's seminal to them. Yes, it's true that many of these kids will prove to be superficial--going with the flow, so to speak. As time passes, their overt political work will shrink and they'll become less active as they assume more personal and familial responsibilities. But they'll have developed some views. From this campaign. It'll partly shape their worldview. Yet also out of this ferment will come many of the next generation's political wonks. Many of the hardcore political workers of the future will not only be shaped by this current campaign, they'll act on it over many campaigns to come.
And that's how the tide will eventually turn. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but soon. Yes, soon. Many of the policies on the Sanders wish list will come to some kind of fruition. Because these kids will make it happen.
And so my eyes welled up. I haven't been wasting my time these past 30 years.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [46 favorites]
I understand the subject is this current election. But, if one takes the longer view and considers politics as a long game, then this is already a victory. This is precisely what Occupy wasn't--a populist movement with an actual programmatic set of goals.
A few days ago I was chatting with a lawyer friend. She just had a birthday, pushing 40, and she was in a bit of a reflective mood. As the conversation turned towards politics, I noted that many of the best people pushing for financial reform were women: Brooksley Born, Sheila Bair, Christina Romer, Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, and a few others. Real role models for youngsters just coming into their political activism. These women represent a dynamic combo of toughness and compassion that our politics sorely needs, imo.
Last night, as I reviewed results (and read through this thread), something unusual for me happened. My eyes actually welled up with tears as I thought about the strong wave of youth coming out for Sanders. And I freely admit, it's partly selfish and personal. But it's also strategic, too.
Those old fogies among us who have been fighting for more equitable economic policy since before the 87 meltdown have had more than a few moments in which we stared despair in the face. We consoled ourselves with the notion that this is a long, uneven, process. That's the selfish part.
Most importantly, what is happening is this: These young adults, just beginning to engage in politics as citizens, know that the deck is stacked against them. It's seminal to them. Yes, it's true that many of these kids will prove to be superficial--going with the flow, so to speak. As time passes, their overt political work will shrink and they'll become less active as they assume more personal and familial responsibilities. But they'll have developed some views. From this campaign. It'll partly shape their worldview. Yet also out of this ferment will come many of the next generation's political wonks. Many of the hardcore political workers of the future will not only be shaped by this current campaign, they'll act on it over many campaigns to come.
And that's how the tide will eventually turn. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but soon. Yes, soon. Many of the policies on the Sanders wish list will come to some kind of fruition. Because these kids will make it happen.
And so my eyes welled up. I haven't been wasting my time these past 30 years.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [46 favorites]
The "Bernie has no chance" notion presumes that young Latino, blue collar, and economically marginalized African Americans are structurally more likely to subscribe to Clinton's message of "it's my turn to be the liberal Ivy League millionaire status quo maintainer" than were the mostly well-off and well-educated white voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.
No, it just requires observing that in the second half of January or later, Democratic respondents in South Carolina and North Carolina favor Clinton by thirty point margins (there's no recent poll in Nevada) and in the most recent national polls with crosstabs out black respondents favor Clinton by an 82-8 margin.
Obviously it's possible if unlikely that things will have dramatically changed between the poll dates and the primary dates in those states, but the game isn't really on unless Sanders does very well in SC.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:16 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, it just requires observing that in the second half of January or later, Democratic respondents in South Carolina and North Carolina favor Clinton by thirty point margins (there's no recent poll in Nevada) and in the most recent national polls with crosstabs out black respondents favor Clinton by an 82-8 margin.
Obviously it's possible if unlikely that things will have dramatically changed between the poll dates and the primary dates in those states, but the game isn't really on unless Sanders does very well in SC.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:16 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
But, if one takes the longer view and considers politics as a long game, then this is already a victory. This is precisely what Occupy wasn't--a populist movement with an actual programmatic set of goals.
Is there an argument that Occupy planted this seed? I wasn't involved in that so I don't know how much overlap there is with this, but it seems natural to me, despite that the Occupy group is a few years older than Sanders's strongest base.
posted by sallybrown at 6:18 AM on February 10, 2016
Is there an argument that Occupy planted this seed? I wasn't involved in that so I don't know how much overlap there is with this, but it seems natural to me, despite that the Occupy group is a few years older than Sanders's strongest base.
posted by sallybrown at 6:18 AM on February 10, 2016
"We are the Clinton. Lower your expectations and surrender your votes. We will add your demographic and political distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
Not an inspiring message.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [23 favorites]
Not an inspiring message.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [23 favorites]
Sorry, I wasn't trying to open that can of worms again.
My point is that the emerging potential Sanders coalition, should he win the nomination, is going to bring people into the Democratic tent who have not particularly been working through things like #BlackLivesMatter and feminism and, well, the whole idea that government can be structured in a healthy way, that effective and democratic governance is possible.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
My point is that the emerging potential Sanders coalition, should he win the nomination, is going to bring people into the Democratic tent who have not particularly been working through things like #BlackLivesMatter and feminism and, well, the whole idea that government can be structured in a healthy way, that effective and democratic governance is possible.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
blerg. the scale of the Sanders New Hampshire victory has given me stupid hope. I hate having hope. like, ugh.
Like Emma Goldman had about the USSR?
Meanwhile, Trump's victory is going to drive me to drink.
posted by corb at 6:27 AM on February 10, 2016
Like Emma Goldman had about the USSR?
Meanwhile, Trump's victory is going to drive me to drink.
posted by corb at 6:27 AM on February 10, 2016
Or to put it another way, if people are truly getting woke we should pour them some coffee rather than judging them for being a bit groggy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Is there an argument that Occupy planted this seed?
Oh, yes, absolutely. Occupy was an important moment in this process. One of my political "riffs" is to suggest that "It's practical to be an idealist." Why not have lofty, well-thought out ideas about how this world ought to be? Why not take these lofty ideas and roll up one's sleeves and do some of the work that will help these ideas become practice? To me, many important moments in history are levered by such behavior--I'd even argue that that's what our founders were doing.
So, Occupy was a tactic that wasn't immediately successful. But it energized a lot of folks and it certainly served to crystallize a lot of complex economic arguments into a very important theme: the One Percent. It's a simplification, to be sure, but it's also easy to grasp and organize around. Thus, it serves as a wedge that opens the door to more detailed investigations which challenge or buttress the claim.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:31 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Oh, yes, absolutely. Occupy was an important moment in this process. One of my political "riffs" is to suggest that "It's practical to be an idealist." Why not have lofty, well-thought out ideas about how this world ought to be? Why not take these lofty ideas and roll up one's sleeves and do some of the work that will help these ideas become practice? To me, many important moments in history are levered by such behavior--I'd even argue that that's what our founders were doing.
So, Occupy was a tactic that wasn't immediately successful. But it energized a lot of folks and it certainly served to crystallize a lot of complex economic arguments into a very important theme: the One Percent. It's a simplification, to be sure, but it's also easy to grasp and organize around. Thus, it serves as a wedge that opens the door to more detailed investigations which challenge or buttress the claim.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:31 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Most importantly, what is happening is this: These young adults, just beginning to engage in politics as citizens, know that the deck is stacked against them. It's seminal to them. Yes, it's true that many of these kids will prove to be superficial--going with the flow, so to speak. As time passes, their overt political work will shrink and they'll become less active as they assume more personal and familial responsibilities. But they'll have developed some views. From this campaign. It'll partly shape their worldview. Yet also out of this ferment will come many of the next generation's political wonks. Many of the hardcore political workers of the future will not only be shaped by this current campaign, they'll act on it over many campaigns to come.
Sure, but can we think shorter term too? I feel like it would be good to focus on people in their 30s and 40s who are Dems running for office and see if we can't get more people with progressive views in the House and Senate.
posted by sweetkid at 6:32 AM on February 10, 2016
Obviously it's possible if unlikely that things will have dramatically changed between the poll dates and the primary dates in those states, but the game isn't really on unless Sanders does very well in SC.
Nevada is first, so really SC doesn't matter quite yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on February 10, 2016
Nevada is first, so really SC doesn't matter quite yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on February 10, 2016
This is where having agencies like the NSA which are beheld to no one, and secret courts whose workings are classified come to your rescue as you leverage those to silence your opponents.
Yeaaah, I imagine all the Democrats defending Obama's buildup of the surveillance state are going to be a lot less sanguine about it if a real monster like Trump is put in charge of all this unaccountable power. Of course, by that point it will be too late to stop it and I'm sure there will be many editorials in Very Serious Publications about how could we ever have seen this coming? while ignoring that a lot of us have been warning about this for a long time.
posted by indubitable at 6:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yeaaah, I imagine all the Democrats defending Obama's buildup of the surveillance state are going to be a lot less sanguine about it if a real monster like Trump is put in charge of all this unaccountable power. Of course, by that point it will be too late to stop it and I'm sure there will be many editorials in Very Serious Publications about how could we ever have seen this coming? while ignoring that a lot of us have been warning about this for a long time.
posted by indubitable at 6:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Everyone know that if things stay the way they are now, Clinton is going to get the Democratic nomination. But that was also true at this point in eight years ago. In December 2007, Obama was 26 percentage points behind Clinton. There's pretty clear precedent for someone who is new to the national spotlight to run against Clinton from the left, energize young voters, and step by step catch up and then surpass her in the delegate count. Sanders has the same path to the nomination that Obama did, and it is possible that the virtual tie in Iowa and the huge victory in NH get him enough attention that more people give him a second look and he continues to build momentum. Sanders, admittedly, has to do this as very old Jewish man, instead of a very young black man, and his oratorical skills can't match Obama's. So it isn't going to be as easy for him to run up the numbers among minority voters as it was for Obama. Even so, his incredible support among young Democrats shows that his ideas can gain traction.
In Iowa, Clinton started with a 57-5 advantage in the polls a year ago and walked away with a tie. That's not a promising trajectory. It seems to me that if the primaries were held six months later than they are, it would be a clear Sanders advantage. The only question now is whether he can gain ground quickly enough to make it competitive for primaries coming up in weeks, not months.
If I were betting, I would bet on Clinton for the nomination. (In fact, I have bet, and I bet on Clinton.) She's far enough ahead that the odds are she'll manage to stay on top. But Sanders is by no means out, and if I were working for a campaign, I'd have a hell of a lot more fun working for the candidate who is steadily gaining ground than the one who is trying to stem her losses.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
In Iowa, Clinton started with a 57-5 advantage in the polls a year ago and walked away with a tie. That's not a promising trajectory. It seems to me that if the primaries were held six months later than they are, it would be a clear Sanders advantage. The only question now is whether he can gain ground quickly enough to make it competitive for primaries coming up in weeks, not months.
If I were betting, I would bet on Clinton for the nomination. (In fact, I have bet, and I bet on Clinton.) She's far enough ahead that the odds are she'll manage to stay on top. But Sanders is by no means out, and if I were working for a campaign, I'd have a hell of a lot more fun working for the candidate who is steadily gaining ground than the one who is trying to stem her losses.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
"My question to them is: When are you gonna join us? OK!" Sanders' top strategist Tad Devine said shortly after the senator's victory address in Concord. "Them" being Clinton campaign workers.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Does anyone know of any good info graphics overlaying 2008 polls with 2016 polls?
posted by ian1977 at 6:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 6:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, but can we think shorter term too?
Of course. Every battle is an important battle. Right here, right now. The thing to remember is that one doesn't win every battle and so, you relish the ones you do win, you remember why the fight is a good fight when one loses, and you keep your eyes on the prize. (To steal a phrase from the long battle that is the Civil Rights Movement.)
And selfishly, I'm hoping to actually witness a return to societal prosperity before I die. That'd be nice. Lol.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Of course. Every battle is an important battle. Right here, right now. The thing to remember is that one doesn't win every battle and so, you relish the ones you do win, you remember why the fight is a good fight when one loses, and you keep your eyes on the prize. (To steal a phrase from the long battle that is the Civil Rights Movement.)
And selfishly, I'm hoping to actually witness a return to societal prosperity before I die. That'd be nice. Lol.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
> I don't want to insult people, but at the same time I believe individual voters have a responsibility for the health of the republic. I think that some Nader voters were irresponsible and share an amount of blame for the Bush years. I worry that Sanders voters will not be responsible with their votes (i.e., not voting if Sanders is not the nom or throwing away their votes in some other way).
The narrative that if people don't vote the way you like, they are wasting a vote has to die. We live in a democracy, one person, one vote, what they do with it is no more for you to judge than it is theirs to judge yours.
First, no one is responsible for the Bush years besides Bush and the people who supported him with money and votes. You can also blame the people who stayed home if you like, but that's also a bit silly.
If I have a dollar and you have a dollar and I buy a beer and you give yours to a homeless guy which of us wasted our dollar? I'm going to say neither. If I want to get a beer with my dollar I'm going to get a beer. What you do with your dollar is up to you. Even the guy who flushes his dollar down the toilet did what he wanted with that dollar. Sure, you might consider it a waste, and I probably do as well, but it was his dollar to do with as he pleased. Until that changes I am going to be sitting here enjoying my beer.
I don't think Hillary is qualified to hold the office of the president. Her views on encryption alone show this. Sure, she's probably better than most of those on the other side, but she has a fundamental misunderstanding of technology that's downright scary. Couple her desire to break encryption with a "Manhattan-like project" with the Obama administration's treatment of whistleblowers and data leakers, and their illegal use of metadata and the NSA, and she scares me more than anyone else on those stages. She's a warhawk that never met a war she didn't like. She's disingenuous at best, a liar at worst. She's polarizing and she's handling everything thrown her way in about the worst possible way. She's looking incompetent when it comes to her email server and to the handling of her speeches. She's condescending and insulting to her own supporters (and the press). She refuses to answer legitimate questions. She's a negative candidate incapable of not attacking all around her. She's afraid. She's not a leader. She's talking about giving her husband an administrative position. She charged up this hill once and people said "no thanks," and nothing has gotten better since to make her a more appealing candidate. I could go on.
So if you want to wring your hands about wasting votes, don't vote for her knowing there are people out there who would consider voting for her to be immoral. I would rather not participate in a process that legitimizes the "lesser of two evils." Seriously, if at the end of the day that's my choice I'll stay the fuck home (actually I wont because there will be other races on that ballot). But go right ahead and vote the way you want. I don't consider it a waste, regardless of who wins, and I love a good "I told you so."
I can get a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for her."
posted by cjorgensen at 6:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
The narrative that if people don't vote the way you like, they are wasting a vote has to die. We live in a democracy, one person, one vote, what they do with it is no more for you to judge than it is theirs to judge yours.
First, no one is responsible for the Bush years besides Bush and the people who supported him with money and votes. You can also blame the people who stayed home if you like, but that's also a bit silly.
If I have a dollar and you have a dollar and I buy a beer and you give yours to a homeless guy which of us wasted our dollar? I'm going to say neither. If I want to get a beer with my dollar I'm going to get a beer. What you do with your dollar is up to you. Even the guy who flushes his dollar down the toilet did what he wanted with that dollar. Sure, you might consider it a waste, and I probably do as well, but it was his dollar to do with as he pleased. Until that changes I am going to be sitting here enjoying my beer.
I don't think Hillary is qualified to hold the office of the president. Her views on encryption alone show this. Sure, she's probably better than most of those on the other side, but she has a fundamental misunderstanding of technology that's downright scary. Couple her desire to break encryption with a "Manhattan-like project" with the Obama administration's treatment of whistleblowers and data leakers, and their illegal use of metadata and the NSA, and she scares me more than anyone else on those stages. She's a warhawk that never met a war she didn't like. She's disingenuous at best, a liar at worst. She's polarizing and she's handling everything thrown her way in about the worst possible way. She's looking incompetent when it comes to her email server and to the handling of her speeches. She's condescending and insulting to her own supporters (and the press). She refuses to answer legitimate questions. She's a negative candidate incapable of not attacking all around her. She's afraid. She's not a leader. She's talking about giving her husband an administrative position. She charged up this hill once and people said "no thanks," and nothing has gotten better since to make her a more appealing candidate. I could go on.
So if you want to wring your hands about wasting votes, don't vote for her knowing there are people out there who would consider voting for her to be immoral. I would rather not participate in a process that legitimizes the "lesser of two evils." Seriously, if at the end of the day that's my choice I'll stay the fuck home (actually I wont because there will be other races on that ballot). But go right ahead and vote the way you want. I don't consider it a waste, regardless of who wins, and I love a good "I told you so."
I can get a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for her."
posted by cjorgensen at 6:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I would rather not participate in a process that legitimizes the "lesser of two evils." Seriously, if at the end of the day that's my choice I'll stay the fuck home (actually I wont because there will be other races on that ballot).
I would find it hard to stay home. But I won't find it hard to vote third party.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would find it hard to stay home. But I won't find it hard to vote third party.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
MattD: The "Bernie has no chance" notion presumes that young Latino, blue collar, and economically marginalized African Americans are structurally more likely to subscribe to Clinton's message of "it's my turn to be the liberal Ivy League millionaire status quo maintainer" than were the mostly well-off and well-educated white voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. It requires the speaker be stupid or he speaker assumes those of whom he speaks are stupid. Not pretty in either case.
I'm a white lady, so obviously I wouldn't try to speak for PoC and what they think about Bernie. I've been hesitant to step in it, but MattD has just nailed what I've been wanting to say, so I'm going to use this opportunity, as someone who does some outreach with a volunteer group in an historically African-American part of the city*, to share my personal observations.
There are the staunch Hillary people who don't want anything to do with you, but there are fewer than I expected. It's not the norm to have people yell "Feel The Bern!" as they walk or drive by, but there are more than I expected. But the most exciting thing of all is that of the people who will let you get one talking point out, most of them want to hear more. They ask for materials and hand-outs to show their friends and family.
We spent six+ hours at the MLK Parade and we just had conversation after conversation with people of all ages and backgrounds who were really excited to hear what Bernie stood for. And it's so effortless. We approached one 40-ish yo guy and when he realized we were talking about the election he shrugged and said "Sorry, I can't vote" and made a check mark sign. And when you can tell him that Bernie wants to Ban the Box, it gets his attention, and it's a very personal message.
What I experience is that if you can get someone to give you 15 seconds there is a genuine interest to hear more. Because yes, as MattD said, when you say that PoC aren't into Bernie you are assuming that they are rejecting the message. So when people say Oh, well, Hillary's got most of the PoC vote locked up because PoC aren't into Bernie I would say no, PoC who haven't heard about Bernie are not into him. They may still vote for Hillary, but some of the assumptions are not cool.
Again, these are just my personal observations, and I'm not trying to dispute anyone's personal experience, but if you are still relying on nothing but historical data and assumptions at this point in the 2016 Presidential election you are probably going to continue to be surprised.
*To be clear, I don't mean me or a bunch of white people going into minority neighborhoods. This is me, as an ally, going to help the local group in whatever is needed.
And holy-moly, thank you MeFi for teaching me to just shut my mouth and listen
posted by Room 641-A at 6:47 AM on February 10, 2016 [30 favorites]
I'm a white lady, so obviously I wouldn't try to speak for PoC and what they think about Bernie. I've been hesitant to step in it, but MattD has just nailed what I've been wanting to say, so I'm going to use this opportunity, as someone who does some outreach with a volunteer group in an historically African-American part of the city*, to share my personal observations.
There are the staunch Hillary people who don't want anything to do with you, but there are fewer than I expected. It's not the norm to have people yell "Feel The Bern!" as they walk or drive by, but there are more than I expected. But the most exciting thing of all is that of the people who will let you get one talking point out, most of them want to hear more. They ask for materials and hand-outs to show their friends and family.
We spent six+ hours at the MLK Parade and we just had conversation after conversation with people of all ages and backgrounds who were really excited to hear what Bernie stood for. And it's so effortless. We approached one 40-ish yo guy and when he realized we were talking about the election he shrugged and said "Sorry, I can't vote" and made a check mark sign. And when you can tell him that Bernie wants to Ban the Box, it gets his attention, and it's a very personal message.
What I experience is that if you can get someone to give you 15 seconds there is a genuine interest to hear more. Because yes, as MattD said, when you say that PoC aren't into Bernie you are assuming that they are rejecting the message. So when people say Oh, well, Hillary's got most of the PoC vote locked up because PoC aren't into Bernie I would say no, PoC who haven't heard about Bernie are not into him. They may still vote for Hillary, but some of the assumptions are not cool.
Again, these are just my personal observations, and I'm not trying to dispute anyone's personal experience, but if you are still relying on nothing but historical data and assumptions at this point in the 2016 Presidential election you are probably going to continue to be surprised.
*To be clear, I don't mean me or a bunch of white people going into minority neighborhoods. This is me, as an ally, going to help the local group in whatever is needed.
And holy-moly, thank you MeFi for teaching me to just shut my mouth and listen
posted by Room 641-A at 6:47 AM on February 10, 2016 [30 favorites]
If it helps, Republican discussion boards are having exactly the same electability-vs-principles debate right now, but for them it's even worse.
It is hard to accept the unmitigated disaster that just happen to the Republican Party last night in New Hampshire. You could not write a worse script for the Republican Party on where this race currently stands.
posted by clawsoon at 6:49 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is hard to accept the unmitigated disaster that just happen to the Republican Party last night in New Hampshire. You could not write a worse script for the Republican Party on where this race currently stands.
posted by clawsoon at 6:49 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
From clawsoon's link:
posted by Etrigan at 6:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Comparisons to “The Manchurian Candidate” (the remake, not the original) almost write themselves.I think it says a lot that this person feels it necessary to point out that Rubio may be comparable to a corporate robo-candidate, but he's not comparable to a Communist robo-candidate.
posted by Etrigan at 6:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would find it hard to stay home. But I won't find it hard to vote third party.
Me too.
I'm 45. I think in pretty much every presidential election except for one I've had the possibility to vote for a Bush or a Clinton in either the primaries or the actual election. I'm just done with them.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Me too.
I'm 45. I think in pretty much every presidential election except for one I've had the possibility to vote for a Bush or a Clinton in either the primaries or the actual election. I'm just done with them.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
There was a Bush or Clinton on the final ballot, running for either VP or P, for every election from 1980 through 2004. I can't imagine why you'd be tired of them.
And both families have become extremely rich during the process. (Okay, the Bushes mostly added to their wealth. But, still.)
posted by clawsoon at 7:02 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
And both families have become extremely rich during the process. (Okay, the Bushes mostly added to their wealth. But, still.)
posted by clawsoon at 7:02 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
There was a Bush or Clinton on the final ballot, running for either VP or P, for every election from 1980 through 2004.
This was more about the Bushes than Clintons. Clinton had just run his standard two terms in this time period, the whole Clinton dynasty idea came after that. Although everyone knew Hillary was going to run.
posted by sweetkid at 7:05 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
there's no recent poll in Nevada
Nonetheless, the most recent poll, ~3 weeks ago, had Sanders within the margin of error for victory, and it seems to me that the gap has more likely tightened than widened.
posted by threeants at 7:10 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Nonetheless, the most recent poll, ~3 weeks ago, had Sanders within the margin of error for victory, and it seems to me that the gap has more likely tightened than widened.
posted by threeants at 7:10 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not knowledgeable enough about polling practice to judge how meaningful this is, but I was interested to note that the same group underestimated Sanders' ultimate lead in the New Hampshire primary.
posted by threeants at 7:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by threeants at 7:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe the narrative that those who fear the splintering of the party are capitalistic warlords needs to die. If Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote for him. You are on the left and stay home or vote for third party you're making a choice that adversely affects other people. You affect other people adversely, I and a bunch of other people will think negative thoughts about you. Sorry in advance
posted by angrycat at 7:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 7:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The polls on Sander are mostly meaningless in the coming states right now. Until last week nobody knew who Sanders was, and if they did they probably stood against him on the simple ground that he seemed unelectable. In December I thought there was no way Sanders would pull off anything above 15-20% in any state, much less have a 20 point lead, and my line back then was: I like Sanders cut of jib, but he's just a loser in the national. And that's what the polls said that far out. But now there's no reason to think that, and people are going to see that and the polls are going to change. Maybe not enough for him to win, but at least enough to keep him in until the convention. There's no reason to think that Clinton any longer has a firewall in Nevada, SC, or on Super Tuesday. Everything is in play now, and even if she does win, it's going to be a squeaker. Clinton is going to have to salt the fields and burn the country down to pull off an overwhelming win.
At any rate, I'll eat my shoe, Herzog style, if Sanders doesn't get at least a 10 point bump in Nevada in the coming days.
posted by dis_integration at 7:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
At any rate, I'll eat my shoe, Herzog style, if Sanders doesn't get at least a 10 point bump in Nevada in the coming days.
posted by dis_integration at 7:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
My first presidential election was 1992 and I've never voted for a Bush or Clinton. As I mentioned in the Iowa thread, I will vote for Clinton if it's close in Washington state but I'm not going to like it. Before the last month, and particularly the past week, I would have been OK with my vote going to a clearly better candidate than whatever the Republicans trot out.
But her campaign in 2016 has me increasingly concerned about the wisdom of that strategy. What if she wins and claims that she has a mandate to govern on more war, more banking power, more attacks on encryption and privacy? 6 months ago when I and my 80-something aunt met for breakfast, we were both adamant that Trump would be horrible for this country.
I'm still strongly holding that view, but if I can ignore his xenophobia, racism, entitlement, bullying, etc. then certain policy statements he makes are almost reasonable. I've been so happy this past year - I deeply hope that I don't have to choose between two execrable candidates in the general election. The saving grace is that Washington isn't a likely swing state in this election.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:21 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
But her campaign in 2016 has me increasingly concerned about the wisdom of that strategy. What if she wins and claims that she has a mandate to govern on more war, more banking power, more attacks on encryption and privacy? 6 months ago when I and my 80-something aunt met for breakfast, we were both adamant that Trump would be horrible for this country.
I'm still strongly holding that view, but if I can ignore his xenophobia, racism, entitlement, bullying, etc. then certain policy statements he makes are almost reasonable. I've been so happy this past year - I deeply hope that I don't have to choose between two execrable candidates in the general election. The saving grace is that Washington isn't a likely swing state in this election.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:21 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:21 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:21 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Please, please, please do not send this election to the House.
Was this in response to something in this thread? I haven't seen anyone here suggest that this is a remotely likely possibility.
(OTOH, if it's just a de novo plea, carry on.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Was this in response to something in this thread? I haven't seen anyone here suggest that this is a remotely likely possibility.
(OTOH, if it's just a de novo plea, carry on.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio speech transcript: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't believe he has the poetry in him, TBH.
posted by Artw at 7:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 7:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
By Michelle Alexander, no less.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
By Michelle Alexander, no less.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am fairly new to the electoral process in the US (this would be my second presidential election), and I am a little embarrassed to admit I didn't know super delegates were a thing until yesterday.
Is there a chance the democratic super delegates might change their mind and support Sanders if he gains momentum?
It would just be so wrong if we choose Bernie democratically, only to have the superdelegates choose Hillary over him. I read somewhere that every SD vote is worth thousands of our votes. I thought the internet was joking, I had such a hard time believing it.
posted by Tarumba at 7:30 AM on February 10, 2016
Is there a chance the democratic super delegates might change their mind and support Sanders if he gains momentum?
It would just be so wrong if we choose Bernie democratically, only to have the superdelegates choose Hillary over him. I read somewhere that every SD vote is worth thousands of our votes. I thought the internet was joking, I had such a hard time believing it.
posted by Tarumba at 7:30 AM on February 10, 2016
(I live in Virginia, so I will be voting democrat no matter what, I just really support Bernie)
posted by Tarumba at 7:31 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Tarumba at 7:31 AM on February 10, 2016
Is there a chance the democratic super delegates might change their mind and support Sanders if he gains momentum?
It's a certainty. Superdelegates are not really a thing. They are not bound to vote for anyone.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:33 AM on February 10, 2016
It's a certainty. Superdelegates are not really a thing. They are not bound to vote for anyone.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:33 AM on February 10, 2016
I am fairly new to the electoral process in the US (this would be my second presidential election), and I am a little embarrassed to admit I didn't know super delegates were a thing until yesterday.
Congratulations! You are now one of the most educated voters in the country.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
Congratulations! You are now one of the most educated voters in the country.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
I read somewhere that every SD vote is worth thousands of our votes. I thought the internet was joking, I had such a hard time believing it.
Wait until you hear about the super-superdelegates...
posted by sour cream at 7:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wait until you hear about the super-superdelegates...
posted by sour cream at 7:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
threeants, that poll you linked to has Bernie with 55%, but with a 5% margin of error. The actual result (60.0% of the vote with 94% precincts reporting) is right at the edge of that margin.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
NEW: Chris Christie expected to formally suspend his presidential campaign as early as today, @ABC News has learned
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:37 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:37 AM on February 10, 2016
Is there a chance the democratic super delegates might change their mind and support Sanders if he gains momentum?
The only circumstance I've ever heard where the superdelegates would flip the results of the primary process would be if Weird Shit happened. So if Clinton narrowly won and then got indicted, maybe then, or if Sanders narrowly won and then announced that he had had a religious revelation and was going to bring the US under shariah. Or in other weird circumstances that aren't relevant here -- like if there were a Republican incumbent so the GOP primaries were a foregone conclusion and the narrow Democratic victor seemed to have won because of Republican ratfucking.
If weird shit doesn't happen you can expect them to go along with the winner of the primary process.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The only circumstance I've ever heard where the superdelegates would flip the results of the primary process would be if Weird Shit happened. So if Clinton narrowly won and then got indicted, maybe then, or if Sanders narrowly won and then announced that he had had a religious revelation and was going to bring the US under shariah. Or in other weird circumstances that aren't relevant here -- like if there were a Republican incumbent so the GOP primaries were a foregone conclusion and the narrow Democratic victor seemed to have won because of Republican ratfucking.
If weird shit doesn't happen you can expect them to go along with the winner of the primary process.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wait until you hear about the super-superdelegates...
In 2020, they will introduce up-arrow notation for delegates.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:41 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
In 2020, they will introduce up-arrow notation for delegates.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:41 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
NEW: Chris Christie expected to formally suspend his presidential campaign as early as today, @ABC News has learned
Expected by who? The Cruz campaign?
posted by sour cream at 7:44 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Expected by who? The Cruz campaign?
posted by sour cream at 7:44 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The "election goes to the House" scenario is premised on Bloomberg getting in as an independent because Sanders would be (or would at least seem to be) unacceptable to the corporate side of the Democratic coalition. He's a fair threat to win outright in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut where he is exceptionally well-known and popular and where a lot of Democrats have incomes that rely upon Wall Street. Even if Sanders carries every other Obama 2012 state, that puts the election to Congress (the House to decide the Presidency among the top three candidates, the Senate to decide the Vice Presidency between the top two candidates). The House seems very likely to elect a Republican President (one vote per state); the Senate could reasonably easily get to a 50-50 tie or better for the Democrats, and with Biden breaking the tie, you could see a President Trump and a Vice President Castro, which would be bizarre...
posted by MattD at 7:46 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by MattD at 7:46 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Glad to hear it, from that Republican forum linked upthread it looks like they are banking on superdelegates to get Hillary elected.
posted by Tarumba at 7:46 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Tarumba at 7:46 AM on February 10, 2016
I read somewhere that every SD vote is worth thousands of our votes. I thought the internet was joking, I had such a hard time believing it.
It should not be surprising that the actual members of an organization want some say in who their organization puts forward as a candidate instead of absolutely and irrevocably binding themselves to whatever a bunch of nonmembers decide. But then I think the whole primary process is dumb and party organizations should nominate candidates however they see fit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It should not be surprising that the actual members of an organization want some say in who their organization puts forward as a candidate instead of absolutely and irrevocably binding themselves to whatever a bunch of nonmembers decide. But then I think the whole primary process is dumb and party organizations should nominate candidates however they see fit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If the consensus is that the country wants Sanders to be the nominee, the superdelegates will not vote for Clinton. This is not something you should stay awake worrying about.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Man, it's only February and I am already exhausted. This will probably go down as one of the election cycles in which I don't really want to discuss politics at any length with anyone for the sheer fact this has turned out to be brutally ugly on all sides. I am particularly disappointed in the Democrats. All the nastiness has made it impossible for me to say I want to vote for either candidate (obv, not voting is not an option). For me, no one is coming off as palatable and HRC/Bernie supporters are being really awful all over social media (Don't vote for Hilary? You're a self-hating feminist! Don't vote for Bernie? You're just voting for Hilary because she's a woman! There is absolutely no fucking way to reason with these people so I lose no matter what).
Honestly, I wish November were here so I could mail in a vote, be done with it, and go back to non-election life.
posted by Kitteh at 7:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Honestly, I wish November were here so I could mail in a vote, be done with it, and go back to non-election life.
posted by Kitteh at 7:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I hope I'm not being nasty to anyone, anywhere, but I haven't considered myself a Democrat since before I could vote, mainly because of the drug war as well as reading Chomsky and Zinn. Cementing that was the 90s in which Bill Clinton moved it far away from the FDR/LBJ party I read about in my youth. If Sanders' ideas get traction in the party, I'll gladly join the party.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is there an argument that Occupy planted this seed?
Dave Weigel on twitter: Probably a banal point, but I'm struck by how many young Bernie organizers I've met today got activated by the Occupy movement.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Dave Weigel on twitter: Probably a banal point, but I'm struck by how many young Bernie organizers I've met today got activated by the Occupy movement.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
There is absolutely no fucking way to reason with these people so I lose no matter what
This is an election in Bizarro world where the lone female candidate who is actually qualified is dismissed for being a feminist and Establishment, and the privileged old white guys in suits are being hailed as maverick outsiders who aren't the Establishment. Trump does not have to be cute and cuddly to be revered, but Clinton does.
But in the end, whoever looks like he would be the most fun at a cocktail party always gets to be president. If I lost my marbles and ever decided I was going to run for that office, I would call my campaign headquarters The Ultimate Party Paradise and vow Charlie Sheen would be my running mate. No one would even care I was Canadian with my campaign slogan, "Getting this Party Started..."
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:11 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is an election in Bizarro world where the lone female candidate who is actually qualified is dismissed for being a feminist and Establishment, and the privileged old white guys in suits are being hailed as maverick outsiders who aren't the Establishment. Trump does not have to be cute and cuddly to be revered, but Clinton does.
But in the end, whoever looks like he would be the most fun at a cocktail party always gets to be president. If I lost my marbles and ever decided I was going to run for that office, I would call my campaign headquarters The Ultimate Party Paradise and vow Charlie Sheen would be my running mate. No one would even care I was Canadian with my campaign slogan, "Getting this Party Started..."
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:11 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is an election in Bizarro world where the lone female candidate who is actually qualified is dismissed for being a feminist and Establishment, and the privileged old white guys in suits are being hailed as maverick outsiders who aren't the Establishment.
That's a very unfair and strange characterization of this election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on February 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
That's a very unfair and strange characterization of this election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on February 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
privileged old white guys
Can we knock it off with the age stuff, please?
Sanders =74
Clinton = 68
Warren = 67
posted by Room 641-A at 8:17 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Can we knock it off with the age stuff, please?
Sanders =74
Clinton = 68
Warren = 67
posted by Room 641-A at 8:17 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
posted by clawsoon at 8:18 AM on February 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.Huh. This I never knew. Thanks for that link.
Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.”
When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs.
posted by clawsoon at 8:18 AM on February 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
i cant imagine why someone with a net worth of $30,000,000 who gets paid $250,000 a pop for giving talks to soothe the hurt feel-feels of fat cat bankers would be described as establishment, can you?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Sanders raised $2.6 million last night into this morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Sanders raised $2.6 million last night into this morning.
Let's dispel once and for all with this notion that the people don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing. They are undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. It is a systematic effort to change America.
posted by an animate objects at 8:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
Let's dispel once and for all with this notion that the people don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing. They are undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. It is a systematic effort to change America.
posted by an animate objects at 8:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
"Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs."
Too bad that Bernie Sanders voted for the crime legislation he's now denouncing, I guess.
posted by markkraft at 8:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Too bad that Bernie Sanders voted for the crime legislation he's now denouncing, I guess.
posted by markkraft at 8:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Let's dispel once and for all with this notion that the people don't know what they're doing.
Further to that, the things in the Michelle Alexander piece are why I'm so anxious to see what happens in the south. Black people see that crap. To assume they're going to stick with Clinton seems almost demeaning.
posted by Trochanter at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Further to that, the things in the Michelle Alexander piece are why I'm so anxious to see what happens in the south. Black people see that crap. To assume they're going to stick with Clinton seems almost demeaning.
posted by Trochanter at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders raised $2.6 million last night into this morning.
18 + 18 of that is mine! I had to give him some recognition as the man who might be the first Jew in the White House...
posted by mikelieman at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
18 + 18 of that is mine! I had to give him some recognition as the man who might be the first Jew in the White House...
posted by mikelieman at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
. To assume they're going to stick with Clinton seems almost demeaning.
anecdata, but the black lady at the polling place for the school bond vote couldn't wait to vote for Bernie in the primary.
I think that the Clinton campaign is in for a very rude awakening -- again.
posted by mikelieman at 8:32 AM on February 10, 2016
anecdata, but the black lady at the polling place for the school bond vote couldn't wait to vote for Bernie in the primary.
I think that the Clinton campaign is in for a very rude awakening -- again.
posted by mikelieman at 8:32 AM on February 10, 2016
Trochanter, Michelle Alexander is the #4 Twitter mention right now/today. A lot of eyeballs are seeing and sharing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't find the link right now, but last week I looked it up and Clinton had raised ~$115m to Bernie's ~75m. The striking thing to me was that, as of a week or two ago, Clinton had ~$40m cash-on-hand and Sanders had ~30m. How do you raise $50m more dollars than the guy with only grassroots fundraising and end up with only $10m separating you?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 8:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it is too bad that he voted for a bad bill because it had something good in it after railing against the larger bill. Much better to be an ideologue who can't work with people, like some portray him.
Bernie admitted that “this is not a perfect bill”, but he understood that certain parts of the bill were tremendously important. In particular, Bernie was passionate about passing the Violence Against Women Act, one of the key provisions of the Crime Bill. Bernie said at the time, “I have a number of serious problems with the Crime Bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.”
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
Bernie admitted that “this is not a perfect bill”, but he understood that certain parts of the bill were tremendously important. In particular, Bernie was passionate about passing the Violence Against Women Act, one of the key provisions of the Crime Bill. Bernie said at the time, “I have a number of serious problems with the Crime Bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.”
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
How do you raise $50m more dollars than the guy with only grassroots fundraising and end up with only $10m separating you?
Trying to outspend everyone sharing Bernie on facebook.
posted by mikelieman at 8:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trying to outspend everyone sharing Bernie on facebook.
posted by mikelieman at 8:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Acually, probably just airtime in Iowa. That TV ain't free.
posted by mikelieman at 8:36 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 8:36 AM on February 10, 2016
How do you raise $50m more dollars than the guy with only grassroots fundraising and end up with only $10m separating you?
TV ads.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:36 AM on February 10, 2016
TV ads.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:36 AM on February 10, 2016
If he's in it to win it, and it looks like he is, then I hope Sen. Sanders is putting together a monster-ass field team.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2016
They know exactly what they're doing. They are undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world.
I want to believe. Deep down, though, I'm pretty sure that the fix is in for Hillary, and the fix has always been in for Hillary. I have nothing to base that on but my gut, but that gut is pretty confident that someone like Sanders will never be allowed anywhere near the White House.
We all get our nice little show of democracy, to paint everything legit, but in the end, it'll all be business as usual.
Although I really do like Sanders.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I want to believe. Deep down, though, I'm pretty sure that the fix is in for Hillary, and the fix has always been in for Hillary. I have nothing to base that on but my gut, but that gut is pretty confident that someone like Sanders will never be allowed anywhere near the White House.
We all get our nice little show of democracy, to paint everything legit, but in the end, it'll all be business as usual.
Although I really do like Sanders.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Holy shit that Michelle Alexander piece is quite the takedown of Bill Clinton's agenda for the urban poor, with Hillary's early complicity, and accuses her of now just "singing the same old tune in a slightly different key." Worth reading.
posted by mediareport at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:38 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Too bad that Bernie Sanders voted for the crime legislation he's now denouncing, I guess.
If you do any reading on this whatsoever, even if you ignore the fact that this was over 20 years ago, this is really grasping at straws. Radiophonic Oddity touched on this some.
Tell me how Clinton is better in this regard, or is this the same false equivalence of "look, bernie does it too!"
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you do any reading on this whatsoever, even if you ignore the fact that this was over 20 years ago, this is really grasping at straws. Radiophonic Oddity touched on this some.
Tell me how Clinton is better in this regard, or is this the same false equivalence of "look, bernie does it too!"
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Too bad that Bernie Sanders voted for the crime legislation he's now denouncing, I guess.
That point is mentioned in Michelle Alexander's piece. She also does not endorse Bernie.
posted by mediareport at 8:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
That point is mentioned in Michelle Alexander's piece. She also does not endorse Bernie.
posted by mediareport at 8:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can we knock it off with the age stuff, please?
Sanders =74
Clinton = 68
Warren = 67
You forgot: Trump = 69
Nevertheless, if it comes to Trump vs. Sanders, you can expect Trump to attack Sanders' age, either directly or indirectly. Relentlessly. You see, it's not the facts that matter, it's about appearance and association. And virility.
At this point, I think there's no doubt that Trump will be the GOP nominee.
Apparently, Bloomberg (73) will enter the race if Sanders is (likely to be) the Dems' nominee. In that case, the sane vote will be split among Sanders and Bloomberg, which may leave the majority for Trump.
posted by sour cream at 8:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders =74
Clinton = 68
Warren = 67
You forgot: Trump = 69
Nevertheless, if it comes to Trump vs. Sanders, you can expect Trump to attack Sanders' age, either directly or indirectly. Relentlessly. You see, it's not the facts that matter, it's about appearance and association. And virility.
At this point, I think there's no doubt that Trump will be the GOP nominee.
Apparently, Bloomberg (73) will enter the race if Sanders is (likely to be) the Dems' nominee. In that case, the sane vote will be split among Sanders and Bloomberg, which may leave the majority for Trump.
posted by sour cream at 8:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
From the NH primary exit polls:
Most Democratic voters would be satisfied with ether Sanders (acceptable to eight in 10) or Clinton (acceptable to two-thirds) as the nominee.
link (warning: video autoplay)
posted by mikepop at 8:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Most Democratic voters would be satisfied with ether Sanders (acceptable to eight in 10) or Clinton (acceptable to two-thirds) as the nominee.
link (warning: video autoplay)
posted by mikepop at 8:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
you can expect Trump to attack Sanders' age
Oh, absolutely! I don't expect it here.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, absolutely! I don't expect it here.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ta-Nehisi Coates is voting for (but not "endorsing") Sanders.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:47 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 8:47 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Speaking of candidate positions evolving, Trump used to support single-payer healthcare.
Too bad he changed his mind. Would've been great to have two candidates in the races stumping for it.
posted by clawsoon at 8:48 AM on February 10, 2016
Too bad he changed his mind. Would've been great to have two candidates in the races stumping for it.
posted by clawsoon at 8:48 AM on February 10, 2016
Ta-Nehisi Coates @tanehisicoates
But that said, I'm not "endorsing" anyone. I'm voting for who I'm voting for (Sen. Sanders.)
8:43 AM - 10 Feb 2016
posted by standardasparagus at 8:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
But that said, I'm not "endorsing" anyone. I'm voting for who I'm voting for (Sen. Sanders.)
8:43 AM - 10 Feb 2016
posted by standardasparagus at 8:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Man, I just saw a headline that simply said "Trump, Sanders win New Hampshire primary." And like... of course we all KNOW that just happened.
But I took a mental step back and had a split-second flash of imagining myself in July of last year reading that headline, and my fucking brain turned inside out you guys this election is bonkers insane ok
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [23 favorites]
But I took a mental step back and had a split-second flash of imagining myself in July of last year reading that headline, and my fucking brain turned inside out you guys this election is bonkers insane ok
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [23 favorites]
As someone who still considers themselves undecided, one of Hillary's pro-column notes was that people of color tended to side with her, and writers of color weren't quite supportive of Sanders (see most of Coates other columns the past month). Seeing Alexander and Coates both come out on the Sanders side on the same day is very interesting...
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Man, I just saw a headline that simply said "Trump, Sanders win New Hampshire primary." And like... of course we all KNOW that just happened.
But I took a mental step back and had a split-second flash of imagining myself in July of last year reading that headline, and my fucking brain turned inside out you guys this election is bonkers insane ok
Pop, is that you?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
But I took a mental step back and had a split-second flash of imagining myself in July of last year reading that headline, and my fucking brain turned inside out you guys this election is bonkers insane ok
Pop, is that you?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Let's dispel once and for all with this notion that the people don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing. They are undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. It is a systematic effort to change America.
There is nothing systematic about it, hence the long discussions in here. Systematic is having progressive representation vertically throughout representative government so that when you run a Presidential candidate 1) you have support upon which to call, and most importantly 2) you don't fuck the country if they don't win the general.
Feelings are not systematic. Enthusiasm is not systematic. Ideals are not systematic.
My heart supports Sanders hard, and my vote in this doesn't really matter because of where I live, but let's not pretend that popping up and running for President from a sparsely populated state counts in any way as a systematic attempt to change the political climate or culture of the US.
posted by OmieWise at 9:02 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
There is nothing systematic about it, hence the long discussions in here. Systematic is having progressive representation vertically throughout representative government so that when you run a Presidential candidate 1) you have support upon which to call, and most importantly 2) you don't fuck the country if they don't win the general.
Feelings are not systematic. Enthusiasm is not systematic. Ideals are not systematic.
My heart supports Sanders hard, and my vote in this doesn't really matter because of where I live, but let's not pretend that popping up and running for President from a sparsely populated state counts in any way as a systematic attempt to change the political climate or culture of the US.
posted by OmieWise at 9:02 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Coates: This ain't "feeling the Bern." It's just trying to be a decent citizen and as transparent as I can be.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:03 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:03 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, I don't really understand why the change has to be so high stakes if there is a loss. Someone's gonna be President.
posted by OmieWise at 9:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 9:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am pretty sure that I have seen people in this thread say both:
Hillary apologized for her Iraq vote so she's learned and we should let it go.
Bernie voted for the same crime bill and never mind what he said about it.
Electability matters so this democratic socialist thing must be considered a mark against Sanders even if all the things that he therefor champions are things we value.
Hillary's twenty plus years as a republican anger lightning rod and the sublimated hate that came from it are unfair and sexist so don't consider whether that impacts her electability.
posted by phearlez at 9:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hillary apologized for her Iraq vote so she's learned and we should let it go.
Bernie voted for the same crime bill and never mind what he said about it.
Electability matters so this democratic socialist thing must be considered a mark against Sanders even if all the things that he therefor champions are things we value.
Hillary's twenty plus years as a republican anger lightning rod and the sublimated hate that came from it are unfair and sexist so don't consider whether that impacts her electability.
posted by phearlez at 9:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie voted for the same crime bill and never mind what he said about it.
The crime bill included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence Against Women Act. The Iraq war vote was to kill people in Iraq.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:14 AM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
The crime bill included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence Against Women Act. The Iraq war vote was to kill people in Iraq.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:14 AM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Let's say Bernie has a tough time legislating. Everything I'm hearing from him is water for thirsty ears. I'd be so glad to hear him saying that stuff from the bully pulpit instead of into a half empty senate chamber.
posted by Trochanter at 9:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 9:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
let's not pretend that popping up and running for President from a sparsely populated state counts in any way as a systematic attempt to change the political climate or culture of the US.
Assuming Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Jimmy Carter,
10 Good Things President Carter Did
1. Created the Department of Energy.
2. Created the Department of Education
3. Supported SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks)
4. Brokered the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.
5. Installed solar panels in the White House.
6. Boycotted the 1980 Olympics.
7. Granted amnesty to Vietnam draft-dodgers.
8. Established diplomatic relations with China
9. Pushed for comprehensive health care reform.
10. Returned the Panama Canal to Panama
posted by Room 641-A at 9:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
Assuming Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Jimmy Carter,
10 Good Things President Carter Did
1. Created the Department of Energy.
2. Created the Department of Education
3. Supported SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks)
4. Brokered the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.
5. Installed solar panels in the White House.
6. Boycotted the 1980 Olympics.
7. Granted amnesty to Vietnam draft-dodgers.
8. Established diplomatic relations with China
9. Pushed for comprehensive health care reform.
10. Returned the Panama Canal to Panama
posted by Room 641-A at 9:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed, y'all please cool it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2016
When I read about Cruz, and the fact that he has built a formidable political machine despite the fact that no-one likes him, it makes me think of Stephen Harper. All about the ground war, and micro-targeting, and building up war chests.
posted by clawsoon at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Coates: 「バ。。。馬鹿！！別にあなたが好きだから投票しているわけないよ！！」
posted by fifthrider at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by fifthrider at 9:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Carter also signed into law the bill that permitted homebrewing of beer. Love that guy!)
posted by wenestvedt at 9:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by wenestvedt at 9:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Sanders tries ice cream flavor named after him
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Assuming we get that far, who is Bernie's most likely VP choice at this point?
posted by maxwelton at 9:27 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by maxwelton at 9:27 AM on February 10, 2016
Assuming Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Jimmy Carter,
I didn't say Sanders would be a bad President, I said that it's incorrect to characterize this campaign as a systematic effort to change the country.
posted by OmieWise at 9:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I didn't say Sanders would be a bad President, I said that it's incorrect to characterize this campaign as a systematic effort to change the country.
posted by OmieWise at 9:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought Biden was VP for life?
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:28 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:28 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
privileged old white guys
There are two young(er) candidates who are latino and the sons of immigrants running running for president, and one African American. Go vote for one 'em if you are offended by Sanders' age and "privilege" (said in a straight face when both a Bush and Donald Trump his own goddamn self are running).
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
There are two young(er) candidates who are latino and the sons of immigrants running running for president, and one African American. Go vote for one 'em if you are offended by Sanders' age and "privilege" (said in a straight face when both a Bush and Donald Trump his own goddamn self are running).
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
OmieWise, I thought that was just a joke about Rubio's robotic spiel about Obama, only they changed Obama for "voters"
posted by Tarumba at 9:31 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Tarumba at 9:31 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I didn't say Sanders would be a bad President, I said that it's incorrect to characterize this campaign as a systematic effort to change the country.
Completely agree, I don't get what's systematic at all.
posted by sweetkid at 9:32 AM on February 10, 2016
Completely agree, I don't get what's systematic at all.
posted by sweetkid at 9:32 AM on February 10, 2016
A few thoughts:
1) It's frustrating to think that in a few short months, and for decades after, whatever happens next will be seen as inevitable. This is how America became fascist/socialist/moderate again. But it's really not a done deal! We have no idea what will happen, and we're right. Hindsight will make it all look like part of some inevitable trend, which is a shame, because it really isn't. We're on a knife-edge right now, and it really does magnify the effects of individual actions over purported grand historical forces. Keep that in mind, future!
2) In terms of historical analogies, while I definitely feel that Hillary is the more electable, I fear that the best recent analogy, if it were Trump v Clinton, would be Obama v Romney. Remember, folks, there are only two things that predict election outcomes this far out: incumbent party, and the economy. And both are blowing against the Democrats.
3) Thinking more political science, I'm not one to put much stock in simplistic models of ideological voting. But if this Democratic race has taught us anything, it's that ideology really does matter a lot right now. So my only advice to Hillary -- which is admittedly selfish advice -- is to do the obvious, obvious thing. Stop tweaking the message. JUST MOVE LEFT! It's so simple. You're never going to move to the left of Bernie, but that's ok, you just want to pick up some of the moderate left on his flank. I know this is hard to do because she seems to believe deeply in her moderate ideology. But just be an opportunist, for once, like everyone paints you. Move left!
posted by chortly at 9:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
1) It's frustrating to think that in a few short months, and for decades after, whatever happens next will be seen as inevitable. This is how America became fascist/socialist/moderate again. But it's really not a done deal! We have no idea what will happen, and we're right. Hindsight will make it all look like part of some inevitable trend, which is a shame, because it really isn't. We're on a knife-edge right now, and it really does magnify the effects of individual actions over purported grand historical forces. Keep that in mind, future!
2) In terms of historical analogies, while I definitely feel that Hillary is the more electable, I fear that the best recent analogy, if it were Trump v Clinton, would be Obama v Romney. Remember, folks, there are only two things that predict election outcomes this far out: incumbent party, and the economy. And both are blowing against the Democrats.
3) Thinking more political science, I'm not one to put much stock in simplistic models of ideological voting. But if this Democratic race has taught us anything, it's that ideology really does matter a lot right now. So my only advice to Hillary -- which is admittedly selfish advice -- is to do the obvious, obvious thing. Stop tweaking the message. JUST MOVE LEFT! It's so simple. You're never going to move to the left of Bernie, but that's ok, you just want to pick up some of the moderate left on his flank. I know this is hard to do because she seems to believe deeply in her moderate ideology. But just be an opportunist, for once, like everyone paints you. Move left!
posted by chortly at 9:33 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Throughout his life, Sanders has done exactly what every privileged white person should do with their privilege: used it to help those who are less fortunate than them in the best way he knows how. He has stuck up for working poor, women, and minorities even when it was extremely unpopular to do so, like in the 90s when even Democrats were lining up to sign up for racist, classist anti-crime, anti-welfare policies. Check out his speech/rant against the 1991 crime bill - he ended up voting for it because it also included the Violence Against Women act, but not before speaking out on the classism, racism, and plain old mean-spiritedness of that bill. His speech against welfare reform from 1995 is similarly great. These positions were extremely politically unpopular at the time and he stuck by them anyway because it was the right thing to do.
posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [49 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [49 favorites]
I know this is hard to do because she seems to believe deeply in her moderate ideology.
I submit she knows where the money is.
posted by Trochanter at 9:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I submit she knows where the money is.
posted by Trochanter at 9:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
privileged old white guys
You know, I find it really insulting when people think that because I am a Hispanic woman I will automatically vote for Hispanics or women. If I based my political choices on that, I would be as bigoted as those who didn't want Obama because he was a different color.
People defaulting to support those who are like themselves is what got humanity into most wars and conflicts in the first place. Automatically choosing those who are genetically similar to us is not progressive. It's narrow-minded and unfair.
posted by Tarumba at 9:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
You know, I find it really insulting when people think that because I am a Hispanic woman I will automatically vote for Hispanics or women. If I based my political choices on that, I would be as bigoted as those who didn't want Obama because he was a different color.
People defaulting to support those who are like themselves is what got humanity into most wars and conflicts in the first place. Automatically choosing those who are genetically similar to us is not progressive. It's narrow-minded and unfair.
posted by Tarumba at 9:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Marco Rubio: Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world.
Try to keep up, folks.
posted by syzygy at 9:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Try to keep up, folks.
posted by syzygy at 9:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I will vote for Clinton if it's close in Washington state but I'm not going to like it.
No way will it be. King County will swing the state - it's got the population and the passion.
posted by corb at 9:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
No way will it be. King County will swing the state - it's got the population and the passion.
posted by corb at 9:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I based my political choices on that, I would be as bigoted as those who didn't want Obama because he was a different color.
I disagree that you would be "as bigoted." There is a lot of value in boosting the signal of minority and women candidates. For things other than President, too! There are a lot of elections out there.
posted by sweetkid at 9:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I disagree that you would be "as bigoted." There is a lot of value in boosting the signal of minority and women candidates. For things other than President, too! There are a lot of elections out there.
posted by sweetkid at 9:42 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
People defaulting to support those who are like themselves is what got humanity into most wars and conflicts in the first place.
Looking back, I partly supported Obama early on because I could relate to his background. And though he was not an immigrant, I read (and felt) that he had experiences similar to mine and was probably the closest this country would ever get to an immigrant president.
posted by FJT at 9:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Looking back, I partly supported Obama early on because I could relate to his background. And though he was not an immigrant, I read (and felt) that he had experiences similar to mine and was probably the closest this country would ever get to an immigrant president.
posted by FJT at 9:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I didn't say Sanders would be a bad President, I said that it's incorrect to characterize this campaign as a systematic effort to change the country.
No, I know, I was saying that another unknown from a small state was able to make some huge (sigh) changes, and Bernie might be even better. If I misunderstood the other comment then forget what I said.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:47 AM on February 10, 2016
No, I know, I was saying that another unknown from a small state was able to make some huge (sigh) changes, and Bernie might be even better. If I misunderstood the other comment then forget what I said.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:47 AM on February 10, 2016
the closest this country would ever get to an immigrant president
Until the Constitution is changed, yes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Until the Constitution is changed, yes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
After Bernie Sanders Landslide in New Hampshire, Team Hillary Plans Fightback on Israel
This will end well...
posted by Artw at 9:48 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
This will end well...
posted by Artw at 9:48 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
I know this is hard to do because she seems to believe deeply in her moderate ideology.
I submit she knows where the money is.
Both! The causation runs both directions, and arguably even more from belief -> money than money -> belief. But from a systemic point of view, it doesn't matter. It could be that she deeply believes everything she says (and doesn't say), and the money folks simply reward her because they like what she stands for. But even if no one ever was personally swayed by a donation, the effect would still be that those who happen to believe things congenial to industry get money and therefore win elections and therefore out-represent those who have uncongenial beliefs. I think this is the core argument against money: it doesn't require quid pro quo, or even subconscious bias. As long as capital can support those it likes and boost their electability, the system will be biased. We don't need to know what's in Hillary's heart to criticize the money.
posted by chortly at 9:50 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I submit she knows where the money is.
Both! The causation runs both directions, and arguably even more from belief -> money than money -> belief. But from a systemic point of view, it doesn't matter. It could be that she deeply believes everything she says (and doesn't say), and the money folks simply reward her because they like what she stands for. But even if no one ever was personally swayed by a donation, the effect would still be that those who happen to believe things congenial to industry get money and therefore win elections and therefore out-represent those who have uncongenial beliefs. I think this is the core argument against money: it doesn't require quid pro quo, or even subconscious bias. As long as capital can support those it likes and boost their electability, the system will be biased. We don't need to know what's in Hillary's heart to criticize the money.
posted by chortly at 9:50 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
> You know, I find it really insulting when people think that because I am a Hispanic woman I will automatically vote for Hispanics or women.
I hear you. Try being a guy who is clearly going to be identified as white and is heading into old. Apparently in 10-20 years I am going to inevitably turn into a real bastard.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I hear you. Try being a guy who is clearly going to be identified as white and is heading into old. Apparently in 10-20 years I am going to inevitably turn into a real bastard.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
actually, it turns out that it is hilarious to torture puppies. i never really expected this, but here i am...
posted by andrewcooke at 9:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 9:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
After Bernie Sanders Landslide in New Hampshire, Team Hillary Plans Fightback on Israel
Ok, who is running her campaign and thinks this is a good idea? Like, seriously. You're gonna attack the Jewish guy who said one of the main reasons he's running is because of the Holocaust? Really? I don't get this. Does anyone get this? Can you explain it? Cause it looks like they are really going off the rails here.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Ok, who is running her campaign and thinks this is a good idea? Like, seriously. You're gonna attack the Jewish guy who said one of the main reasons he's running is because of the Holocaust? Really? I don't get this. Does anyone get this? Can you explain it? Cause it looks like they are really going off the rails here.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
I have a right to use my vote to signal my support for political opinions and strategies. I do not want the burden to forgo my political opinions to make up for the patriarchy or racism, and I find that notion oppressive. The assumption that I will (and should!) default to support my race or gender regardless of anything else makes me feel disenfranchised.
It actually annoys me way more from the Republicans (it's much more egregious), who seem to think all Hispanics have one way of looking at things (similar to when people ask "what do WOMEN think of...?" as if we all shared the same brain) and if they have a Hispanic candidate then they count on all of us voting for them. Like we have secret meetings where we agree to vote for this one person, and if that one person is like us even better. They project their bigotry on us.
It just doesn't seem honest to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, when I know that politically Sanders is the right choice for me.
I will however vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, again, because that would make political sense.
posted by Tarumba at 9:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
It actually annoys me way more from the Republicans (it's much more egregious), who seem to think all Hispanics have one way of looking at things (similar to when people ask "what do WOMEN think of...?" as if we all shared the same brain) and if they have a Hispanic candidate then they count on all of us voting for them. Like we have secret meetings where we agree to vote for this one person, and if that one person is like us even better. They project their bigotry on us.
It just doesn't seem honest to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, when I know that politically Sanders is the right choice for me.
I will however vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, again, because that would make political sense.
posted by Tarumba at 9:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
People defaulting to support those who are like themselves is what got humanity into most wars and conflicts in the first place.
At the same time some of the people who are going to support Sanders and Trump are doing so because they are like them and can relate.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
At the same time some of the people who are going to support Sanders and Trump are doing so because they are like them and can relate.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
JUST MOVE LEFT! It's so simple. You're never going to move to the left of Bernie, but that's ok, you just want to pick up some of the moderate left on his flank.
Okay, I think you just hit something! At the start of this campaign everyone was happy to have Bernie in the race because, as most people at the time were likely Hillary voters, the thought was that Bernie would force her to the left. But she didn't move! So Bernie kept doing his thing, because he wasn't there to make Hillary slightly lefter, he was there to become president. And it started to resonate. But by the time the Hillary campaign saw what was happening it was too late to be that candidate. She may still win, but her team has alienated so many women in this country under the age of 50 that she could very well be a 1-termer. She actually had the Ace -- the electability card -- because all she had to do was grab the people who, at the time, still didn't really think Bernie was electable. Like me.
I thought Biden was VP for life?
Biden is VP4LYFE. Come on.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:01 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Okay, I think you just hit something! At the start of this campaign everyone was happy to have Bernie in the race because, as most people at the time were likely Hillary voters, the thought was that Bernie would force her to the left. But she didn't move! So Bernie kept doing his thing, because he wasn't there to make Hillary slightly lefter, he was there to become president. And it started to resonate. But by the time the Hillary campaign saw what was happening it was too late to be that candidate. She may still win, but her team has alienated so many women in this country under the age of 50 that she could very well be a 1-termer. She actually had the Ace -- the electability card -- because all she had to do was grab the people who, at the time, still didn't really think Bernie was electable. Like me.
I thought Biden was VP for life?
Biden is VP4LYFE. Come on.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:01 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
wikipedia's article on populism is quite interesting (i've been wondering about the meaning of the word recently).
Man, I just saw a headline that simply said "Trump, Sanders win New Hampshire primary." And like... my fucking brain turned inside out you guys this election is bonkers insane ok
i think it's basically the electorate saying to the political and financial establishment: you're fired!* (whether this is _systematic_ as, say, the dismantling of the welfare state or the rise of the prison industrial complex is left as an exercise to the reader ;)
posted by kliuless at 10:01 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Man, I just saw a headline that simply said "Trump, Sanders win New Hampshire primary." And like... my fucking brain turned inside out you guys this election is bonkers insane ok
i think it's basically the electorate saying to the political and financial establishment: you're fired!* (whether this is _systematic_ as, say, the dismantling of the welfare state or the rise of the prison industrial complex is left as an exercise to the reader ;)
posted by kliuless at 10:01 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
This will end well...
It's ain't starting well, that's for sure.
“Hillary Clinton has been a very strong friend of Israel and that is something that should not be lost on the American Jewish community,” said Paul Hodes, a former New Hampshire congressman who came to rally for Clinton at her post-primary event. Hodes, who is Jewish and from New Hampshire, told the Forward: “Senator Sanders hasn’t showed himself to be the kind of friend of Israel that Secretary Clinton is.”
posted by Room 641-A at 10:07 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's ain't starting well, that's for sure.
“Hillary Clinton has been a very strong friend of Israel and that is something that should not be lost on the American Jewish community,” said Paul Hodes, a former New Hampshire congressman who came to rally for Clinton at her post-primary event. Hodes, who is Jewish and from New Hampshire, told the Forward: “Senator Sanders hasn’t showed himself to be the kind of friend of Israel that Secretary Clinton is.”
posted by Room 641-A at 10:07 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ok, who is running her campaign and thinks this is a good idea?
"We don't have a lock on the warhawk vote!"
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
"We don't have a lock on the warhawk vote!"
posted by Artw at 10:08 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is electable.
If Hillary wants to win the nomination, she needs to beat him. They tied Iowa, he won New Hampshire with gusto, he's outfunding her and sticking to his message with relentless energy. The media is no longer ignoring him. The superdelegates will go with the majority, they are a moot point. Hillary's deep problems with gender and race (supposedly her firewalls) are top trends on Twitter, where gender and race have the largest audience in the country. Bernie is picking up prominent activist support left and right. The pundits are even taking him seriously now.
This is a fair match. If you think Hillary Clinton is a better person to run the country, vote for her. But fuck the electability argument 10 ways sideways since monday. This is now -- finally, squarely -- an issues race.
posted by an animate objects at 10:10 AM on February 10, 2016 [34 favorites]
If Hillary wants to win the nomination, she needs to beat him. They tied Iowa, he won New Hampshire with gusto, he's outfunding her and sticking to his message with relentless energy. The media is no longer ignoring him. The superdelegates will go with the majority, they are a moot point. Hillary's deep problems with gender and race (supposedly her firewalls) are top trends on Twitter, where gender and race have the largest audience in the country. Bernie is picking up prominent activist support left and right. The pundits are even taking him seriously now.
This is a fair match. If you think Hillary Clinton is a better person to run the country, vote for her. But fuck the electability argument 10 ways sideways since monday. This is now -- finally, squarely -- an issues race.
posted by an animate objects at 10:10 AM on February 10, 2016 [34 favorites]
Assuming we get that far, who is Bernie's most likely VP choice at this point?
I'm hoping for Tammy Duckworth.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm hoping for Tammy Duckworth.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Someone should check on David Brooks and see if he's still breathing.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 10:12 AM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Assuming we get that far, who is Bernie's most likely VP choice at this point?
No idea who's "likely" at this point, but I'm kinda holding out for Killer Mike. That's a VP debate I want to see.
posted by fifthrider at 10:17 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
No idea who's "likely" at this point, but I'm kinda holding out for Killer Mike. That's a VP debate I want to see.
posted by fifthrider at 10:17 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Assuming we get that far, who is Bernie's most likely VP choice at this point?
I would say there's simply no excuse for any ticket not to have at least one woman and at least one person of color on it. So for Sanders, a woman of color, and for Clinton, a person of color (a second woman would be awesome but I don't see Clinton doing that).
posted by threeants at 10:17 AM on February 10, 2016
I would say there's simply no excuse for any ticket not to have at least one woman and at least one person of color on it. So for Sanders, a woman of color, and for Clinton, a person of color (a second woman would be awesome but I don't see Clinton doing that).
posted by threeants at 10:17 AM on February 10, 2016
lly, it turns out that it is hilarious to torture puppies. i never really expected this, but here i am..
Looks like Marty Seligman finally decided to pony up the $5.
Welcome!
posted by grobstein at 10:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Looks like Marty Seligman finally decided to pony up the $5.
Welcome!
posted by grobstein at 10:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Going to be pretty excited to see future polling in NV. December's a long time ago already at this point.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:20 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 10:20 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll put this out there again: I'd be interested if anyone has thoughts on who will benefit from the 16-day break until NV.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:22 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 10:22 AM on February 10, 2016
It could be that she deeply believes everything she says (and doesn't say), and the money folks simply reward her because they like what she stands for.
Even more shittily, the presence of money corrupts. So yeah, there are definitely lots of politicians who get into politics because they are power-hungry / greedy / egotistical off the bat.
I'm not actually convinced that either of the Clintons started out like that. Certainly they were both ambitious; but I think they were also genuinely idealistic in the beginning. But over the last twenty-five years, they have made the compromises that they needed to make and said the things that needed to be said to achieve the things they wanted to achieve.
Obama doesn't give me the same sense -- and I recognize that image is easily manipulable -- but he rose so quickly that I don't think he had the time to be corrupted like most politicians do. Certainly there's never been much scandal that stuck to him, which is pretty rare in Chicago politics: I think he's pretty genuine about the positions he takes in the center-left.
Whereas the feeling I get from Hillary Clinton is that she generally began from a left-wing, feminist politics; she was tempted so slowly to the corporatist middle that she never realized it; and now she's looking around, wondering how the hell she's been flanked to the left in '08 and then again in '16.
I wish things had gone differently for her.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has been in politics for about the same amount of time. But I think he's been less susceptible to the general corruption for a few reasons. First off, he's kind of an ornery guy to start out with. On the aloofness scale, he makes Barack look like Bill. He's just not a schmoozer, although he's clearly passionate and empathetic.
Secondly, he's from one of the few states that's small and has a left-wing political culture, the kind of place where someone can get elected to national office without either big money or religious conservative support. (I suppose that Vermont, Minnesota and maybe Oregon are the only places like that anymore.)
And thirdly, he's a Jewish guy born in 1941. I can't imagine that not deeply coloring his worldview and particularly the dangers of right-wing capitalism.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Even more shittily, the presence of money corrupts. So yeah, there are definitely lots of politicians who get into politics because they are power-hungry / greedy / egotistical off the bat.
I'm not actually convinced that either of the Clintons started out like that. Certainly they were both ambitious; but I think they were also genuinely idealistic in the beginning. But over the last twenty-five years, they have made the compromises that they needed to make and said the things that needed to be said to achieve the things they wanted to achieve.
Obama doesn't give me the same sense -- and I recognize that image is easily manipulable -- but he rose so quickly that I don't think he had the time to be corrupted like most politicians do. Certainly there's never been much scandal that stuck to him, which is pretty rare in Chicago politics: I think he's pretty genuine about the positions he takes in the center-left.
Whereas the feeling I get from Hillary Clinton is that she generally began from a left-wing, feminist politics; she was tempted so slowly to the corporatist middle that she never realized it; and now she's looking around, wondering how the hell she's been flanked to the left in '08 and then again in '16.
I wish things had gone differently for her.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has been in politics for about the same amount of time. But I think he's been less susceptible to the general corruption for a few reasons. First off, he's kind of an ornery guy to start out with. On the aloofness scale, he makes Barack look like Bill. He's just not a schmoozer, although he's clearly passionate and empathetic.
Secondly, he's from one of the few states that's small and has a left-wing political culture, the kind of place where someone can get elected to national office without either big money or religious conservative support. (I suppose that Vermont, Minnesota and maybe Oregon are the only places like that anymore.)
And thirdly, he's a Jewish guy born in 1941. I can't imagine that not deeply coloring his worldview and particularly the dangers of right-wing capitalism.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'd be interested if anyone has thoughts on who will benefit from the 16-day break until NV.
Nevada Dems vote a week from Saturday, so that's 10 days.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2016
Nevada Dems vote a week from Saturday, so that's 10 days.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2016
More wackily, who might Trump select as a running mate? There's been talk about Scott Brown, but I think even the Republicans are realizing the White Dude Parade can only last so long. Trump is so batshit and brazen I can honest to god see him pulling in Sarah Palin for a second go-around.
posted by threeants at 10:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by threeants at 10:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll take 10 days!
posted by Room 641-A at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2016
The gaping hole at the heart of Hillary Clinton’s campaign: As Greg discussed this morning, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have very simple messages that are resonating with substantial parts of the base voters in each one’s party. Trump says that America is being played for chumps, and only a fantastic, luxurious individual like him can make us win again. Sanders says that the political system is corrupted by the influence of the wealthy and corporations, and a revolution delivered by an unsullied figure like him is necessary to break their stranglehold on our politics. Anyone who has paid attention to the campaign for five minutes understands what those messages are, whether you agree with either one of them or not.
Now tell me: what’s Hillary Clinton’s message?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Now tell me: what’s Hillary Clinton’s message?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Whereas the feeling I get from Hillary Clinton is that she generally began from a left-wing, feminist politics
With a stint working for Barry Goldwater at the beginning, just to muddy the waters.
posted by fifthrider at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
With a stint working for Barry Goldwater at the beginning, just to muddy the waters.
posted by fifthrider at 10:26 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Going to be pretty excited to see future polling in NV. December's a long time ago already at this point.
Very true, but if you read between the lines in the NYT you can get hints of the candidates' own private polling. It sounds like Sanders is doing well in Nevada. Not just this explicit claim that the polls have tightened (no evidence of that in the publicly available polling):
Polls in the state [Nevada] have tightened
but also the Clinton campaign is already beginning to suggest she will not do well in Nevada:
But on Tuesday, the Clinton campaign sought to play down expectations there [Nevada], too. “There’s an important Hispanic element to the Democratic caucus in Nevada,” a spokesman, Brian Fallon, told MSNBC. “But it’s still a state that is 80 percent white voters. You have a caucus-style format, and he’ll have the momentum coming out of New Hampshire.”
I assume we will get Nevada polls soon, and it will be interesting to see if they confirm this impression.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Very true, but if you read between the lines in the NYT you can get hints of the candidates' own private polling. It sounds like Sanders is doing well in Nevada. Not just this explicit claim that the polls have tightened (no evidence of that in the publicly available polling):
Polls in the state [Nevada] have tightened
but also the Clinton campaign is already beginning to suggest she will not do well in Nevada:
But on Tuesday, the Clinton campaign sought to play down expectations there [Nevada], too. “There’s an important Hispanic element to the Democratic caucus in Nevada,” a spokesman, Brian Fallon, told MSNBC. “But it’s still a state that is 80 percent white voters. You have a caucus-style format, and he’ll have the momentum coming out of New Hampshire.”
I assume we will get Nevada polls soon, and it will be interesting to see if they confirm this impression.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Would Hillary pick Elizabeth Warren as her VP, if she gets the nomination?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
With a stint working for Barry Goldwater at the beginning, just to muddy the waters.
And then she worked for Eugene McCarthy and McGovern, after she noticed how racist the Republicans were getting. She was young and figuring things out - can't fault her for that.
The past decade or so, though... different story.
posted by clawsoon at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
And then she worked for Eugene McCarthy and McGovern, after she noticed how racist the Republicans were getting. She was young and figuring things out - can't fault her for that.
The past decade or so, though... different story.
posted by clawsoon at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Would Hillary pick Elizabeth Warren as her VP, if she gets the nomination?
Would Elizabeth Warren let her?
posted by fifthrider at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
Would Elizabeth Warren let her?
posted by fifthrider at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
Warren as VP would be a complete waste of her talents. I assume my Senator will continue to show her good sense and decline the offer.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
Would Hillary pick Elizabeth Warren as her VP, if she gets the nomination?
Would Warren accept?
posted by Room 641-A at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2016
Would Warren accept?
posted by Room 641-A at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2016
The weasels are worried.
WARNING: Link not safe for people with high blood pressure.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
WARNING: Link not safe for people with high blood pressure.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
The weasels are worried.
Tony Fratto @TonyFratto
No one who attacks other Americans -- like @BernieSanders's attacks on our financial sector -- deserves to be President.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tony Fratto @TonyFratto
No one who attacks other Americans -- like @BernieSanders's attacks on our financial sector -- deserves to be President.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Financial sectors are people, my friend!
posted by Room 641-A at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 10:34 AM on February 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
Well, it seems like the thing Clinton would try to do, to burnish her campaign by balancing it with a more progressive running mate. Who else is there? I'm a fan of Ron Wyden myself, but not sure if he has any national recognition.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:35 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wish I could vote for him. I would be sad to lose the sole voice of reason on the Intelligence committee, though, after Udall lost his seat.
posted by grobstein at 10:36 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by grobstein at 10:36 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm hoping for Tammy Duckworth.
I was not aware of this badass representative. Now I'm imagining a world where Jim Webb somehow clinched the nomination and picked her to balance out the ticket.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I was not aware of this badass representative. Now I'm imagining a world where Jim Webb somehow clinched the nomination and picked her to balance out the ticket.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hmm, interesting. I think if Clinton defeats Sanders, she'll feel that the primary already forced her hand to become the "progressive" one herself and will seek a running mate who appears to be to her right.
posted by threeants at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by threeants at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2016
#MakeLobbyingGreatAgain may be the worst hashtag ever.
posted by clawsoon at 10:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 10:40 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think Tammy Duckworth could be a great choice for VP. Especially against the GOP candidates calling for more war, none of whom have actually served in the military.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Lets get a good-looking southern white man. We do need more of the male votes from Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Florida..
Suddenly, the quixotic candidacies of Webb and O'Malley start to make sense.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Suddenly, the quixotic candidacies of Webb and O'Malley start to make sense.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's time to start taking Donald Trump's scary foreign policy views seriously
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is so batshit and brazen I can honest to god see him pulling in Sarah Palin for a second go-around.
I don't know. If Trump is nominated, then things get a little nuts and anyone could be a VP pick. Maybe he wants to shore up moderate support? Maybe he wants another celebrity? Maybe he wants someone quieter, but competent to show he has a "numbers" person behind him? Maybe he wants to pick away at the youth vote? Maybe he'll use this opportunity to televise a reality TV series: "Who wants to be my running mate?"
posted by FJT at 10:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know. If Trump is nominated, then things get a little nuts and anyone could be a VP pick. Maybe he wants to shore up moderate support? Maybe he wants another celebrity? Maybe he wants someone quieter, but competent to show he has a "numbers" person behind him? Maybe he wants to pick away at the youth vote? Maybe he'll use this opportunity to televise a reality TV series: "Who wants to be my running mate?"
posted by FJT at 10:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The VP choice is usually a decision made mostly by committee, right? Or at least the job comes with certain demographic qualifications? If Trump wins, is that how he will pick his VP?
posted by Room 641-A at 10:54 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 10:54 AM on February 10, 2016
Surely Trump will pick himself as his running mate. Who else would he trust to do the job if he gets assassinated?
posted by clawsoon at 10:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 10:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
What about Ivanka for Trump's VP? Already a campaign surrogate, an outsider, thanks to Trump money not beholden to anyone. And a woman!
posted by crazy with stars at 10:56 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by crazy with stars at 10:56 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
He should ask Dick Cheney to come up with a VP for him.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
And thirdly, he's a Jewish guy born in 1941. I can't imagine that not deeply coloring his worldview and particularly the dangers of right-wing capitalism.
Is the implication that the Third Reich was a capitalist regime? The National Socialists opposed free market capitalism for a few reasons, one of which being that it was "Jewish". (Marxism was also "Jewish", of course). There was strict and considerable government control even in the pre-war Nazi economy. Göring essentially ran the economy.
posted by Tanizaki at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is the implication that the Third Reich was a capitalist regime? The National Socialists opposed free market capitalism for a few reasons, one of which being that it was "Jewish". (Marxism was also "Jewish", of course). There was strict and considerable government control even in the pre-war Nazi economy. Göring essentially ran the economy.
posted by Tanizaki at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trouncedIt's OK. E-WAR is actually a London-based singer songwriter who does Cat Power covers in a Mockney accent.
Please tell me this is not A Thing.
posted by Sonny Jim at 11:04 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wikipedia says that Ivanka will turn 35 on October 30th. Does that make her eligible?
posted by clawsoon at 11:06 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 11:06 AM on February 10, 2016
The VP choice is usually a decision made mostly by committee, right? Or at least the job comes with certain demographic qualifications?
It comes down to the nominee making a pick, albeit with the assistance (in the modern era) of a committee that narrows down a list, vets the people, floats trial balloons in public and private, and generally asks around. And technically, the National Convention also nominates the VP choice, but that's generally a formality once the Presidential nominee makes the pick.
If Trump is the nominee, most likely he'll assemble a selection committee mostly staffed with his people but with a few RNC picks just to let them feel good, give them a bunch of names, let them add in some of their own for whatever varying reasons (political triangulation, geographic triangulation, ethnic/gender diversity), and then ignore all that and pick who he was going to anyway.
posted by Etrigan at 11:07 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It comes down to the nominee making a pick, albeit with the assistance (in the modern era) of a committee that narrows down a list, vets the people, floats trial balloons in public and private, and generally asks around. And technically, the National Convention also nominates the VP choice, but that's generally a formality once the Presidential nominee makes the pick.
If Trump is the nominee, most likely he'll assemble a selection committee mostly staffed with his people but with a few RNC picks just to let them feel good, give them a bunch of names, let them add in some of their own for whatever varying reasons (political triangulation, geographic triangulation, ethnic/gender diversity), and then ignore all that and pick who he was going to anyway.
posted by Etrigan at 11:07 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
But fuck the electability argument 10 ways sideways since monday. This is now -- finally, squarely -- an issues race.
That's your passion talking, and your ahistorical willingness to overlook the fact that Sanders hasn't been attacked by the GOP yet.
posted by OmieWise at 11:09 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's your passion talking, and your ahistorical willingness to overlook the fact that Sanders hasn't been attacked by the GOP yet.
posted by OmieWise at 11:09 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is still the fulcrum of this election, Tom Toles:
You can call him whatever you want, but the fact remains that he’s the only candidate who is asking the fundamental question about the American economy. Do we accept the massive split in wealth that has occurred in this country as a given, or don’t we? All the other questions are subsidiary to this one. Before you can formulate any kind of economic policy, you have to answer that question. All other decisions follow. ...posted by dialetheia at 11:09 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
If we can get the question of wealth disparity squarely at the center of the policy argument, we will have the debate we have been avoiding for decades. Oh there have been laments about the seemingly mysterious massive gap in wealth, and crocodile tears, and to-be-sures. And mullings about whether it’s bad, or not so bad, or an utter outrage. Now let’s have the actual debate that Sanders is driving onto the public stage. Let’s hear Hillary address this squarely. What, if anything, can be done about it, and will what we might try actually work?
That's your passion talking, and your ahistorical willingness to overlook the fact that Sanders hasn't been attacked by the GOP yet.
I do wonder what the Rove machine will come up with.
posted by Trochanter at 11:10 AM on February 10, 2016
I do wonder what the Rove machine will come up with.
posted by Trochanter at 11:10 AM on February 10, 2016
I just want to note that my 81 year old mother, who was in the same social and activist circles as Steinem, back in the day, who has a framed photo of herself with the Clintons, who in '08 stood in the rain for hours to see Hillary and who I suspect has given several thousand dollars to various Clinton campaigns over the years (I could check but I don't want to know), my 81 year old mother told me today that she's starting next week as a phonebank volunteer. For Sanders.
posted by anastasiav at 11:11 AM on February 10, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by anastasiav at 11:11 AM on February 10, 2016 [43 favorites]
Anastasiav, are you sure your mother isn't just looking to meet boys?
I kid! :)
posted by ian1977 at 11:14 AM on February 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
I kid! :)
posted by ian1977 at 11:14 AM on February 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
Notable:
> Trump says that America is being played for chumps, and only a fantastic, luxurious individual like him can make us win again.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:14 AM on February 10, 2016
> Trump says that America is being played for chumps, and only a fantastic, luxurious individual like him can make us win again.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:14 AM on February 10, 2016
Anastasiav, are you sure your mother isn't just looking to meet boys?
Honestly, anything is possible.
posted by anastasiav at 11:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Honestly, anything is possible.
posted by anastasiav at 11:15 AM on February 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
I'd rather have them attack Sanders for his radical politics than attack Clinton for her FBI email investigation, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, her contradictory record, her troubling Wall Street ties, her husband's disgusting behavior, etc etc. One nice thing about nominating a guy like Sanders is that he's been saying and doing the exact same things for damn near 40 years. I'm sure they can dig up some weird radical stuff in his past, but he's not exactly going to have a Whitewater or a Paula Jones or an email server issue lingering out there. And sure, he's a democratic socialist. But he's not lying about it.
Re: electability, I'm curious - when was the last time a Secretary of State ran for president? Have they done well?
posted by dialetheia at 11:17 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Re: electability, I'm curious - when was the last time a Secretary of State ran for president? Have they done well?
posted by dialetheia at 11:17 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
...and then ignore all that and pick who he was going to anyway.
That's what he did with the Miss Universe pageant, anyway. Pretty sure he allowed himself to pick the final ten. Judges schmudges.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's what he did with the Miss Universe pageant, anyway. Pretty sure he allowed himself to pick the final ten. Judges schmudges.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a fan of Ron Wyden myself...
"U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden continues to passionately defend President Barack Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multi-nation deal that would reshape global trade." presumably for nike[1,2,3]
posted by kliuless at 11:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
"U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden continues to passionately defend President Barack Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multi-nation deal that would reshape global trade." presumably for nike[1,2,3]
posted by kliuless at 11:19 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wikipedia says that Ivanka will turn 35 on October 30th. Does that make her eligible?
Wikipedia says: "By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be ... at least 35 years old." So I think Ivanka is good.
I see upthread Omarosa has also been proposed -- another strong possibility.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:20 AM on February 10, 2016
Wikipedia says: "By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be ... at least 35 years old." So I think Ivanka is good.
I see upthread Omarosa has also been proposed -- another strong possibility.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:20 AM on February 10, 2016
I just got attacked on Facebook by a Trump supporter. I feel like I need to bathe now.
posted by bardophile at 11:21 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 11:21 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do wonder what the Rove machine will come up with.
They're going to give Rove a whiteboard and pack of dry erase pens and stick him the rec room until it's time to leave. Karl Rove's party has left the building.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2016
They're going to give Rove a whiteboard and pack of dry erase pens and stick him the rec room until it's time to leave. Karl Rove's party has left the building.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2016
I'd rather have them attack Sanders for his radical politics than attack Clinton for her FBI email investigation, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, her con
Agree. Attacks on Bernie might have a rubber band effect when he basically looks back at them and says 'so?'
posted by ian1977 at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Agree. Attacks on Bernie might have a rubber band effect when he basically looks back at them and says 'so?'
posted by ian1977 at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Court orders DoJ to explain Hillary Clinton email delay: A federal judge on Tuesday gave the Justice Department one day to explain why portions of the remaining 3,700 emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state can't be produced by Feb. 18. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras also gave the government until Friday to provide a detailed explanation of how the roughly 7,000 pages of emails were overlooked and not sent for interagency consultation earlier.
posted by dialetheia at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016
One attack ballon that the right already floated: He's a National Socialist. Because he likes socialism. And nationalism.
posted by clawsoon at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics.Hopefully they keep trying that one.
posted by clawsoon at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just had a chance to read the transcript of Sanders' speech from last night.
I hope that in the days ahead we can continue to wage a strong, issue oriented campaign, and bring new people into the political process.posted by audi alteram partem at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
But, I also hope that we all remember — and this is a message not just to our opponents, but to those who support me as well. That we will need to come together in a few months and unite this party, and this nation because the right-wing Republicans we oppose must not be allowed to gain the presidency.
As we all remember, the last time Republicans occupied the White House, their trickle down economic policies drove us into the worst economic downturn since the depression of the 1930’s. No, we will not allow huge tax breaks for billionaires, we will not allow packed — huge cuts to social security, veterans needs, Medicare, MedicAid, and education. No, we will not allow back into the White House a political party which is so beholden to the fossil fuel industry that they cannot even acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change.
I'd rather have them attack Sanders for his radical politics...
Maybe, but who's interested in a war of ideas? It'd be much easier to paint him as a peacenik rube from the northwoods who's almost Canadian, and 'sit down, grandpa'.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016
Maybe, but who's interested in a war of ideas? It'd be much easier to paint him as a peacenik rube from the northwoods who's almost Canadian, and 'sit down, grandpa'.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:23 AM on February 10, 2016
Obama speaking on political unity now on MSNBC
I see upthread Omarosa has also been proposed -- another strong possibility.
No one has mentioned Martha.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:24 AM on February 10, 2016
I see upthread Omarosa has also been proposed -- another strong possibility.
No one has mentioned Martha.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:24 AM on February 10, 2016
just got attacked on Facebook by a Trump supporter
Better than being praised by one!
posted by ian1977 at 11:24 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Better than being praised by one!
posted by ian1977 at 11:24 AM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
when was the last time a Secretary of State ran for president? Have they done well?
Alexander Haig in 1988.
posted by sporkwort at 11:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Alexander Haig in 1988.
posted by sporkwort at 11:25 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
After Sanders' Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here's Why It's Bullshit.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:27 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
when was the last time a Secretary of State ran for president? Have they done well?
The last Secretary of State who ran for President was Alexander Haig in 1988. The last Secretary of State to win was Buchanan in 1856 (!). Apparently it's become a lot less common since the Civil War.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:28 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The last Secretary of State who ran for President was Alexander Haig in 1988. The last Secretary of State to win was Buchanan in 1856 (!). Apparently it's become a lot less common since the Civil War.
posted by crazy with stars at 11:28 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Secretary of State bit is particularly interesting to me because I'm not sure that most Democratic voters (or any voters!) are even informed enough about foreign policy and how things are really going in the Middle East to really have an informed opinion on whether we want to run primarily on that record. It has a lot of potential pitfalls beyond just Benghazi. I certainly don't feel like I'm well enough informed to know whether I want to put all of my Presidential eggs into that basket. I have a lot of misgivings about how Libya was handled, and from all appearances, Clinton wanted to double down on what appeared to be a fairly problematic intervention. Foreign policy elections tend to favor Republicans, even if she does have relevant experience.
posted by dialetheia at 11:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump: Only Sanders And I Know U.S. 'Being Ripped Off' In Trade Deals
posted by dialetheia at 11:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 11:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is the implication that the Third Reich was a capitalist regime?
You're right, that's sort of sloppy on my part. I guess what I mean to say is that in the US today, there are particular confluences of economic crisis, incestuous government-corporate relationships and racial tension that I expect are particularly alarming to someone of Bernie Sanders' age and ethnic background.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
You're right, that's sort of sloppy on my part. I guess what I mean to say is that in the US today, there are particular confluences of economic crisis, incestuous government-corporate relationships and racial tension that I expect are particularly alarming to someone of Bernie Sanders' age and ethnic background.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:32 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
overlook the fact that Sanders hasn't been attacked by the GOP yet.
A GOP that cannot prevent a Trump nomination is not a threat to Bernie Sanders' electability.
posted by an animate objects at 11:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
A GOP that cannot prevent a Trump nomination is not a threat to Bernie Sanders' electability.
posted by an animate objects at 11:37 AM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
And sure, he's a democratic socialist. But he's not lying about it.
He is, though, or more charitably trying to invent "socialism with American characteristics" as the Chinese Communists did when they wanted to have capitalism but call it socialism.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
He is, though, or more charitably trying to invent "socialism with American characteristics" as the Chinese Communists did when they wanted to have capitalism but call it socialism.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
A GOP that cannot prevent a Trump nomination is not a threat to Bernie Sanders' electability.
what
posted by OmieWise at 11:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
what
posted by OmieWise at 11:39 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is from October, but I think it's very interesting. How I Got Trans Rights on Bernie Sanders Radar. And You Should, Too.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:41 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:41 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
A GOP that cannot prevent a Trump nomination is not a threat to Bernie Sanders' electability.
The point about their competency is well taken, but let's not pretend it's the same thing. Trump is a problem because they need to balance their desire to keep this person from getting the nomination against their need to get the people who support him to come out for the general election. They have no such restraints about a D candidate; someone who stays home rather than voting D is a perfectly fine result for them.
posted by phearlez at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The point about their competency is well taken, but let's not pretend it's the same thing. Trump is a problem because they need to balance their desire to keep this person from getting the nomination against their need to get the people who support him to come out for the general election. They have no such restraints about a D candidate; someone who stays home rather than voting D is a perfectly fine result for them.
posted by phearlez at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wyden's support for the TPP is regrettable, but his support for reform against the surveillance state is not.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:44 AM on February 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:44 AM on February 10, 2016
Man oh man. That National Review article. Really speaks to the desperation the Republicans are feeling that the best they can do for a hit on Sanders is to insinuate that he's a Nazi, when his likely opponent, were he to win the primary, has been espousing actual fascism.
posted by threeants at 11:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by threeants at 11:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
Here's a preview of how the right wing is going to attack her on the email thing. They're going to argue that she gave him access to top secret information to enrich the Clinton Foundation. There are clear conflicts of interest, especially given how many countries and corporations donated huge sums of money to the Clinton Foundation even while they were lobbying the State Department. It's not just a minor paperwork scandal anymore.
posted by dialetheia at 11:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:45 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
phrases from the National Review article linked above:
weirdo socialist from Soviet Beninjerristan
incessant reliance on xenophobic (and largely untrue) tropes holding that the current economic woes of the United States are the result of scheming foreigners, especially the wicked Chinese, “stealing our jobs”
If the First Amendment enables Them [Wall Street], then the First Amendment has got to go.
a daft old man (Occupy Geritol!)
YOU DO YOU, NATIONAL REVIEW. I particularly like "Beninjerristan". Because let's associate politicians we want everyone to hate with things everyone already hates, like ice cream.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:49 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
weirdo socialist from Soviet Beninjerristan
incessant reliance on xenophobic (and largely untrue) tropes holding that the current economic woes of the United States are the result of scheming foreigners, especially the wicked Chinese, “stealing our jobs”
If the First Amendment enables Them [Wall Street], then the First Amendment has got to go.
a daft old man (Occupy Geritol!)
YOU DO YOU, NATIONAL REVIEW. I particularly like "Beninjerristan". Because let's associate politicians we want everyone to hate with things everyone already hates, like ice cream.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:49 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Trump: Only Sanders And I Know U.S. 'Being Ripped Off' In Trade Deals
In their diagnosis of the Wall Street power problem in American politics, Trump and Sanders have both caught some lightning. They disagree about solutions, obviously, but their diagnosis - and the fact that so many voters agree with them - is scary for the people at the centre.
A Sanders-Trump debate would be an entertaining event.
posted by clawsoon at 11:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
In their diagnosis of the Wall Street power problem in American politics, Trump and Sanders have both caught some lightning. They disagree about solutions, obviously, but their diagnosis - and the fact that so many voters agree with them - is scary for the people at the centre.
A Sanders-Trump debate would be an entertaining event.
posted by clawsoon at 11:51 AM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here's Why It's Bullshit.
Yeah, add to this it's a bit difficult to bang the "We've got the super delegates in our pocket" drum without also hitting the "The fix is in for the establishment candidate" drum.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yeah, add to this it's a bit difficult to bang the "We've got the super delegates in our pocket" drum without also hitting the "The fix is in for the establishment candidate" drum.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bernie Sanders campaign says he has raised $5.2 million since yesterday. The average contribution is $34
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
So, let's start looking forward.
Sanders/Duckworth 2016
Liz Warren goes to Treasury.
Alan Grayson goes to Defense.
Willie Nelson as Ambassador to the UN.
posted by mikelieman at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sanders/Duckworth 2016
Liz Warren goes to Treasury.
Alan Grayson goes to Defense.
Willie Nelson as Ambassador to the UN.
posted by mikelieman at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I would move to Beninjerristan. If there's free ice cream.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bernie Sanders campaign says he has raised $5.2 million since yesterday. The average contribution is $34
Twice Chai is 36. I am ABOVE AVERAGE!
posted by mikelieman at 11:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Twice Chai is 36. I am ABOVE AVERAGE!
posted by mikelieman at 11:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Wednesday that Republicans would be happy if former Michael Bloomberg launched a third-party White House campaign.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would move to Beninjerristan. If there's free ice cream.
There's free ice cream but you won't get across the border without disavowing popsicles.
posted by an animate objects at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's free ice cream but you won't get across the border without disavowing popsicles.
posted by an animate objects at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Man oh man. That National Review article. Really speaks to the desperation the Republicans are feeling
This "desperation" will come to an abrupt end the second (if/when) Trump secures the nomination. After that it will be all about circling the wagons and making sure the status quo is disturbed as little as possible.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
This "desperation" will come to an abrupt end the second (if/when) Trump secures the nomination. After that it will be all about circling the wagons and making sure the status quo is disturbed as little as possible.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Willie Nelson as Ambassador to the UN.
I didn't know I wanted to see Willie and Trigger serenading Putin before, but now I can't think of anything else. I'll just have to go with Putin serenading us.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:57 AM on February 10, 2016
I didn't know I wanted to see Willie and Trigger serenading Putin before, but now I can't think of anything else. I'll just have to go with Putin serenading us.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:57 AM on February 10, 2016
You know, I think we need to create space to acknowledge the massive influence of sexism on politics (well, on life) while also recognizing that specific women may not deserve our electoral approval. The Clintons are dirty as hell. In a fairer world, Hillary may just as easily have been the 42nd president, and Bill the ambitious spouse waiting in the wings. That's not fair at all. But it also doesn't mean we all have to collectively fall on her sword.
posted by threeants at 11:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by threeants at 11:57 AM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Oh it won't come to an end but it won't stop them from stumping for him to win. There will just also be massive skunkworks stood up to try to figure out ways to control him. That's just not for the public view.
I wonder if it would even be all that hard. Trump's well-heeled but he's also heavily leveraged. That surely leaves him vulnerable to the true billionaires.
posted by phearlez at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2016
I wonder if it would even be all that hard. Trump's well-heeled but he's also heavily leveraged. That surely leaves him vulnerable to the true billionaires.
posted by phearlez at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2016
From the superdelegates article linked above:
To which I say, why not? There have been enough "Surely, this..." moments in the history of the Democratic Party to convince me that they prefer continuity/the establishment to democracy. Why have any faith in the democratic nature of the Democratic Party?
If it comes down to superdelegates, I don't think, as someone stated above, the Trotskyists will be proven wrong.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Q: From everything you’ve told me so far, I can’t understand why you’re calling Superdelegate votes “irrelevant.” It seems to me like they have the same voting power as a normal delegate, and this puts Sanders in a tremendous hole from the word “go.”In the same article that the author points out massive problems with the DNC and the ways that the election is skewed in Hillary's favor, he comes to the opposite conclusion of where the evidence leads: that the DNC would never, never ignore the will of the people on the issue of choosing the nominee based on superdelegates.
A: Here’s why it doesn’t matter: Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.
...
Even the Democratic power structure isn’t so short-sighted that it would cut off its nose to spite its face.
To which I say, why not? There have been enough "Surely, this..." moments in the history of the Democratic Party to convince me that they prefer continuity/the establishment to democracy. Why have any faith in the democratic nature of the Democratic Party?
If it comes down to superdelegates, I don't think, as someone stated above, the Trotskyists will be proven wrong.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:59 AM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio has a big choice: go after Trump hard and prove he's the best alternative, or go Full Christie and kneecap someone else for no reason.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The DNC Just Screwed Over Bernie Sanders and Spit in Voters’ Faces
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders
posted by cjorgensen at 12:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders
posted by cjorgensen at 12:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
You know, I think we need to create space to acknowledge the massive influence of sexism on politics (well, on life) while also recognizing that specific women may not deserve our electoral approval.
QFT. As a woman/feminist, I lament the fact that for Hillary Clinton, a smart ambitious woman, her best chance for achieving her own political success was by hitching her wagon to a successful man - and staying hitched to him, in spite of the fact that he's a douchebag. There is no way to separate her choices w/r/t Bill from the fact that the patriarchy limits her options. But, at the same time, her actual political positions are not in line with mine. So, I can feel empathy for her, as a woman trying to do her best in a system that oppresses women, and still not want to vote for her.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
QFT. As a woman/feminist, I lament the fact that for Hillary Clinton, a smart ambitious woman, her best chance for achieving her own political success was by hitching her wagon to a successful man - and staying hitched to him, in spite of the fact that he's a douchebag. There is no way to separate her choices w/r/t Bill from the fact that the patriarchy limits her options. But, at the same time, her actual political positions are not in line with mine. So, I can feel empathy for her, as a woman trying to do her best in a system that oppresses women, and still not want to vote for her.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Nice try by the DNC to shut down the momentum. I don't think that's going to work for them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:02 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders
Holy shit.
posted by an animate objects at 12:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Holy shit.
posted by an animate objects at 12:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
If it comes down to superdelegates, I don't think, as someone stated above, the Trotskyists will be proven wrong.
Serious question: do you think the same thing about the Republican party and that they'd be willing to tank an election rather than elect someone they consider as toxic as Trump?
Because I do not, but then I think both parties will pick a course of action that will - in order - (1) best win them the upcoming election and (2) preserve their power. Subverting the desires of your party members is a recipe for losing the upcoming election and driving people away from the party for future elections.
posted by phearlez at 12:03 PM on February 10, 2016
Serious question: do you think the same thing about the Republican party and that they'd be willing to tank an election rather than elect someone they consider as toxic as Trump?
Because I do not, but then I think both parties will pick a course of action that will - in order - (1) best win them the upcoming election and (2) preserve their power. Subverting the desires of your party members is a recipe for losing the upcoming election and driving people away from the party for future elections.
posted by phearlez at 12:03 PM on February 10, 2016
Here's a preview of how the right wing is going to attack her on the email thing.
It's not going to work. It's going to make the right wing seem even more unhinged, obsessive, and opportunistic.
The only way it will actually matter is if they win the election.
posted by FJT at 12:05 PM on February 10, 2016
It's not going to work. It's going to make the right wing seem even more unhinged, obsessive, and opportunistic.
The only way it will actually matter is if they win the election.
posted by FJT at 12:05 PM on February 10, 2016
Apparently, Bloomberg (73) will enter the race if Sanders is (likely to be) the Dems' nominee. In that case, the sane vote will be split among Sanders and Bloomberg, which may leave the majority for Trump.
I'll just note this is how we ended up with our current fuckwit Governor.
posted by anastasiav at 12:05 PM on February 10, 2016
I'll just note this is how we ended up with our current fuckwit Governor.
posted by anastasiav at 12:05 PM on February 10, 2016
The Sanders Coalition: Not what we thought it was, NBC:
Bernie Sanders' coalition may be quite different - and much bigger - than has been assumed. That is one of the takeaways from his New Hampshire primary rout, in which Sanders scored impressively with voters who had been crucial to Hillary Clinton's 2008 victory in the state.posted by dialetheia at 12:06 PM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Sanders bested Clinton across virtually all regional and demographic boundaries in the Granite State, crushing her overall by 22 points. But he fared best with economically downscale voters and won over a number of blue-collar cities and towns that had been Clinton redoubts in her 2008 campaign. In so doing, Sanders essentially flipped the '08 script, in which Clinton's main challenger, Barack Obama, relied disproportionately on higher-income voters and those with college degrees. ...
There's also the geography of Sanders' win. While he claimed almost every city and town in the New Hampshire, he didn't fare much better than Obama in many of the state's more upscale liberal areas. In Hanover, home of Dartmouth College, Sanders ran just 281 votes ahead of Clinton, a margin of 6.5 points. Eight years ago, Obama won that same town by 32 points, a plurality of more than 1,500 votes. In the coastal city of Portsmouth, another liberal enclave, Sanders performed only modestly better (a 12-point win) than Obama (6 points).
But it was a very different story in the state's older, post-industrial cities and towns, where Sanders improved by leaps and bounds over Obama's '08 performance. Take Berlin, a struggling mill city in the North Country, where Obama actually ran third, behind John Edwards. Clinton was so strong in Berlin in '08 that her vote total actually exceeded that of Obama's and Edwards' combined. But this time, she lost the city by 13 points to Sanders. Rochester, another blue-collar mill town, was another Clinton stronghold in '08, where she ran up a 976-vote plurality over Obama - a 16-point margin. Sanders, though, won Rochester Tuesday by 21 points.
As a woman/feminist, I lament the fact that for Hillary Clinton, a smart ambitious woman, her best chance for achieving her own political success was by hitching her wagon to a successful man - and staying hitched to him, in spite of the fact that he's a douchebag. There is no way to separate her choices w/r/t Bill from the fact that the patriarchy limits her options. But, at the same time, her actual political positions are not in line with mine. So, I can feel empathy for her, as a woman trying to do her best in a system that oppresses women, and still not want to vote for her.I would suggest Bill wouldn't have made it nearly as far with political success if he hadn't hitched himself to Hillary's wagon.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:06 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
> I'll just note this is how we ended up with our current fuckwit Governor.
It's also more or less how Rob Ford became mayor of Toronto. That worked out pretty well!
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's also more or less how Rob Ford became mayor of Toronto. That worked out pretty well!
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Willie Nelson as Ambassador to the UN.
There's no problem that can't be solved on Willie's tour bus, between you, Willie, and His Excellency the Jamaican Ambassador.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:08 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's no problem that can't be solved on Willie's tour bus, between you, Willie, and His Excellency the Jamaican Ambassador.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:08 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not going to work. It's going to make the right wing seem even more unhinged, obsessive, and opportunistic.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I find the bare fact that she kept a private email server troubling on its face. Combined with the obvious conflicts of interest, it could be a very big story. And it's not just the wacko right wing reporting on those blatant conflicts of interest, either.
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I find the bare fact that she kept a private email server troubling on its face. Combined with the obvious conflicts of interest, it could be a very big story. And it's not just the wacko right wing reporting on those blatant conflicts of interest, either.
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
That's not a "quirk"; that's systematic corruption and vote rigging.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would suggest Bill wouldn't have made it nearly as far with political success if he hadn't hitched himself to Hillary's wagon.
Oh absolutely. Same goes for Reagan. And Roosevelt. And Wilson. And Madison. And....well, a lot of our past presidents. Women have been running the country behind the scenes for a long time.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh absolutely. Same goes for Reagan. And Roosevelt. And Wilson. And Madison. And....well, a lot of our past presidents. Women have been running the country behind the scenes for a long time.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Fiorina Cheers Self Up by Firing Campaign Staff
posted by homunculus at 12:14 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 12:14 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I would move to Beninjerristan. If there's free ice cream.
So you fancy yourself a Democratic Ice Cream Socialist?
posted by cortex at 12:17 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
So you fancy yourself a Democratic Ice Cream Socialist?
posted by cortex at 12:17 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fiorina just "suspended" her campaign.
posted by misterpatrick at 12:20 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by misterpatrick at 12:20 PM on February 10, 2016
> I'll just note this is how we ended up with our current fuckwit Governor.
It's also more or less how Rob Ford became mayor of Toronto. That worked out pretty well!
It's also how we got Bill Clinton.
posted by Etrigan at 12:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's also more or less how Rob Ford became mayor of Toronto. That worked out pretty well!
It's also how we got Bill Clinton.
posted by Etrigan at 12:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ice Cream Socialist
Where can I buy this t-shirt?
posted by cmfletcher at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Where can I buy this t-shirt?
posted by cmfletcher at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
And it's how we got Rachael Notley in Alberta.
posted by clawsoon at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's also how we got Bill Clinton.
If I have to choose between LePage or any Clinton I'll take the Clinton every time. Even Roger.
posted by anastasiav at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
If I have to choose between LePage or any Clinton I'll take the Clinton every time. Even Roger.
posted by anastasiav at 12:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Apparently, Bloomberg (73) will enter the race if Sanders is (likely to be) the Dems' nominee. In that case, the sane vote will be split among Sanders and Bloomberg, which may leave the majority for Trump.
If it's Sanders vs Trump vs Bloomberg, a lot of establishment Republicans would go for Bloomberg over Trump, too. They hate Trump. It wouldn't just split the Democratic vote.
posted by dialetheia at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
If it's Sanders vs Trump vs Bloomberg, a lot of establishment Republicans would go for Bloomberg over Trump, too. They hate Trump. It wouldn't just split the Democratic vote.
posted by dialetheia at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think Bloomberg could be as much of a spoiler for the GOP as for the Dems.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, if Bloomberg runs, he wins, I think no matter who else is there. He pulls from both sides evenly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:27 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:27 PM on February 10, 2016
That's not a "quirk"; that's systematic corruption and vote rigging.
I see the point of it. (If the Republicans had a similar system, they wouldn't be panicking so hard about Trump.)
Say for instance that there were a populist blue-dog type, like a next-generation Dixiecrat, that was just going to be racist and horrible, but the rest of the field was too fragmented to take on this person who obviously didn't represent Democratic party values. That's where you do want the party leaders to step in to put their finger on the scale and avoid a nasty floor fight at the convention.
Of course the way it works right now is problematic because it's fundamentally misleading, as has been pointed out above.
I'd like to see a system where delegates are divided proportionately. Convert all the caucuses to primaries. Have Iowa and New Hampshire be on the same day so they can keep their goddamn first-in-the-nation gold stars, plus add in SC and NV on that day as well. Thus you have a mini-Super Tuesday to kick off the season -- media markets are small enough to give outsiders a chance, while candidates who can muster support across regional and racial lines are favored.
Give sitting Congresspersons & Senators, current and former Presidents & VPs, sitting governors and mayors of cities with >100,000 people a superdelegate vote. Superdelegates vote in a bloc, and vote only if no candidate has a majority of the regular delegates.
That way the people get to decide in a relatively transparent process that is diverse-by-design, and the party leaders can step in in the case of divisive factionalism or other weirdness.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:27 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I see the point of it. (If the Republicans had a similar system, they wouldn't be panicking so hard about Trump.)
Say for instance that there were a populist blue-dog type, like a next-generation Dixiecrat, that was just going to be racist and horrible, but the rest of the field was too fragmented to take on this person who obviously didn't represent Democratic party values. That's where you do want the party leaders to step in to put their finger on the scale and avoid a nasty floor fight at the convention.
Of course the way it works right now is problematic because it's fundamentally misleading, as has been pointed out above.
I'd like to see a system where delegates are divided proportionately. Convert all the caucuses to primaries. Have Iowa and New Hampshire be on the same day so they can keep their goddamn first-in-the-nation gold stars, plus add in SC and NV on that day as well. Thus you have a mini-Super Tuesday to kick off the season -- media markets are small enough to give outsiders a chance, while candidates who can muster support across regional and racial lines are favored.
Give sitting Congresspersons & Senators, current and former Presidents & VPs, sitting governors and mayors of cities with >100,000 people a superdelegate vote. Superdelegates vote in a bloc, and vote only if no candidate has a majority of the regular delegates.
That way the people get to decide in a relatively transparent process that is diverse-by-design, and the party leaders can step in in the case of divisive factionalism or other weirdness.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:27 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The beautiful thing about having a GOP field packed with Terrible Human Beings is the solace that comes with the knowledge that, over the course of the primary season, we'll get to enjoy watching all of them, save one, go down in flames.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Shaun King's endorsement of Sanders in the NY Daily News
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:29 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:29 PM on February 10, 2016
I have a hard time believing that the superdelegates will be an issue - One very positive thing about all of this is that it's bringing to light a practice from the DNC that was explicitly put in place for them to retain power and subvert the will of the people. Hopefully, this is generating a greater awareness of how the DNC truly operates.
If the vote is ultimately decided by only the superdelegates, against the will of the people, then they will have detonated a strategic nuke in a game of mutually assured destruction. It would not be remotely subtle, and the only reason that they would do it would be if they believed that their supporters are completely ignorant. It exists as a device to influence in practice, with no expectation of actually being used for the scenario in which it was built.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
If the vote is ultimately decided by only the superdelegates, against the will of the people, then they will have detonated a strategic nuke in a game of mutually assured destruction. It would not be remotely subtle, and the only reason that they would do it would be if they believed that their supporters are completely ignorant. It exists as a device to influence in practice, with no expectation of actually being used for the scenario in which it was built.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've been saying that if Bloomberg enters into a Sanders/Trump race, it's all up in the air. He'll poach the timid, rich, establishment Democrats as well as the "moderate" paleocon Republicans. He'll never win, but all bets are off at that point.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:30 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:30 PM on February 10, 2016
Ted Cruz says that if he is elected, Heidi will french fries back to the cafeteria!
So vote for me and I'll get to eat french fries in my big new house!
posted by Room 641-A at 12:31 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
So vote for me and I'll get to eat french fries in my big new house!
posted by Room 641-A at 12:31 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I find the bare fact that she kept a private email server troubling on its face. Combined with the obvious conflicts of interest, it could be a very big story.
Big Defense selling weapons to US allies is not a criticism the Right will make at all. And the focus of the investigation (and the focus of the Right) is on private server thing itself. In the general election, it will be a non-issue among most Democrats.
But for Republicans it "could" be a very big story, as you said. But it just gets thrown into the pile of everything else they hate about Hillary Clinton.
I just don't think this will be the thing that causes her to lose.
posted by FJT at 12:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Big Defense selling weapons to US allies is not a criticism the Right will make at all. And the focus of the investigation (and the focus of the Right) is on private server thing itself. In the general election, it will be a non-issue among most Democrats.
But for Republicans it "could" be a very big story, as you said. But it just gets thrown into the pile of everything else they hate about Hillary Clinton.
I just don't think this will be the thing that causes her to lose.
posted by FJT at 12:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Freedom fries, Ted.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, if Bloomberg runs, he wins, I think no matter who else is there. He pulls from both sides evenly.
I would think if that were the case, it would most likely throw the election to the dreaded House vote. Which... would not be good.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would think if that were the case, it would most likely throw the election to the dreaded House vote. Which... would not be good.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Am I right in reading the Bloomberg scenario as just a way for "the establishment" to have a contingency plan for this race?
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:33 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:33 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean an all-out Bloomberg campaign would probably result in the election going to the House, to be decided by weird rules that strongly favor small rural states and the far right, and they'd pick some weirdo straight out of Handmaid's Tale, and we'd all have to stop pretending that the American empire is a democracy.
it would be some shit. probably we would have to make serious plans to move to a democracy if that came to pass.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
it would be some shit. probably we would have to make serious plans to move to a democracy if that came to pass.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Am I right in reading the Bloomberg scenario as just a way for "the establishment" to have a contingency plan for this race?
That's certainly how it reads to me. "Someone that Wall Street wouldn't have to worry about" is a paraphrase of a quote I read in praise of Bloomberg recently.
posted by clawsoon at 12:36 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's certainly how it reads to me. "Someone that Wall Street wouldn't have to worry about" is a paraphrase of a quote I read in praise of Bloomberg recently.
posted by clawsoon at 12:36 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
And the focus of the investigation (and the focus of the Right) is on private server thing itself.
No, it's not - that Monica Crowley article I linked to was all about the ties to Bill and the Clinton Foundation, and FBI leaks have alleged that they are looking into corruption with the Clinton Foundation and conflicts of interest as well. The thing that is poisonous about the email scandal is that it confirms the narrative about her being dishonest and putting herself and her own self-interest above the law and the public interest.
posted by dialetheia at 12:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, it's not - that Monica Crowley article I linked to was all about the ties to Bill and the Clinton Foundation, and FBI leaks have alleged that they are looking into corruption with the Clinton Foundation and conflicts of interest as well. The thing that is poisonous about the email scandal is that it confirms the narrative about her being dishonest and putting herself and her own self-interest above the law and the public interest.
posted by dialetheia at 12:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thinking about the current Sanders/Clinton situation, I really don't really see how the DNC comes out of this any stronger than they were before, no matter what the outcome is. Keeping that in mind, it's not entirely impossible that they'd detonate the superdelegate device out of desperation. If they do so, it's because they have already lost a great deal. Ultimately, they are going to need to find a way to bring in Sanders supporters if they want to retain support. I would argue that them accepting the leftwards shift and doing so would be much better for them in the long run, but I don't know if I have any reason to believe that they'd do so.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:39 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:39 PM on February 10, 2016
Bloomberg has very high unfavorables (49% unfavorable) and this is concentrated among Republican voters because of his gun control advocacy. Current polls have him shifting the election to Trump in a theoretical Clinton-Trump or Bernie-Trump matchup.
posted by humanfont at 12:42 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 12:42 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's no problem that can't be solved on Willie's tour bus, between you, Willie, and His Excellency the Jamaican Ambassador.
I never tire of repeating this story, although I suspect I've told it on MeFI before. During the 2000 election I had the privilege of interviewing Willie Nelson on his tour bus after a show in New Brunswick (I was a DJ at the time, I'd met him before but never talked with him).
Willie was a strong Nader supporter then, actively campaigning for him (centered on concerns for rural America and legal weed). The Jamaican ambassador was very much present. Yes, I smoked up with Willie Nelson.
Also, Wes Montgomery influenced him more the Django Reinhardt. When I hypothesized this to him as my initial question (guitar playing super fan) he looked theatrically over his glasses at me and said, with a shocked expression, "What radio station did you say you were from?"
posted by spitbull at 12:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
I never tire of repeating this story, although I suspect I've told it on MeFI before. During the 2000 election I had the privilege of interviewing Willie Nelson on his tour bus after a show in New Brunswick (I was a DJ at the time, I'd met him before but never talked with him).
Willie was a strong Nader supporter then, actively campaigning for him (centered on concerns for rural America and legal weed). The Jamaican ambassador was very much present. Yes, I smoked up with Willie Nelson.
Also, Wes Montgomery influenced him more the Django Reinhardt. When I hypothesized this to him as my initial question (guitar playing super fan) he looked theatrically over his glasses at me and said, with a shocked expression, "What radio station did you say you were from?"
posted by spitbull at 12:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
I am not sure current polls mean anything about November, nevermind a week from now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
My personal politics entirely set aside and speaking as an IT guy, the use of a private email server gave me the creeps from the very first time that I heard about it.
Now I read my personal GMail here at work, but I don't use GMail for work things because we have Laws about how to handle student data and I don't want any of it ending up there by mistake. And the best way to not make a mistake is to be scrupulous about not crossing the streams. How could she have done that? Well, don't talk about Work Stuff outside of work, I guess -- in other words, keep a firewall between the professional and the personal.
As a person pretty likely to vote D this year, I was ready to blow off this issue (as FJT suggested)…but lately I am not seeing her come out of this squeaky clean and it makes me hesitant. I would be very grateful for a clear-cut verdict, and the longer it drags on, the more disheartened I become.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Now I read my personal GMail here at work, but I don't use GMail for work things because we have Laws about how to handle student data and I don't want any of it ending up there by mistake. And the best way to not make a mistake is to be scrupulous about not crossing the streams. How could she have done that? Well, don't talk about Work Stuff outside of work, I guess -- in other words, keep a firewall between the professional and the personal.
As a person pretty likely to vote D this year, I was ready to blow off this issue (as FJT suggested)…but lately I am not seeing her come out of this squeaky clean and it makes me hesitant. I would be very grateful for a clear-cut verdict, and the longer it drags on, the more disheartened I become.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
If the polls are showing a similar outcome close to election day, I'd hope the vast overwhelming majority of Democrats would take a deep breath, pray for forgiveness, and vote Bloomberg. On the other hand, that foot is right there, and it's so tempting to shoot it...
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
>Is the implication that the Third Reich was a capitalist regime?
In the same sense that the U.S. is a mixed economy? Yes.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2016
In the same sense that the U.S. is a mixed economy? Yes.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2016
I say Obama grows a moustache, and runs as his brother 'Larry', whose long form birth certificate also can't be found.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
I assume the same rhetoric about delivering this country to Trump and being personally responsible for carpet-bombing, the Supreme Court, and the rollback of reproductive rights, Obamacare, etc. would be laid at those turncoat 'Democrat' Bloomberg supporters' feet as it was for Nader voters, right? They'd get the same lectures for not supporting Sanders as the nominee as we saw pointed at Sanders supporters in this thread, right?
I'd hope the vast overwhelming majority of Democrats would take a deep breath, pray for forgiveness, and vote Bloomberg.
what
posted by dialetheia at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
I'd hope the vast overwhelming majority of Democrats would take a deep breath, pray for forgiveness, and vote Bloomberg.
what
posted by dialetheia at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
If the polls are showing a similar outcome close to election day, I'd hope the vast overwhelming majority of Democrats would take a deep breath, pray for forgiveness, and vote Bloomberg.
I don't think Democrats are the people you need to worry about.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think Democrats are the people you need to worry about.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bloomberg strongly supports stop and frisk. There are a lot of Dems who will not vote for him, under any circumstances.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean an all-out Bloomberg campaign would probably result in the election going to the House, to be decided by weird rules that strongly favor small rural states and the far right, and they'd pick some weirdo straight out of Handmaid's Tale
There is a nonzero possibility that:
A) Sanders locks up the nomination.
B) Bloomberg announces his candidacy.
C) Trump locks up the nomination and selects a good establishment Republican, just to make peace with the party.
D) No one gets an Electoral College majority.
E) The Senate votes for Trump's pick to become the Vice-President-Elect.
F) The GOP intentionally hangs the House vote until January 20th, 2017.
G) A good establishment Republican becomes President.
posted by Etrigan at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
There is a nonzero possibility that:
A) Sanders locks up the nomination.
B) Bloomberg announces his candidacy.
C) Trump locks up the nomination and selects a good establishment Republican, just to make peace with the party.
D) No one gets an Electoral College majority.
E) The Senate votes for Trump's pick to become the Vice-President-Elect.
F) The GOP intentionally hangs the House vote until January 20th, 2017.
G) A good establishment Republican becomes President.
posted by Etrigan at 12:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Bloomberg is trying to strengthen Clinton's campaign, he's doing a pretty shitty job of it. The optics of a billionaire so concerned about Sanders' economic policies that he is willing to personally intervene as a candidate to hold onto more of his money simply makes Sanders' message look resonant and effective to anyone who isn't a billionaire.
posted by threeants at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by threeants at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
Serious question: do you think the same thing about the Republican party and that they'd be willing to tank an election rather than elect someone they consider as toxic as Trump?
In terms of moral character, I wouldn't put it past them. Whether or not they would actually do it, we'll see. A brokered convention is a real possibility. But in any case, I don't see how that has anything to do with how the Democrats will act if Bernie wins most primaries but Hillary comes out ahead in delegates.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016
In terms of moral character, I wouldn't put it past them. Whether or not they would actually do it, we'll see. A brokered convention is a real possibility. But in any case, I don't see how that has anything to do with how the Democrats will act if Bernie wins most primaries but Hillary comes out ahead in delegates.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016
I realize we have a very aspirational mood here, but my #1 overriding priority choice for president is Not-The-GOP-Candidate.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's a nonzero possibility that the House votes to elect "Repeal Obamacare" for president.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
If the DNC detonated the superdelegate bomb, it would be because Sanders wins. If he wins, but has it stolen by superdelegates, he will likely become an independent and stay in the presidential race. If he does that, he takes even more of Trump's vote, because many Trumpers don't like the D word but would gladly support an I, and we would likely see the formal creation of the Independent party with Bernie as it's first president.
At least, that's how my fantasy plays out.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:50 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least, that's how my fantasy plays out.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:50 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I realize we have a very aspirational mood here, but my #1 overriding priority choice for president is Not-The-GOP-Candidate.
And you'd vote for Bloomberg over the Democratic nominee, despite lecturng everyone in this thread about how important it is to line up behind the Democrat? I can't believe some of what I'm hearing from people today.
posted by dialetheia at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
And you'd vote for Bloomberg over the Democratic nominee, despite lecturng everyone in this thread about how important it is to line up behind the Democrat? I can't believe some of what I'm hearing from people today.
posted by dialetheia at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I wonder how they'll swear in President Revenants From Benghazi Howling For Justice.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, if Bloomberg runs, he wins, I think no matter who else is there. He pulls from both sides evenly.
In this fantasy scenario where "he pulls from both sides evenly," you mean "both sides" to be pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-immigration, anti-gun Republicans that believe that anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious threat; and pro-fiscal deregulation, pro-stop-and-frisk, anti-tax increase Democrats who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
I say Obama grows a moustache, and runs as his brother 'Larry', whose long form birth certificate also can't be found.
Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele run as Luther and Obama , win in a landslide.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
In this fantasy scenario where "he pulls from both sides evenly," you mean "both sides" to be pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-immigration, anti-gun Republicans that believe that anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious threat; and pro-fiscal deregulation, pro-stop-and-frisk, anti-tax increase Democrats who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
I say Obama grows a moustache, and runs as his brother 'Larry', whose long form birth certificate also can't be found.
Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele run as Luther and Obama , win in a landslide.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hell, wenestvedt, as someone who volunteer sysadmins a departmental server (from which I have banished all email services), my jaw dropped too. Not a day goes by when our humble little academic department webserver is not *pummeled* by hackers with Chinese, Russian, and Eastern European IP addresses, probing and poking for any vulnerability you can imagine, always right on top of the latest exploits. I hadn't set up a new server for a couple of years when I did it last summer, and I had to dedicate my summer to bringing myself up to date on security, and scaring myself shitless.
I don't care how good someone is, a privately run email server (and standard protocol email of any sort) for managing classified and sensitive documents that affect national security, run out of a closet in a private residence in suburban New York sure seems like pure insanity.
posted by spitbull at 12:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't care how good someone is, a privately run email server (and standard protocol email of any sort) for managing classified and sensitive documents that affect national security, run out of a closet in a private residence in suburban New York sure seems like pure insanity.
posted by spitbull at 12:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
I wonder how many rank and file republicans are REALLY opposed to single payer. Like, they know they are supposed to hate it but how many would be secretly relieved if it actually came to pass. They all seem to hate Hillary with the heat of a 1000 suns but I wonder if they'd maybe just stay home if bernie was nominated as a form of passive approval.
posted by ian1977 at 12:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 12:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I would vote for Luther in a hot minute.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 12:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
And you'd vote for Bloomberg over the Democratic nominee
If there was no realistic chance for the Democratic nominee to win my state, you bet I would. Whether it's Sanders or Clinton. The hypotheticals we've been talking to prior to this have mostly assumed a two-way race.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If there was no realistic chance for the Democratic nominee to win my state, you bet I would. Whether it's Sanders or Clinton. The hypotheticals we've been talking to prior to this have mostly assumed a two-way race.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm glad people are so eager to let Bloomberg hijack the primary process and blackmail the Democratic party into voting for more neoliberal bullshit, then. Good to know, at least.
posted by dialetheia at 12:55 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:55 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Ross Perot’s Former Campaign Manager’s Advice to Presidential Candidate Bloomberg
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't approve of a lot of Bloomberg's policies, but I would vote for him before I'd vote for Clinton, because I think that Michael Bloomberg believes what he says. I think Hillary Clinton just wants to be president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bye Carly! You were kind of crazy but also the only person that isn't a straight white man in the race, thanks for representing the other... 70%...
oh wait. Is Ben Carson still in?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:59 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
oh wait. Is Ben Carson still in?
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:59 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
When writing about American politics, the late Molly Ivins was fond of quoting Marianne Moore's line, "It is an honor to witness so much confusion."
That line's been coming to mind a lot lately.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
That line's been coming to mind a lot lately.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nobody puts Bloomie in a corner.
posted by spitbull at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by spitbull at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bye Carly! You were kind of crazy but also the only person that isn't a straight white man in the race, thanks for representing the other... 70%...
oh wait. Is Ben Carson still in?
Also, plenty of those white men are quite crooked.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
oh wait. Is Ben Carson still in?
Also, plenty of those white men are quite crooked.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm glad people are so eager to let Bloomberg hijack the primary process and blackmail the Democratic party into voting for more neoliberal bullshit, then. Good to know, at least.
Hey, can you maybe dial it back a bit? You are very very passionate in your support of Sanders and your lack of support for Clinton. When you assume the worst from other people, or when you repeatedly tell us that we are defeatist or lack the courage of our convictions, it's a drag. This is very different from saying that people are not taking all of the right things into account, and therefore their conclusions are wrong. One feel personal, the latter feels like a debate.
FWIW, you've begun to successfully challenge my assumptions about electability, which I place a very high value on, and specifically the electability of Clinton. Now I am more scared than ever.
posted by OmieWise at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm not saying people should vote for Clinton in the primary to prevent Bloomberg from running, I'm talking about what would be the tactical voting strategy that would lead to the least harm for the US and the world if the polls are correct that Bloomberg running as a third party would mostly peel votes from the Democratic nominee. I will vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the GOP nominee in November.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would never come down to Bloomberg vs. Clinton. Bloomberg will only step in if Clinton or an establishment Republican doesn't get the nominated. He'd be filling the void of Wall Street yes man.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by cmfletcher at 1:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
"C) Trump locks up the nomination and selects a good establishment Republican, just to make peace with the party."
who is this "good establishment Republican?" like, what does that even mean anymore? we're in a political climate where Marco Rubio is seen as middle-of-the-road, when a very short time ago he was on the right fringe of the party. This cycle's closest thing to a "moderate" republican is Kasich, who isn't anywhere near moderate.
oh god
oh god.
do you realize what you've done? you have written the scenario where SCOTT WALKER becomes unelected ruler of the United States. good lord.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
who is this "good establishment Republican?" like, what does that even mean anymore? we're in a political climate where Marco Rubio is seen as middle-of-the-road, when a very short time ago he was on the right fringe of the party. This cycle's closest thing to a "moderate" republican is Kasich, who isn't anywhere near moderate.
oh god
oh god.
do you realize what you've done? you have written the scenario where SCOTT WALKER becomes unelected ruler of the United States. good lord.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't approve of a lot of Bloomberg's policies, but I would vote for him before I'd vote for Clinton, because I think that Michael Bloomberg believes what he says.
You realize how much you sound like a lot of Trump voters, right?
posted by Etrigan at 1:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
You realize how much you sound like a lot of Trump voters, right?
posted by Etrigan at 1:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hey, can you maybe dial it back a bit?
Fair enough. I apologize if my tone was too much. My brain almost exploded at the cognitive dissonance of people supporting Bloomberg, of all people, over the Democratic nominee while simultaneously being very concerned that Sanders voters wouldn't vote for Clinton in the general.
posted by dialetheia at 1:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Fair enough. I apologize if my tone was too much. My brain almost exploded at the cognitive dissonance of people supporting Bloomberg, of all people, over the Democratic nominee while simultaneously being very concerned that Sanders voters wouldn't vote for Clinton in the general.
posted by dialetheia at 1:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
arrrgrrghrahag tactical voting AGAIN
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course, Bloomberg was the one who, when asked if he had smoked marijuana, replied "'You bet I did. And I enjoyed it.''
So there's that.
posted by spitbull at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
So there's that.
posted by spitbull at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
You realize how much you sound like a lot of Trump voters, right?
He was my mayor for 12 years. I think I'm okay with my judgment.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2016
He was my mayor for 12 years. I think I'm okay with my judgment.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:04 PM on February 10, 2016
wait, this is the stop-and-frisk guy, right?
Bloomberg 2016: Weed for me but not for thee
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Bloomberg 2016: Weed for me but not for thee
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
My brain almost exploded at the cognitive dissonance of people supporting Bloomberg, of all people, over the Democratic nominee while simultaneously being very concerned that Sanders voters wouldn't vote for Clinton in the general.
Sure, I get that!
posted by OmieWise at 1:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure, I get that!
posted by OmieWise at 1:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's a difference between saying "I won't ever vote for one of the possible Democratic nominees out of principle" and "I will vote for a third party if they're the most likely candidate to beat [belligerent racist idiot]," you know?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:06 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:06 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
But how would Michael Bloomberg do against an unkempt Elizabeth Warren?
kidding, kidding - please do not engage in this awful hypothetical debate
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
kidding, kidding - please do not engage in this awful hypothetical debate
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yeah, but it's ridiculously premature, and I think you're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about Sanders being completely unelectable while somehow Bloomberg is very successful. I don't see much evidence that another billionaire in the race is what people are clamoring for, in such an anti-establishment year, but who knows. I know that anyone pretending they know who is and is not a priori more electable at this point is full of it, because nobody has been right about basically anything that's happened this year. Furthermore, bringing it up at this super early stage in the process is allowing Bloomberg to dictate how the party votes, which I think is wrong and undemocratic.
posted by dialetheia at 1:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
nobody has been right about basically anything that's happened this year
QFT
posted by Spathe Cadet at 1:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
QFT
posted by Spathe Cadet at 1:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ross Perot’s Former Campaign Manager’s Advice to Presidential Candidate Bloomberg
posted by clawsoon at 1:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
In 1996, Perot was excluded from debates with President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole. Verney is still seething. “Bloomberg needs to create a strategy in case he’s locked out of the debates by the fraudulent Commission on Presidential Debates.” The commission is nothing of the sort — it’s a company that runs debates, founded by the Democratic and Republican parties. “And they don’t like competition,” Verney says.IOW, the establishment wings of both parties are completely freaked out by what appears to be happening now and both establishments would welcome a Bloomberg run with open arms if Sanders and Trump become the nominees.
...
There may be reason for Bloomberg to hold out hope that this won’t be a repeat of 1996. In late January, the co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates told a public television series that they are “giving serious thought” to the inclusion of a third-party candidate on this year’s debates.
posted by clawsoon at 1:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
You realize how much you sound like a lot of Trump voters, right?He was my mayor for 12 years. I think I'm okay with my judgment.
I think the point was not that there's a lack of basis for the judgment "he believes what he says," but that "he believes what he says" is at best an informationless criterion on which to judge a politician.
posted by invitapriore at 1:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
is at best an informationless criterion on which to judge a politician.
OK, sorry. I will say that I believe Bloomberg would make a decent president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:14 PM on February 10, 2016
OK, sorry. I will say that I believe Bloomberg would make a decent president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:14 PM on February 10, 2016
IOW, the establishment wings of both parties are completely freaked out by what appears to be happening now and both establishments would welcome a Bloomberg run with open arms if Sanders and Trump become the nominees.
That's probably true. It would be so obvious what they were doing, though. At some point they still have to convince a lot of people to vote for him. "Vote for me: I'm establishment" has been absolute poison all year so far - and it would be doubly so if they finally destroyed the illusion that the Republican and Democratic parties want different things. A unified-establishment Bloomberg run would make the whole scam pretty obvious, and given how angry people are and how they're voting, I'm still not sure they'd get as much support as people are assuming. I mean, it would basically validate Nader's "the parties are the same" criticism.
posted by dialetheia at 1:16 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's probably true. It would be so obvious what they were doing, though. At some point they still have to convince a lot of people to vote for him. "Vote for me: I'm establishment" has been absolute poison all year so far - and it would be doubly so if they finally destroyed the illusion that the Republican and Democratic parties want different things. A unified-establishment Bloomberg run would make the whole scam pretty obvious, and given how angry people are and how they're voting, I'm still not sure they'd get as much support as people are assuming. I mean, it would basically validate Nader's "the parties are the same" criticism.
posted by dialetheia at 1:16 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jay Carney: Obama wants Clinton to win
Of course he does. I think if Sanders wins the nomination there would be some very weaksauce support from Obama. Not a lot.
posted by sweetkid at 1:17 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course he does. I think if Sanders wins the nomination there would be some very weaksauce support from Obama. Not a lot.
posted by sweetkid at 1:17 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
But how would Michael Bloomberg do against an unkempt Elizabeth Warren?
I'd just like to see some dank 200% KEMPT E-War memes, plz
To dialetheia -- I'm not assuming Sanders is completely unelectable. I think his vulnerabilities in a general election are bigger unknowns than Clinton's, but honestly I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between their respective electability scores and an awful lot depends on who the Republican nominee is and what's going on in the world by the time November rolls around. Mostly what bothers me is the tendency of some Sanders supporters to aggressively try to tear down Clinton as a viable candidate and resurrect right-wing talking points for use against her in the primary, vow never to vote for her, etc.
I also don't think Sanders voters are likely to change their primary votes based on speculation about what Bloomberg might or might not do, you've certainly made a very strong case for them being solidly committed to their candidate of choice.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd just like to see some dank 200% KEMPT E-War memes, plz
To dialetheia -- I'm not assuming Sanders is completely unelectable. I think his vulnerabilities in a general election are bigger unknowns than Clinton's, but honestly I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between their respective electability scores and an awful lot depends on who the Republican nominee is and what's going on in the world by the time November rolls around. Mostly what bothers me is the tendency of some Sanders supporters to aggressively try to tear down Clinton as a viable candidate and resurrect right-wing talking points for use against her in the primary, vow never to vote for her, etc.
I also don't think Sanders voters are likely to change their primary votes based on speculation about what Bloomberg might or might not do, you've certainly made a very strong case for them being solidly committed to their candidate of choice.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Of course he does.
On the one hand, yes, it's obvious. But, on the other hand, I'm surprised he's expressing an opinion this early in the primary race. I'm pretty disappointed with it, actually.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the one hand, yes, it's obvious. But, on the other hand, I'm surprised he's expressing an opinion this early in the primary race. I'm pretty disappointed with it, actually.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
what's going on in the world by the time November rolls around.
The Whole Woman's Health decision in June could really affect turnout on both sides.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:22 PM on February 10, 2016
The Whole Woman's Health decision in June could really affect turnout on both sides.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:22 PM on February 10, 2016
Of course he does.
On the one hand, yes, it's obvious. But, on the other hand, I'm surprised he's expressing an opinion this early in the primary race. I'm pretty disappointed with it, actually.
He's not making really any overt comments about it right now? What is there to be disappointed about?
posted by sweetkid at 1:25 PM on February 10, 2016
On the one hand, yes, it's obvious. But, on the other hand, I'm surprised he's expressing an opinion this early in the primary race. I'm pretty disappointed with it, actually.
He's not making really any overt comments about it right now? What is there to be disappointed about?
posted by sweetkid at 1:25 PM on February 10, 2016
The Clintons have lost the working class, New Yorker:
"Like everything else in New Hampshire, the working class here is distinct: less diverse than in the rest of the country, and less organized. Certainly, Clinton’s strong support from political organizations in minority communities will help in other states, though black and Latino Americans have, on the whole, grown more receptive to radical perspectives, not less. Perhaps more striking, union organizers have already been expressing worry about sympathy for the Trump campaign within their ranks. Those organizers themselves are likely to be sympathetic to Sanders, whose politics more closely match their own. Perhaps residual working-class loyalties, and her own strengths, will be enough to carry Clinton through the primaries. But the enthusiasm for her candidacy increasingly seems concentrated among affluent, older voters who are already committed members of the Democratic Party. That is not the most promising platform from which to begin a general-election campaign in any year, and especially not in a vigorously populist one."
I really believe that Sanders is our best chance of inoculating ourselves against Trump. If union organizers are looking at him as a serious alternative, we have the makings of another Reagan Democrat situation. We absolutely must have a real, serious, non-billionaire-oriented economic agenda to offer those people or they will lose all faith in the party.
posted by dialetheia at 1:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Like everything else in New Hampshire, the working class here is distinct: less diverse than in the rest of the country, and less organized. Certainly, Clinton’s strong support from political organizations in minority communities will help in other states, though black and Latino Americans have, on the whole, grown more receptive to radical perspectives, not less. Perhaps more striking, union organizers have already been expressing worry about sympathy for the Trump campaign within their ranks. Those organizers themselves are likely to be sympathetic to Sanders, whose politics more closely match their own. Perhaps residual working-class loyalties, and her own strengths, will be enough to carry Clinton through the primaries. But the enthusiasm for her candidacy increasingly seems concentrated among affluent, older voters who are already committed members of the Democratic Party. That is not the most promising platform from which to begin a general-election campaign in any year, and especially not in a vigorously populist one."
I really believe that Sanders is our best chance of inoculating ourselves against Trump. If union organizers are looking at him as a serious alternative, we have the makings of another Reagan Democrat situation. We absolutely must have a real, serious, non-billionaire-oriented economic agenda to offer those people or they will lose all faith in the party.
posted by dialetheia at 1:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is completely in line with anything else Jay Carney has ever said, and he'd be saying this regardless of anything that Obama personally believed. His entire purpose was to create positive spin for the administration - the one that Clinton just happens to be a part of. He is VERY much in line with the DNCs objectives. Pretty much nothing he says is worth paying any attention to.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:29 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:29 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
He's not making really any overt comments about it right now? What is there to be disappointed about?
Carney: "I think the president has signaled while still remaining neutral that he supports Secretary Clinton's candidacy and who prefer to see her as the nominee"
How is he remaining neutral if he [through his press secretary] is stating his preference of nominee? I'm disappointed that he is not actually remaining neutral.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Carney: "I think the president has signaled while still remaining neutral that he supports Secretary Clinton's candidacy and who prefer to see her as the nominee"
How is he remaining neutral if he [through his press secretary] is stating his preference of nominee? I'm disappointed that he is not actually remaining neutral.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Obama coming out with real support for Clinton in the primary while people are still voting would only reinforce the idea that the party will do anything to keep Sanders out. Which is good for Sanders. His supporters see it as validating their concerns about the party being rigged and corrupt. Clinton may get a slight boost, but again, it reinforces the narrative of her coronation without democracy. It's bad optics.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
former press secretary
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
In this fantasy scenario where "he pulls from both sides evenly," you mean "both sides" to be pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-immigration, anti-gun Republicans that believe that anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious threat; and pro-fiscal deregulation, pro-stop-and-frisk, anti-tax increase Democrats who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
I'd imagine that there are small factions and single-issue voters from both descriptions. You've got your classical liberals, small-l libertarians, economic royalists and plutocrats on the GOP side; maybe some of them don't care about firearms so much. Then you've got the economic royalists and plutocrats on the Democratic side. Together, they've got a lot of money, less so votes. But a Bloomberg run would give a voice to them, a campaign for Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2016
I'd imagine that there are small factions and single-issue voters from both descriptions. You've got your classical liberals, small-l libertarians, economic royalists and plutocrats on the GOP side; maybe some of them don't care about firearms so much. Then you've got the economic royalists and plutocrats on the Democratic side. Together, they've got a lot of money, less so votes. But a Bloomberg run would give a voice to them, a campaign for Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2016
Yea it's just some speculation, but then again there's no real way for Obama to win on this one with super pro Bernie people right now.
posted by sweetkid at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
former press secretary
Jay Carney is not his press secretary
Y'all are totally right, forget that part of my comment. Still not cool with it, and hope Obama distances himself from the remarks.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2016
Jay Carney is not his press secretary
Y'all are totally right, forget that part of my comment. Still not cool with it, and hope Obama distances himself from the remarks.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2016
I wonder what back room deals were struck when Obama got the nomination in 2008. Maybe he agreed to never oppose her candidacy in 2016 ?
posted by ian1977 at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2016
Is Gawker slowly exposing the ugly underbelly of D.C.’s ‘transactional’ journalism?
posted by futz at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
it's so weird for me seeing support for Bloomberg from New Yorkers, though maybe that's indicative of the bubble I was in when I lived there.
can I safely assume that NYC Bloomberg supporters live south of 96th street? or is it more complicated than that?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:39 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
can I safely assume that NYC Bloomberg supporters live south of 96th street? or is it more complicated than that?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:39 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
That Carney thing is super weird, considering I read it right after seeing Obama's remarks from today that "if 99% of us voted, it wouldn't matter how much the 1% spends on our elections" and "I'm not saying the wealthy shouldn't have a voice, I'm just saying they shouldn't be able to drown out everybody else's."
If started spouting off to the press about what my famous or influential ex-boss "thought" about a matter he already pledged to stay silent on, I'd be getting a very hellaciously angry phone call.
posted by sallybrown at 1:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
If started spouting off to the press about what my famous or influential ex-boss "thought" about a matter he already pledged to stay silent on, I'd be getting a very hellaciously angry phone call.
posted by sallybrown at 1:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
can I safely assume that NYC Bloomberg supporters live south of 96th street? or is it more complicated than that?
As a NYer during Bloomberg's reign, I can tell you that I'm not supporting him, despite living south of 96th street (until about 6 months ago). But, my husband would vote Bloomberg over Clinton, if Sanders isn't in the race.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:43 PM on February 10, 2016
As a NYer during Bloomberg's reign, I can tell you that I'm not supporting him, despite living south of 96th street (until about 6 months ago). But, my husband would vote Bloomberg over Clinton, if Sanders isn't in the race.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:43 PM on February 10, 2016
I just get the sense with Bloomberg that he truly does not give a rip about anyone other than himself and his buds and their money. And he didn't count among his buds the young guys of color walking along his city's streets.
posted by sallybrown at 1:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 1:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
But, my husband would vote Bloomberg over Clinton, if Sanders isn't in the race.
This is me, lived in East Harlem, Bay Ridge and UWS at the time.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:46 PM on February 10, 2016
This is me, lived in East Harlem, Bay Ridge and UWS at the time.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:46 PM on February 10, 2016
I wonder what back room deals were struck when Obama got the nomination in 2008. Maybe he agreed to never oppose her candidacy in 2016 ?
Secretary of State, then President. There's an "Entitled" vibe for a reason... Of course, the electorate aren't bound by those deals....
posted by mikelieman at 1:46 PM on February 10, 2016
Secretary of State, then President. There's an "Entitled" vibe for a reason... Of course, the electorate aren't bound by those deals....
posted by mikelieman at 1:46 PM on February 10, 2016
I can't see a whole lot of Trump supporters switching to the guy who wanted to outlaw Big Gulps...
posted by mikelieman at 1:48 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 1:48 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Vote Trump: Your Sodas Will be YUGE
posted by melissasaurus at 1:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 1:49 PM on February 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Is Gawker slowly exposing the ugly underbelly of D.C.’s ‘transactional’ journalism?
The Baffler has a good article on this today, too. Hillary’s Handlers: We Need Some Muscle Over Here:
"The key offender in this case is former Atlantic politics hand Marc Ambinder, but really, it could have been any among the hundreds of reporters tasked with mass-producing the appearance of novelty and insight for a politics readership. Ambinder’s sin, documented in nauseating detail from the trove of emails that Gawker FOIA’ed from the account of Hillary Clinton fixer Philippe Reines, was to allow Reines to dictate coverage of a speech that then Secretary of State Clinton was delivering before the Council on Foreign Relations, to showcase her expert foreign-policy chops. What Ambinder got in return for this pledge, quite pathetically, was an early release of the speech to trumpet across the digital media sphere. Reines, in his winning power-schmoozing style, set down three conditions for the deal:
- You in your own voice describe [the speech] as ‘muscular’
- You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys—from Holbrook to Mitchell to Ross—will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something.
- You don’t say you were blackmailed!"
posted by dialetheia at 1:50 PM on February 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
The Baffler has a good article on this today, too. Hillary’s Handlers: We Need Some Muscle Over Here:
"The key offender in this case is former Atlantic politics hand Marc Ambinder, but really, it could have been any among the hundreds of reporters tasked with mass-producing the appearance of novelty and insight for a politics readership. Ambinder’s sin, documented in nauseating detail from the trove of emails that Gawker FOIA’ed from the account of Hillary Clinton fixer Philippe Reines, was to allow Reines to dictate coverage of a speech that then Secretary of State Clinton was delivering before the Council on Foreign Relations, to showcase her expert foreign-policy chops. What Ambinder got in return for this pledge, quite pathetically, was an early release of the speech to trumpet across the digital media sphere. Reines, in his winning power-schmoozing style, set down three conditions for the deal:
- You in your own voice describe [the speech] as ‘muscular’
- You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys—from Holbrook to Mitchell to Ross—will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something.
- You don’t say you were blackmailed!"
posted by dialetheia at 1:50 PM on February 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
I just get the sense with Bloomberg that he truly does not give a rip about anyone other than himself and his buds and their money. And he didn't count among his buds the young guys of color walking along his city's streets.
I think it's more complicated than that. I get the sense that Bloomberg definitely cares, but the way that he cares can be completely paternalistic. He wants people's lives to be better, but he doesn't care what they think. Possibly he thinks they're idiots.
A nice pro-Bloomberg example is that he set up a department to model traffic and reduce danger to pedestrians, an effort that I think has saved hundreds of lives.
posted by grobstein at 1:50 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think it's more complicated than that. I get the sense that Bloomberg definitely cares, but the way that he cares can be completely paternalistic. He wants people's lives to be better, but he doesn't care what they think. Possibly he thinks they're idiots.
A nice pro-Bloomberg example is that he set up a department to model traffic and reduce danger to pedestrians, an effort that I think has saved hundreds of lives.
posted by grobstein at 1:50 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I will say my dad loves Bloomberg because he hates guns, giving his money to the government, protesters and "troublemakers," any economic structure other than capitalism, Hillary Clinton, and politicians who exploit their religious beliefs (although he loves giant sugary drinks, natch). He voted twice for Clinton and twice for Bush.
He's begging for Bloomberg.
posted by sallybrown at 1:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's begging for Bloomberg.
posted by sallybrown at 1:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Vote Trump: Your Sodas Will be YUGE
this is totally a possible slogan.
posted by sweetkid at 1:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's simplistic to label Trump as an outright fascist, and then jump to historical analogues of German industrialists supporting the Nazis to keep their businesses profitable during the dictatorship, and then say American capitalists will naturally gravitate to Trump. Trump goes beyond lip service appeals to the working class, his nativist program against illegal immigration and his noises against the TPP and other free trade pacts directly impact big business. So I don't think the GOP establishment, much less corporations, will easily make peace with him. Trump may be many things, but the whole reason for his mass appeal is that he isn't easily identifiable as an agent of the 1%.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Your Sodas Will be YUGE
I would bet money this sentence will come out of Trump's mouth within a week after Bloomberg enters the race.
posted by sallybrown at 1:54 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I would bet money this sentence will come out of Trump's mouth within a week after Bloomberg enters the race.
posted by sallybrown at 1:54 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Man he could have won Iowa if he'd come out with that sooner
Cause of all the corn syrup in the sodas
Corn, Iowa
Get it?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cause of all the corn syrup in the sodas
Corn, Iowa
Get it?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
when was the last time someone won a primary without holding any elected office ever at all?
posted by sweetkid at 1:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 1:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
when was the last time someone won a primary without holding any elected office ever at all?
Steve Forbes won Arizona in '96. That's the only one I can think of.
posted by dis_integration at 2:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Steve Forbes won Arizona in '96. That's the only one I can think of.
posted by dis_integration at 2:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Eisenhower? Boils my blood to even mention him in the same thread as Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 2:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it's more complicated than that. I get the sense that Bloomberg definitely cares, but the way that he cares can be completely paternalistic. He wants people's lives to be better, but he doesn't care what they think. Possibly he thinks they're idiots.
As someone else who lived here during the Bloomie days, I think this is right. He cares in a really exasperated way, because he thinks everyone besides him is a moron, and he can make better decisions than they can make themselves. I think you can draw a straight line from that to most of his initiatives, which may otherwise seem at odds - yes, he publicly and noisily gave Planned Parenthood $250k after Komen pulled their funding and spoke out about reproductive healthcare access, then turned around and banned Big Gulps. That's inconsistent if you think his value criteria is civil rights or personal freedom, but it's not inconsistent if he doesn't give a rip about either of those things and is just thinking "Health care access is good for people and soda is not." He's a monarchist who's willing to deign to go through the motions of a democratic election.
posted by superfluousm at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
As someone else who lived here during the Bloomie days, I think this is right. He cares in a really exasperated way, because he thinks everyone besides him is a moron, and he can make better decisions than they can make themselves. I think you can draw a straight line from that to most of his initiatives, which may otherwise seem at odds - yes, he publicly and noisily gave Planned Parenthood $250k after Komen pulled their funding and spoke out about reproductive healthcare access, then turned around and banned Big Gulps. That's inconsistent if you think his value criteria is civil rights or personal freedom, but it's not inconsistent if he doesn't give a rip about either of those things and is just thinking "Health care access is good for people and soda is not." He's a monarchist who's willing to deign to go through the motions of a democratic election.
posted by superfluousm at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Oh, and Pat Robertson won a few states in '88.
posted by dis_integration at 2:03 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by dis_integration at 2:03 PM on February 10, 2016
What Shot Does A Candidate Who's Never Held Government Office Have At The Nomination?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:04 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:04 PM on February 10, 2016
What a spontaneous online fundraiser looks like: Want to guess what time Senator Sanders told a national TV audience to go to BernieSanders.com and donate $27?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'd just like to see some dank 200% KEMPT E-War memes, plz
I actually wouldn't mind a meme that was UNKEMPT E-WAR ... BROK UR BANK
posted by Room 641-A at 2:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually wouldn't mind a meme that was UNKEMPT E-WAR ... BROK UR BANK
posted by Room 641-A at 2:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do wonder what the Rove machine will come up with.
They just came up with social welfare status from the IRS in order to keep their donations even more secret.
posted by clawsoon at 2:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They just came up with social welfare status from the IRS in order to keep their donations even more secret.
posted by clawsoon at 2:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire, WaPo: "That point is driven home hard in the exit poll following Clinton's 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.
Ninety-two to six. That is absolutely unbelievable — even given the size of Sanders's overall victory in the state. And it should be deeply concerning to a Clinton campaign that has been resistant to acknowledging the idea that the ongoing controversy over Clinton's private email server while at the State Department is a problem for her."
posted by dialetheia at 2:14 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ninety-two to six. That is absolutely unbelievable — even given the size of Sanders's overall victory in the state. And it should be deeply concerning to a Clinton campaign that has been resistant to acknowledging the idea that the ongoing controversy over Clinton's private email server while at the State Department is a problem for her."
posted by dialetheia at 2:14 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't get why people think Hillary is a calculating opportunist compared to Bloomberg. He's switches party affiliation based on the easiest peimaries and pushed through an extension to term limits just to benefit his own candidacy.
posted by cmfletcher at 2:17 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by cmfletcher at 2:17 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Are there any figures for Hillary's fundraising since last night? I can't seem to google it.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2016
I'd take HR Clinton over Bloomberg. I can't QUITE say I would never vote for him - maybe he enters the race and Bernie drops dead too late to put a different dem on the ballot? - but my overall position is "fuck that guy."
posted by phearlez at 2:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 2:32 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Enough of these penny ante millionaires.
posted by Trochanter at 2:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 2:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kasich Set To Sign Bill Defunding Planned Parenthood
The bill was created after the Center for Medical Progress released its attack videos last summer which claimed that the organization was selling “aborted baby parts.” The lawmakers who authored the legislation used the videos as the main evidence for defunding the largest women’s health organization, even after Ohio’s attorney general cleared the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics of any unlawful acts
By cutting off any programs that provide abortions, the legislation also targets programs that screen for cancer, support mothers through pregnancy, and educate teens about domestic violence. Instead, the funds will be redirected to other providers, including dentist’s offices and school nurses, which do not perform these vital services
...
When the voter pressed him about all of the other crucial services that Planned Parenthood also offers women, Kasich declared that “we’re done” and walked away.
posted by futz at 2:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The bill was created after the Center for Medical Progress released its attack videos last summer which claimed that the organization was selling “aborted baby parts.” The lawmakers who authored the legislation used the videos as the main evidence for defunding the largest women’s health organization, even after Ohio’s attorney general cleared the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics of any unlawful acts
By cutting off any programs that provide abortions, the legislation also targets programs that screen for cancer, support mothers through pregnancy, and educate teens about domestic violence. Instead, the funds will be redirected to other providers, including dentist’s offices and school nurses, which do not perform these vital services
...
When the voter pressed him about all of the other crucial services that Planned Parenthood also offers women, Kasich declared that “we’re done” and walked away.
posted by futz at 2:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm starting to think of it like this...
1) Bernie Sanders best represents my interests.
2) If he's not the nominee, I can't *support* anyone who doesn't best represent my interests.
3) But I will vote *against* the person who represents my interests least.
The net effect is the same as "Voting the most left", ( hold your nose and vote for Hillary ) but I think the moral stance is wholly different.
posted by mikelieman at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
1) Bernie Sanders best represents my interests.
2) If he's not the nominee, I can't *support* anyone who doesn't best represent my interests.
3) But I will vote *against* the person who represents my interests least.
The net effect is the same as "Voting the most left", ( hold your nose and vote for Hillary ) but I think the moral stance is wholly different.
posted by mikelieman at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [19 favorites]
The net effect is the same as "Voting the most left", ( hold your nose and vote for Hillary ) but I think the moral stance is wholly different.
To sum up... I don't support Hillary. But I won't pass up the opportunity to give Trump the finger.
posted by mikelieman at 3:04 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
To sum up... I don't support Hillary. But I won't pass up the opportunity to give Trump the finger.
posted by mikelieman at 3:04 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
3) But I will vote *against* the person who represents my interests least.
This political scientist argued something similar to that idea: "The big reason [why he doesn't think Sanders would get blown out in the general] is polarization and negative partisanship. This is also why a Trump or a Cruz nomination would not lead to a blowout loss for the GOP against Clinton. In both parties, voters are much more ideologically cohesive and dislike the opposing party much more than in the past. On the Democratic side, there are far fewer conservative voters who would prefer a Republican to even a very liberal Democrat like Sanders.
On the Republican side, there are far fewer moderate to liberal voters who would prefer a Democrat to even a very conservative Republican like Cruz (not sure how to classify Trump here). Therefore defections would likely be far smaller than in past elections like 1964 or 1972 when one party nominated a relatively extreme candidate."
posted by dialetheia at 3:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
This political scientist argued something similar to that idea: "The big reason [why he doesn't think Sanders would get blown out in the general] is polarization and negative partisanship. This is also why a Trump or a Cruz nomination would not lead to a blowout loss for the GOP against Clinton. In both parties, voters are much more ideologically cohesive and dislike the opposing party much more than in the past. On the Democratic side, there are far fewer conservative voters who would prefer a Republican to even a very liberal Democrat like Sanders.
On the Republican side, there are far fewer moderate to liberal voters who would prefer a Democrat to even a very conservative Republican like Cruz (not sure how to classify Trump here). Therefore defections would likely be far smaller than in past elections like 1964 or 1972 when one party nominated a relatively extreme candidate."
posted by dialetheia at 3:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders on The View this morning
The crowd's reaction made it practically seem like a Bernie campaign rally.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:11 PM on February 10, 2016
The crowd's reaction made it practically seem like a Bernie campaign rally.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:11 PM on February 10, 2016
I'm honestly asking here, but how is that different from voting for the lesser of two evils? It seems just the same to me, no matter which way the rhetoric points.
posted by OmieWise at 3:23 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 3:23 PM on February 10, 2016
Cezar E. McKnight (SC State Rep) on Twitter: "Is advocating for the mass incarceration of non violent drug offenders and backing Job killing NAFTA progressive?"
posted by futz at 3:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by futz at 3:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm honestly asking here, but how is that different from voting for the lesser of two evils? It seems just the same to me, no matter which way the rhetoric points.
It's not - that's exactly what he's saying. He's just arguing that enough people see it that way to keep Trump or Sanders from getting blown out in the general, no matter how different they are from either party's norm, because these days (as opposed to in the past, like when McGovern lost), the most important goal for both parties is defeating the other party. He's arguing that the "lesser of two evils" framing would benefit both Sanders and Trump within their own parties if they were the nominees.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on February 10, 2016
It's not - that's exactly what he's saying. He's just arguing that enough people see it that way to keep Trump or Sanders from getting blown out in the general, no matter how different they are from either party's norm, because these days (as opposed to in the past, like when McGovern lost), the most important goal for both parties is defeating the other party. He's arguing that the "lesser of two evils" framing would benefit both Sanders and Trump within their own parties if they were the nominees.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on February 10, 2016
Of course, the lesser of two evils calculations get much more difficult if we have a third-party candidate. I'd like to think that all of the Democrats who continue to be so vocal about Nader voters being at fault for 2000 would line up behind the Democratic nominee even then, but who can say.
posted by dialetheia at 3:32 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 3:32 PM on February 10, 2016
If those who attacked me for voting Nader in a solidly dem state in 2000 decide not to vote for the Democratic nominee, they will never, never live it down.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
How about we just make it a rule that "vote to your heart's content, unless you live in a swing state, then vote tactically for the greater good", which places the onus on only a few million Americans, and probably a minority of MeFites?
posted by Apocryphon at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't care how good someone is, a privately run email server (and standard protocol email of any sort) for managing classified and sensitive documents that affect national security, run out of a closet in a private residence in suburban New York sure seems like pure insanity.
The Clinton email server was not managing classified documents. Neither does any .GOV email account. .GOV email accounts are no more secure and no more approved for classified documents than the Clinton server. No one in government ever intentionally emails classified documents, no matter what sever. The documents on the Clinton server were retroactively classified. It would be exactly the same if those documents were on a .GOV server, which is not approved for classified email either.
Of the retroactively classified email so far, they all pertain to the drone assassination program. And they were simply comments pointing out news articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post. They were not revealing any new information. But simply linking to newspaper articles about drones is considered classified, after the fact, even if everyone on earth has already read it.
The government does maintain an encrypted email system called SIPRNet, but it is unlikely that Clinton even had direct access to it. It is primarily used for military operations and is shared with U.S. allies. It is not used for day to day email. The simple practice is that no truly classified information is ever transmitted by email. Classified information is generally only transmitted on physically controlled paper or conveyed in face to face meetings.
So this whole "classified document" thing is a big nothing-burger. It would make no difference if the same email was on a .GOV server.
posted by JackFlash at 3:48 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Clinton email server was not managing classified documents. Neither does any .GOV email account. .GOV email accounts are no more secure and no more approved for classified documents than the Clinton server. No one in government ever intentionally emails classified documents, no matter what sever. The documents on the Clinton server were retroactively classified. It would be exactly the same if those documents were on a .GOV server, which is not approved for classified email either.
Of the retroactively classified email so far, they all pertain to the drone assassination program. And they were simply comments pointing out news articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post. They were not revealing any new information. But simply linking to newspaper articles about drones is considered classified, after the fact, even if everyone on earth has already read it.
The government does maintain an encrypted email system called SIPRNet, but it is unlikely that Clinton even had direct access to it. It is primarily used for military operations and is shared with U.S. allies. It is not used for day to day email. The simple practice is that no truly classified information is ever transmitted by email. Classified information is generally only transmitted on physically controlled paper or conveyed in face to face meetings.
So this whole "classified document" thing is a big nothing-burger. It would make no difference if the same email was on a .GOV server.
posted by JackFlash at 3:48 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
So this whole "classified document" thing is a big nothing-burger. It would make no difference if the same email was on a .GOV server.
The FBI does not agree with you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
The FBI does not agree with you.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is there a single good explanation for why she needed her own separate email system in the first place, though? That's the part that keeps this going - as far as I can tell, there's just no good reason for her to be engaging in all of her government functions on a private server, regardless of the impropriety (which I think is still up in the air, since many of the emails haven't come out yet and they are still delaying).
posted by dialetheia at 3:55 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:55 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
So I notice that there's less than a majority of American states that have laws against faithless electors. So supposedly we have the crazy ideological polarization scenario where it's Sanders vs. Trump/Cruz. What's to stop a bunch of electors for voting for establishment candidates? Or for Bloomberg?
I'm not sure how electors work. If they're supposed to vote based on who their states vote for, then why have them at all? I'm not talking about getting rid of the electoral college. I'm just saying why are they actually people who can vote against who they were pledged for, why not mathematically abstract the results of the popular vote into EVs?
posted by Apocryphon at 3:56 PM on February 10, 2016
I'm not sure how electors work. If they're supposed to vote based on who their states vote for, then why have them at all? I'm not talking about getting rid of the electoral college. I'm just saying why are they actually people who can vote against who they were pledged for, why not mathematically abstract the results of the popular vote into EVs?
posted by Apocryphon at 3:56 PM on February 10, 2016
FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.” There is no information about wrong doing.
posted by JackFlash at 3:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by JackFlash at 3:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is no information about wrong doing.
OK, fine, the FBI isn't looking into anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, fine, the FBI isn't looking into anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm trying to game out this Bloomberg thing. The mind boggles.
The thing is, with a three-way race it really has to break down by state. It's no longer about who can get to 50%, it's who can get to 35-40%. For instance, Mississippi is deeply divided along racial lines. The 40% of the electorate that votes Democratic is almost completely African-American and I don't see them splitting to Bloomberg -- so if Bloomberg is able to achieve away just 20% of the total vote there, the state goes blue.
Or look at New York -- will Bloomberg be able to come up the middle? Do he and Sanders split the sane vote, allowing Trump to pull 35% from upstate NY? Or does Sanders defend the progressive vote...?
And of course, as noted above, every electoral vote Bloomberg gets, if any, makes it that much more likely that no one gets an EC majority and the election gets swung to the House. Which casts one vote per state delegation. Is the country going to be okay with 25 small deep-red state House delegations choosing a President Trump? Even if he's only ended up with 30%, or 25%, or 20% of the popular vote?
This scenario would make the arguments we have now about strategic voting look like tea with the Queen.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
The thing is, with a three-way race it really has to break down by state. It's no longer about who can get to 50%, it's who can get to 35-40%. For instance, Mississippi is deeply divided along racial lines. The 40% of the electorate that votes Democratic is almost completely African-American and I don't see them splitting to Bloomberg -- so if Bloomberg is able to achieve away just 20% of the total vote there, the state goes blue.
Or look at New York -- will Bloomberg be able to come up the middle? Do he and Sanders split the sane vote, allowing Trump to pull 35% from upstate NY? Or does Sanders defend the progressive vote...?
And of course, as noted above, every electoral vote Bloomberg gets, if any, makes it that much more likely that no one gets an EC majority and the election gets swung to the House. Which casts one vote per state delegation. Is the country going to be okay with 25 small deep-red state House delegations choosing a President Trump? Even if he's only ended up with 30%, or 25%, or 20% of the popular vote?
This scenario would make the arguments we have now about strategic voting look like tea with the Queen.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Someone linked to a Bertrand Russell essay about Nice People - this one - and it just struck me that, in the race between Trump and Cruz, all the Nice People will be voting for Cruz. 'Cause Cruz knows the Bible and would never say "pussy".
posted by clawsoon at 4:02 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 4:02 PM on February 10, 2016
If Clinton loses to Sanders, will she try to court him the way that she courted Obama after her loss in 2008?
And would she be as successful as she was with Obama? The Clintons can be very charming people. And she is very accomplished and capable.
posted by clawsoon at 4:04 PM on February 10, 2016
And would she be as successful as she was with Obama? The Clintons can be very charming people. And she is very accomplished and capable.
posted by clawsoon at 4:04 PM on February 10, 2016
Here's the Jason Leopold, the reporter who FOIA'ed her emails in the first place, saying why he believes it's a big deal. Beyond any of the other issues, the intent of the server was to keep her records from being subject to federal records laws:
"Q. Crazy! But if something like that never comes out, is it still worth caring about?
A. The most important aspect of her emails that anyone should be paying attention to is the fact that we don't have answers as to why she was using a private email account, and avoiding the Federal Records Act—which is a law—and why the State Department failed to respond to legitimate requests from journalists under the Freedom of Information Act for her emails years before this scandal was ever revealed.
Q. Do we really know nothing about that?
A. She changes her story time and time and time again. These are things that anyone should care about when it comes to an elected official. My takeaway is that the rules, for some reason, did not apply to Hillary Clinton, as they would have applied to anyone in the federal government. It's also a failure on the part of the State Department, which did not reign her in."
posted by dialetheia at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Q. Crazy! But if something like that never comes out, is it still worth caring about?
A. The most important aspect of her emails that anyone should be paying attention to is the fact that we don't have answers as to why she was using a private email account, and avoiding the Federal Records Act—which is a law—and why the State Department failed to respond to legitimate requests from journalists under the Freedom of Information Act for her emails years before this scandal was ever revealed.
Q. Do we really know nothing about that?
A. She changes her story time and time and time again. These are things that anyone should care about when it comes to an elected official. My takeaway is that the rules, for some reason, did not apply to Hillary Clinton, as they would have applied to anyone in the federal government. It's also a failure on the part of the State Department, which did not reign her in."
posted by dialetheia at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is there a single good explanation for why she needed her own separate email system in the first place, though?
The most obvious explanation that it was an ill-considered, poor optics, but not illegal attempt to keep the Republican muckrakers from trolling through her private communications, exactly the way Jeb Bush destroyed all of his email and Mitt Romney destroyed all of his email.
Now, unlike Bush and Romney, Clinton did not destroy her government email. She turned it over to the State Department after leaving office as required by the record keeping laws. But the laws at that time did not prohibit her keeping those records on her own server and later turning them over. The laws also do not require her to turn over private email that does not pertain to government work, although she has consented to that voluntarily.
posted by JackFlash at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The most obvious explanation that it was an ill-considered, poor optics, but not illegal attempt to keep the Republican muckrakers from trolling through her private communications, exactly the way Jeb Bush destroyed all of his email and Mitt Romney destroyed all of his email.
Now, unlike Bush and Romney, Clinton did not destroy her government email. She turned it over to the State Department after leaving office as required by the record keeping laws. But the laws at that time did not prohibit her keeping those records on her own server and later turning them over. The laws also do not require her to turn over private email that does not pertain to government work, although she has consented to that voluntarily.
posted by JackFlash at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
It doesn't matter if there was no classified information on her email servers. It doesn't matter if no laws were broken. All the people who keep defending her on this keep trying to refute that she did anything illegal or unethical. That may be, but it's also beside the point. It looks bad. There's no reason any government data (whether classified info or corny chain email forwards from Sen. Schumer) should be going through an outside private server. Saying that no laws were broken really doesn't change that.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
The most obvious explanation that it was an ill-considered, poor optics, but not illegal attempt to keep the Republican muckrakers from trolling through her private communications
That is total bullshit. The most obvious explanation is that she wanted to work completely out of any oversight whatsoever.
This whole defense is the most transparent "I didn't TECHNICALLY do anything wrong" that I've ever seen.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:08 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
That is total bullshit. The most obvious explanation is that she wanted to work completely out of any oversight whatsoever.
This whole defense is the most transparent "I didn't TECHNICALLY do anything wrong" that I've ever seen.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:08 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh I don't know about that, given that such a GOP fishing trip is quite obviously occurring anyway.
posted by Artw at 4:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean is that really the argument here? She set up a privately managed back channel for communications because of the Republicans, and just happened to accidentally use it for communicating with her peers - but not on official business - from time to time?
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, most people would think legal and illegal are substantive differences, but suit yourself. This email thing is no more substantive than the BENGHAZI! thing. There are much more substantive attacks on Clinton as a candidate if you are so inclined. This one is a Republican side show. About the best I would say is that it is annoying that she would provide an obvious line of attack as a result of her (not unfounded) paranoia.
posted by JackFlash at 4:15 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 4:15 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whether documents are classified or not, storing the secretary of state's email archive on a home server strikes me as foolish. No email is secure in transit. But I have to believe the State Department has better system security than anything a contractor can set up in a private home.
The more one knows about email, the more one wonders why anyone would ever send anything other than a "let's talk by phone" message.
I don't think it's fatal to Clinton. I do think it fits a pattern with her, though, of lack of foresight. Her Iraq war vote -- the single biggest undigestable chunk of her record for me -- is of a piece.
posted by spitbull at 4:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The more one knows about email, the more one wonders why anyone would ever send anything other than a "let's talk by phone" message.
I don't think it's fatal to Clinton. I do think it fits a pattern with her, though, of lack of foresight. Her Iraq war vote -- the single biggest undigestable chunk of her record for me -- is of a piece.
posted by spitbull at 4:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Substantive differences when determining whether to prosecute someone. Not so much when running for office. Facts don't really make a difference in elections. It's all how your behavior looks to potential voters. So don't do things that look bad.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
"The American people are sick and tired of hearing about these damn emails"
Seriously.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 4:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Seriously.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 4:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
She set up a privately managed back channel for communications because of the Republicans, and just happened to accidentally use it for communicating with her peers - but not on official business - from time to time?
No, that isn't her claim at all. She set up the email system to handle all of her day to day email communications, both private and government. This was not prohibited by law at the time and was the same procedure in the Bush administrations.
The law then requires you to then separate your private and government documents and turn the government ones over for archive. This is what she did. That is the same procedure for paper documents.
posted by JackFlash at 4:22 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, that isn't her claim at all. She set up the email system to handle all of her day to day email communications, both private and government. This was not prohibited by law at the time and was the same procedure in the Bush administrations.
The law then requires you to then separate your private and government documents and turn the government ones over for archive. This is what she did. That is the same procedure for paper documents.
posted by JackFlash at 4:22 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I agree that it doesn't matter if it was illegal. It looks like so many other things that she does, which is not trustworthy.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The American people are sick and tired of hearing about these damn emails"
I came around on the email server issue when it was admitted that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell — members of the Bush administration — did the same thing.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I came around on the email server issue when it was admitted that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell — members of the Bush administration — did the same thing.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
i'm not going to rehash this in yet another thread - i'm just amazed that the only defense of it I ever see brought up is "it's not technically illegal"
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:29 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:29 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Whether documents are classified or not, storing the secretary of state's email archive on a home server strikes me as foolish. No email is secure in transit. But I have to believe the State Department has better system security than anything a contractor can set up in a private home.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. We don't know what security precautions were taken with her server. But we do know that .GOV systems have been hacked many times by foreign governments.
Copies of all email to and from .GOV accounts are supposed to be backed up. If you wanted to you could reconstruct all of Clinton's email by going to the in and out boxes of .GOV accounts. They tried to do that but it turns out that the backup systems were unreliable and much of it was lost.
The irony is that they only reason the complete archive of Clinton's email exists is because it was backed up on a private server. If it were only on a government server much of it might have been lost.
posted by JackFlash at 4:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wouldn't be so sure of that. We don't know what security precautions were taken with her server. But we do know that .GOV systems have been hacked many times by foreign governments.
Copies of all email to and from .GOV accounts are supposed to be backed up. If you wanted to you could reconstruct all of Clinton's email by going to the in and out boxes of .GOV accounts. They tried to do that but it turns out that the backup systems were unreliable and much of it was lost.
The irony is that they only reason the complete archive of Clinton's email exists is because it was backed up on a private server. If it were only on a government server much of it might have been lost.
posted by JackFlash at 4:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Even as a Clinton semi-apologist, I do think it's better for this email stuff to get hashed out now, rather than during the general. If she is able to withstand the scrutiny and still win the nomination, it effectively kills the issue as a weapon that can be used against her by the GOP.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Whether or not it was technically illegal (and I still think that even if it wasn't, it was certainly intended to skirt public records and FOIA law, which I don't appreciate at all - I don't think Republicans should get away with it either but that doesn't make it OK), the story continues to linger because it validates several existing narratives about her: that she is overly secretive and possibly dishonest; that she puts her personal self-interest ahead of the party's/the country's; and that she has questionable judgment. Whether it's illegal is immaterial if it causes voters to distrust her, which there is mounting evidence that it has.
I mean, I bet if you asked most Americans right now whether they thought it was a good idea for the Secretary of State to conduct all of her official business on a private server she runs out of her closet on her own property, they would say no. That's why this continues to be a big deal - not even necessarily because it was illegal (which we still don't know for certain, as the investigation is ongoing and the email release process is being delayed), but because it goes against most peoples' intuitions about how government information should be handled.
For Democrats, the other big issue is that talking about this will probably comprise a good 30% of our National Conversation between now and the general, when we could be using that time to lobby for policies we support. If you think Dem voters don't understand the intricacies of the whole thing, wait until people start getting push-polled on it and the misinformation really starts to swirl.
posted by dialetheia at 4:31 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I mean, I bet if you asked most Americans right now whether they thought it was a good idea for the Secretary of State to conduct all of her official business on a private server she runs out of her closet on her own property, they would say no. That's why this continues to be a big deal - not even necessarily because it was illegal (which we still don't know for certain, as the investigation is ongoing and the email release process is being delayed), but because it goes against most peoples' intuitions about how government information should be handled.
For Democrats, the other big issue is that talking about this will probably comprise a good 30% of our National Conversation between now and the general, when we could be using that time to lobby for policies we support. If you think Dem voters don't understand the intricacies of the whole thing, wait until people start getting push-polled on it and the misinformation really starts to swirl.
posted by dialetheia at 4:31 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Whether it's illegal is immaterial if it causes voters to distrust her, which there is mounting evidence that it has.
Well, you could make the same argument about BENGHAZI! In other words, the substance of any argument is not important. What is important is whether Republicans will make a big deal about it. I can appreciate that point of view but I think it is a rather pessimistic one that concedes your autonomy to whatever the Republicans can dream up. Have no doubt the Republicans will do the same to whoever the nominee turns out to be.
posted by JackFlash at 4:40 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, you could make the same argument about BENGHAZI! In other words, the substance of any argument is not important. What is important is whether Republicans will make a big deal about it. I can appreciate that point of view but I think it is a rather pessimistic one that concedes your autonomy to whatever the Republicans can dream up. Have no doubt the Republicans will do the same to whoever the nominee turns out to be.
posted by JackFlash at 4:40 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Speaking of Clinton sending emails... #ImNotKiddingMaddi
posted by an animate objects at 4:42 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 4:42 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have to confess that all of the Republican-driven conspiracy theory-mongering aside, there's something deeply ~concerning~ about the Benghazi attacks. The misinfo, disinfo, and rumors have deeply obfuscated what amounts to a simple and terrible screw-up.
Hillary might not be directly responsible, Obama might not be directly responsible, but surely someone must be held accountable. Have the Benghazi attacks led to any sweeping reforms in how State Dept. foreign mission security is handled? Did anyone get in trouble for incompetence?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary might not be directly responsible, Obama might not be directly responsible, but surely someone must be held accountable. Have the Benghazi attacks led to any sweeping reforms in how State Dept. foreign mission security is handled? Did anyone get in trouble for incompetence?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, you could make the same argument about BENGHAZI!
I don't buy into the substance of any of that, but I do think that Benghazi is still an electability issue, absolutely. We are still going to spend the whole time talking about it and watching 50,000 ads where we replay her "what difference does it make?" quote over and over. I don't hold any of that against her personally, and I think it's a vicious smear by the right, but it doesn't make it go away, and it's still a distraction.
I can appreciate that point of view but I think it is a rather pessimistic one that concedes your autonomy to whatever the Republicans can dream up.
Fair enough - I feel the same way about all the arguments about how Sanders will be destroyed as soon as people start pointing out he's a socialist, so I can definitely see where you're coming from. I just think that the way this confirms existing narratives about the Clintons is what keeps this thing alive and what makes it especially damaging for her.
posted by dialetheia at 4:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't buy into the substance of any of that, but I do think that Benghazi is still an electability issue, absolutely. We are still going to spend the whole time talking about it and watching 50,000 ads where we replay her "what difference does it make?" quote over and over. I don't hold any of that against her personally, and I think it's a vicious smear by the right, but it doesn't make it go away, and it's still a distraction.
I can appreciate that point of view but I think it is a rather pessimistic one that concedes your autonomy to whatever the Republicans can dream up.
Fair enough - I feel the same way about all the arguments about how Sanders will be destroyed as soon as people start pointing out he's a socialist, so I can definitely see where you're coming from. I just think that the way this confirms existing narratives about the Clintons is what keeps this thing alive and what makes it especially damaging for her.
posted by dialetheia at 4:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Speaking of Clinton sending emails... #ImNotKiddingMaddi
Barack Obama used to send me oddly-worded emails asking for money ALL THE FREAKING TIME. There's definitely a #YesThisIsMyFirstRodeo vibe you get from some of the folks engaging with this primary season!
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:55 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Barack Obama used to send me oddly-worded emails asking for money ALL THE FREAKING TIME. There's definitely a #YesThisIsMyFirstRodeo vibe you get from some of the folks engaging with this primary season!
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:55 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Okay, so, if like 538 sez after say, South Carolina, Sanders has the route to get the electoral votes I'll probably campaign for him.
But this shouting about Benghazi from progressives -- I mean, what? What? Where the fuck is this coming from? You want Hillary apologists on your side? Explain how Sanders is going to get some of his proposals through.
I mean fucking Benghazi?
posted by angrycat at 5:06 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
But this shouting about Benghazi from progressives -- I mean, what? What? Where the fuck is this coming from? You want Hillary apologists on your side? Explain how Sanders is going to get some of his proposals through.
I mean fucking Benghazi?
posted by angrycat at 5:06 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's not what she did in of itself that bothers me. It seems like something that could have been put to bed very early if she was more direct and forthcoming about it. But she wasn't, and it wasn't.
"Yes, she shouldn't have done this thing, and we are committing to being as transparent as possible as we work towards resolving this issue" would have gone a long way, and anything like "yes, it was a mistake, but here's how we are resolving it, and here's how I plan to ensure this isn't an issue in the future" would have totally made this a non-issue. But as we are seeing headlines that the FBI is investigating (and yes, I know an investigation is not proof of wrongdoing) and the response continues to be "I haven't done anything illegal, " "this is just more partisan attacks," and "this specific technicality didn't happen", it prolongs the issue and makes it worse.
But I'm clearly just being played by the Republicans for wanting some amount of acknowledgement and responsibility here.
i said i was done discussing it, but I really want to make it clear why the responses of "it wasn't illegal" are so off-putting to myself and others. It's like when I'd argue with my Mom when I was really young that "I wasn't actually riding my bike out of the neighborhood" when I walked it across a creek to another neighborhood. It was a factual statement.
Also, Benghazi is not a problem, and I am OK with how that was addressed.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Yes, she shouldn't have done this thing, and we are committing to being as transparent as possible as we work towards resolving this issue" would have gone a long way, and anything like "yes, it was a mistake, but here's how we are resolving it, and here's how I plan to ensure this isn't an issue in the future" would have totally made this a non-issue. But as we are seeing headlines that the FBI is investigating (and yes, I know an investigation is not proof of wrongdoing) and the response continues to be "I haven't done anything illegal, " "this is just more partisan attacks," and "this specific technicality didn't happen", it prolongs the issue and makes it worse.
But I'm clearly just being played by the Republicans for wanting some amount of acknowledgement and responsibility here.
i said i was done discussing it, but I really want to make it clear why the responses of "it wasn't illegal" are so off-putting to myself and others. It's like when I'd argue with my Mom when I was really young that "I wasn't actually riding my bike out of the neighborhood" when I walked it across a creek to another neighborhood. It was a factual statement.
Also, Benghazi is not a problem, and I am OK with how that was addressed.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who's shouting about it? If we're having an electability conversation, ongoing scandals are a part of it. I don't blame her for the Benghazi situation at all, just like I assume most progressives don't actually "blame" Sanders for his leftist politics even if they think it might be a liability in the general.
posted by dialetheia at 5:09 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 5:09 PM on February 10, 2016
I'd still like to know what the US State Dept was doing in Benghazi, and what the other US State Dept guys were doing in Benghazi.
Was it an attempt to connect with the rebels?
Was it an arms trafficking thing? If so, to whom?
What was the US's objective?
Is this part of an overall US policy, and if so, what was it?
Did you support that policy? If not, what concerns did you have?
Would you continue that policy? If not, why, and how would you replace it?
IMO these are all very reasonable questions that should be directed at Hillary.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Was it an attempt to connect with the rebels?
Was it an arms trafficking thing? If so, to whom?
What was the US's objective?
Is this part of an overall US policy, and if so, what was it?
Did you support that policy? If not, what concerns did you have?
Would you continue that policy? If not, why, and how would you replace it?
IMO these are all very reasonable questions that should be directed at Hillary.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've basically ignored everything about Benghazi. It sounded tragic when I first read about it, but when the Republicans seized on it like they seize on everything Clinton, I assumed they were exploiting it for political conflict and that it wasn't really substantive. If it was substantive, wouldn't it have sunk her by now?
Anyway, even with the tensions high on the 'fi, I'm really glad that I can discuss this election season here without the hateful members of our nation dominating the conversation. So much better than the year I tried facebook, what a cesspool.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 5:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Anyway, even with the tensions high on the 'fi, I'm really glad that I can discuss this election season here without the hateful members of our nation dominating the conversation. So much better than the year I tried facebook, what a cesspool.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 5:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I for one was never trying to win over anybody. I am voicing my personal opinion that the whole Benghazi affair has been ridden with obscurantism and obfuscation from the beginning, and seems very shady. Republicans may have poisoned it with wingnuttery to the point of it no longer being a usable critique of anybody, much less of Clinton, but despite it all it seems like a disaster, a result of botched policy and of inadequate security.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 5:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If it was substantive, wouldn't it have sunk her by now?
I think in the modern era when dealing with seas of conflicting information and multiple dueling narratives there are all sorts of issues that never get properly addressed by the public. I mean, just look at Iraq and everything related to it since then.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think in the modern era when dealing with seas of conflicting information and multiple dueling narratives there are all sorts of issues that never get properly addressed by the public. I mean, just look at Iraq and everything related to it since then.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"What is an embassy?"
posted by Artw at 5:15 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:15 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Democratic nomination will likely be won in March: Clinton campaign manager
“It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters,” campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in a memo titled “March Matters.”
“The nomination will very likely be won in March, not February, and we believe that Hillary Clinton is well positioned to build a strong – potentially insurmountable – delegate lead next month,” he said.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:22 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
“It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters,” campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in a memo titled “March Matters.”
“The nomination will very likely be won in March, not February, and we believe that Hillary Clinton is well positioned to build a strong – potentially insurmountable – delegate lead next month,” he said.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:22 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I love ya, Tomorrow! You're only a day awaaaaaaaay!
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:23 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:23 PM on February 10, 2016
If that doesn't work out I wonder if they'll start calling all the POC that didn't vote for them racist?
posted by Artw at 5:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anyway, just to be clear again, the substance of Benghazi is bullshit, even if they will still run with it and it might hurt her with some voters. But it does make me think about the way a Presidential election based around her Secretary of State experience will play out. Are Democrats ready to defend the intervention in Libya if the Republicans stake out the anti-intervention territory, for example? I am a little nervous about running on the Obama-era foreign policy record just because I don't even feel quite well enough informed to know what might be coming around the bend in terms of attacks, especially with the Republicans so completely unmoored on foreign policy.
Not that Sanders has anything to write home about there - his foreign policy needs a ton of work. I give him a small amount of benefit of the doubt just because I assume he's also getting shut out of the party's foreign policy leadership, but he really needs some serious foreign policy advisors ASAP. I think he can go a little further than people might think just with an "America is not the world's policeman" policy, but it's a big weakness.
posted by dialetheia at 5:34 PM on February 10, 2016
Not that Sanders has anything to write home about there - his foreign policy needs a ton of work. I give him a small amount of benefit of the doubt just because I assume he's also getting shut out of the party's foreign policy leadership, but he really needs some serious foreign policy advisors ASAP. I think he can go a little further than people might think just with an "America is not the world's policeman" policy, but it's a big weakness.
posted by dialetheia at 5:34 PM on February 10, 2016
Anyway, just to be clear again, the substance of Benghazi is bullshit ...
There are substantial reports that Ambassador Stevens was coordinating arms purchases that were shipped to Syria as a means of providing deniable support to "the rebels" there. I don't know that it's true, but in sixty years people may talk about the consequences of US-supported civil wars in Syria and Libya the way they talk today about the consequences of the US-supported coup in Iran.
Anyway, it's entirely appropriate to ask Hillary about US foreign policy; that's one of the strengths she's campaigning on.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are substantial reports that Ambassador Stevens was coordinating arms purchases that were shipped to Syria as a means of providing deniable support to "the rebels" there. I don't know that it's true, but in sixty years people may talk about the consequences of US-supported civil wars in Syria and Libya the way they talk today about the consequences of the US-supported coup in Iran.
Anyway, it's entirely appropriate to ask Hillary about US foreign policy; that's one of the strengths she's campaigning on.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
To hell with all this Democratic primary crap. The important thing is that I realized today that Donald Trump is totally Emilio Lizardo / Lord John Whorfin.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
ughhgh okay I'm a Sanders supporter, so I really shouldn't be telling you guys this, but well the conversation is getting super frustrating and I'm having a hard time keeping it in.
okay. so. I did Benghazi. it was me. not Clinton. also I did emails. and the emails are so much worse than you know... like, I couldn't figure out how to set up the server right, so for months and months the only way to read anything on it was by telnetting in and using PINE.
I know! Telnet! not even ssh! it was so bad and I'm super, super sorry.
sorry! sorry guys! but it was me, not Clinton. she's off the hook for doing emails and Benghazi. it wasn't her fault. don't worry about it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
okay. so. I did Benghazi. it was me. not Clinton. also I did emails. and the emails are so much worse than you know... like, I couldn't figure out how to set up the server right, so for months and months the only way to read anything on it was by telnetting in and using PINE.
I know! Telnet! not even ssh! it was so bad and I'm super, super sorry.
sorry! sorry guys! but it was me, not Clinton. she's off the hook for doing emails and Benghazi. it wasn't her fault. don't worry about it.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
whew, feels good to get that off my chest...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:14 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:14 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ah, PINE - That explains it, the only corruption we're looking at was the inbox itself...
posted by MysticMCJ at 6:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 6:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
The terrorists attacked us for our emails
posted by Apocryphon at 6:21 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 6:21 PM on February 10, 2016
There's definitely a #YesThisIsMyFirstRodeo vibe you get from some of the folks engaging with this primary season!
That's how it's supposed to feel, if we're serious about involving young people in the political process.
posted by an animate objects at 6:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's how it's supposed to feel, if we're serious about involving young people in the political process.
posted by an animate objects at 6:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Right-wing websites are so wacky. I went to a couple of their oppo-rag sites just to see how direly they were talking about the email thing only to find that they've creatively combined the Benghazi and email scandals for maximum efficiency: "Patrick Kennedy, State's undersecretary for management and the agency's top record-keeping official, warned Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, in May of last year that an email discussing Benghazi had been upgraded to "secret" and should be deleted from the Clinton's records. Kendall promised in a subsequent letter to send hard copies of the email to the State Department, but argued Clinton could not delete the "secret" email because she faced separate orders from the Benghazi committee, the State Department inspector general and the intelligence community inspector general."
Trump is also already attacking Sanders on socialism, of course: "We're dealing with a socialist, perhaps even a communist." Very perceptive of him.
posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump is also already attacking Sanders on socialism, of course: "We're dealing with a socialist, perhaps even a communist." Very perceptive of him.
posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Speaking of Clinton sending emails... #ImNotKiddingMaddi
Barack Obama used to send me oddly-worded emails asking for money ALL THE FREAKING TIME. There's definitely a #YesThisIsMyFirstRodeo vibe you get from some of the folks engaging with this primary season!
This is how the DCCC sends emails...I have a lot of "please,sweetkid" emails from Obama. If Sanders gets the nomination, there will be a lot of "Please" "hey! can you do this for me ?" and "I'm not kidding" type subject lines from Bernie Sanders close to the election.
posted by sweetkid at 6:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Barack Obama used to send me oddly-worded emails asking for money ALL THE FREAKING TIME. There's definitely a #YesThisIsMyFirstRodeo vibe you get from some of the folks engaging with this primary season!
This is how the DCCC sends emails...I have a lot of "please,sweetkid" emails from Obama. If Sanders gets the nomination, there will be a lot of "Please" "hey! can you do this for me ?" and "I'm not kidding" type subject lines from Bernie Sanders close to the election.
posted by sweetkid at 6:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders on The View this morning
That was a surprisingly thoughtful interview. The questions were not loaded, they asked about significant issues, and gave Sanders time to respond. And wow, their studio audience went nuts for him.
This whole defense is the most transparent "I didn't TECHNICALLY do anything wrong" that I've ever seen.
I think her husband still holds that title from back when he tried to argue that a blow job isn't technically sex because no p-in-v occurred.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:31 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
That was a surprisingly thoughtful interview. The questions were not loaded, they asked about significant issues, and gave Sanders time to respond. And wow, their studio audience went nuts for him.
This whole defense is the most transparent "I didn't TECHNICALLY do anything wrong" that I've ever seen.
I think her husband still holds that title from back when he tried to argue that a blow job isn't technically sex because no p-in-v occurred.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:31 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Haha, this will surely endear Jeb! to Republican primary voters! Bush: Trump would be worse than Obama. He's just begging to be allowed to quit at this point.
posted by dialetheia at 6:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jeb! and the Horrorgrams
posted by ian1977 at 6:40 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 6:40 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
JEB, BLINK TWICE IF YOU ARE UNHARMED
posted by indubitable at 6:42 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 6:42 PM on February 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Omg Jeb! you have to open your eyes! That's part of blinking!
posted by ian1977 at 6:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 6:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I still think the whole thing between Jeb! and Trump is personal, because of the Univision/Miss America kerfuffle. And still partly suspect Trump started his campaign to be sure that Jeb!'s campaign never got anywhere (and now that Trump is winning, well, he's a narcissist.....).
posted by LooseFilter at 6:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 6:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
“Senator Sanders hasn’t showed himself to be the kind of friend of Israel that Secretary Clinton is.”
The idea that this statement is ridiculous because he's Jewish, and he will naturally give Israel a blank check, is actually kind of racist. Liberal Jews are some of the main people pushing back on what they see as wrong actions by Israel. It is absolutely no guarantee at ALL that a liberal Jew will side with Israel against Palestine. Kind of the opposite, actually.
posted by corb at 6:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that this statement is ridiculous because he's Jewish, and he will naturally give Israel a blank check, is actually kind of racist. Liberal Jews are some of the main people pushing back on what they see as wrong actions by Israel. It is absolutely no guarantee at ALL that a liberal Jew will side with Israel against Palestine. Kind of the opposite, actually.
posted by corb at 6:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bush was flanked by several members of the South Carolina Republican establishment, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Catherine Templeton, the former director of the state’s health department under Gov. Nikki Haley.
Whoa, rolling out the big guns there, Jebbers.
posted by indubitable at 6:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whoa, rolling out the big guns there, Jebbers.
posted by indubitable at 6:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump announced his candidacy on June 16, the day after Jeb! announced his own, which says to me that he timed it to upstage Bush's announcement.
Huckabee announced the day after Fiorina, so I wonder if he wanted to draw attention from her. The other candidates waited a minimum of a few days.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:54 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huckabee announced the day after Fiorina, so I wonder if he wanted to draw attention from her. The other candidates waited a minimum of a few days.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:54 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I read Michelle Alexander's article and watched the Maddow show for the first time in a few years tonight and both mentioned Hillary's comments about super predators which sent me down the rabbit hole. Appalling and shameful.
Maddow said that Hillary called children as young as 6 monthed old super predators. Any truth to that? I have googled and can find nothing.
posted by futz at 6:58 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maddow said that Hillary called children as young as 6 monthed old super predators. Any truth to that? I have googled and can find nothing.
posted by futz at 6:58 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would be really, really funny if Trump's whole campaign was supposed to just be a big old "Fuck You" to Jeb!. I mean, less funny if he gets elected, obviously, but still, you gotta step back and admire that amount of spite. That is like the Pro Bowl of spite right there, if your average road rager is about Pop Warner level.
posted by indubitable at 6:59 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 6:59 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wow. I know Sanders wants a clean fight, but ...
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on February 10, 2016
you gotta step back and admire that amount of spite.
You really do. I spent some time a few months ago thinking about what Trump's real motivation(s) for running could be, and still think that's the most plausible. That he's actually winning at this point is just icing on the cake for him.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
You really do. I spent some time a few months ago thinking about what Trump's real motivation(s) for running could be, and still think that's the most plausible. That he's actually winning at this point is just icing on the cake for him.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
She is counting on those super predators votes now that they are 20 or 21 years old.
posted by ian1977 at 7:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:11 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sam Seder's predictions about Trump from way back in June were extremely prescient.
That super predator stuff is absolutely horrible. I don't think it's dirty politics to point it out, either - that's her record, and she's the one trying to make the argument that she's been a lifelong friend to the Black community.
posted by dialetheia at 7:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That super predator stuff is absolutely horrible. I don't think it's dirty politics to point it out, either - that's her record, and she's the one trying to make the argument that she's been a lifelong friend to the Black community.
posted by dialetheia at 7:12 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Artw, before I watch another video, does it mention kids as young as 6 months old?
I feel gross even asking.
posted by futz at 7:15 PM on February 10, 2016
I feel gross even asking.
posted by futz at 7:15 PM on February 10, 2016
No, it doesn't. But the clip is only 30 seconds long.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:16 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:16 PM on February 10, 2016
Yeah, I have watched a bunch of the same clip. Just wondered if Maddow's assertions where true or not.
posted by futz at 7:19 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by futz at 7:19 PM on February 10, 2016
If one of the Bernie-backing outside groups doesn't run that footage on a loop in SC, I will be sorely disappointed in their strategists. Or, hell, Bernie could run it himself, although at that point it's edging on an attack. How bad is that, though, when unedited footage of your opponent comes across as the most damning thing possible?
Reminds me of a college project I did back in the day where I did an attack ad against Robert Hurt. It consisted of an unbroken shot of him taking a wad of cash from a supporter in a suit. This "super predators" bit is miles worse.
posted by fifthrider at 7:20 PM on February 10, 2016
Reminds me of a college project I did back in the day where I did an attack ad against Robert Hurt. It consisted of an unbroken shot of him taking a wad of cash from a supporter in a suit. This "super predators" bit is miles worse.
posted by fifthrider at 7:20 PM on February 10, 2016
The worst part is when she says "we have to bring them to heel" like they're animals. These are children! And in my personal opinion, you can draw a straight line from that kind of rhetoric to the shooting of Tamir Rice - it's that kind of framing that allows armed, grown men to think that a 12 year old boy poses a lethal threat to them, and it didn't just come from the right wing.
posted by dialetheia at 7:21 PM on February 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:21 PM on February 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
And I will drop it now. I just don't want to repeat something that is not true.
On preview, the bring them to heel statement was the most upsetting to me.
posted by futz at 7:23 PM on February 10, 2016
On preview, the bring them to heel statement was the most upsetting to me.
posted by futz at 7:23 PM on February 10, 2016
Oh, speaking of Tamir Rice, he's in the news today: Cleveland Files Creditor's Claim Against Tamir Rice Estate For Unpaid EMS Fee
posted by indubitable at 7:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 7:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah. And even worse than that is that it seems like calculated speech. It's intended to have that effect. It's intended to appeal to our base nature. It's so republican I could puke.
posted by ian1977 at 7:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
You know what? It's bad enough.
posted by Artw at 7:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 7:24 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
(no word yet on whether they will be billed for the bullets)
posted by indubitable at 7:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 7:25 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Omg Jeb! you have to open your eyes! That's part of blinking!
It's like "After Hours", the Twilight Zone episode with the mannequins. It was Jeb's turn out and he used it to run for president but now he has to go back so one of the other mannequins can go on vacation.
Bush was flanked by several members of the South Carolina Republican establishment, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Catherine Templeton, the former director of the state’s health department under Gov. Nikki Haley.
Are they planning on...eating him? #CIEJ!
And wow, their studio audience went nuts for him.
This is what I was talking about way up there ^. When people who do not know about Bernie Sanders hear about Bernie Sanders they like Bernie Sanders.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's like "After Hours", the Twilight Zone episode with the mannequins. It was Jeb's turn out and he used it to run for president but now he has to go back so one of the other mannequins can go on vacation.
Bush was flanked by several members of the South Carolina Republican establishment, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Catherine Templeton, the former director of the state’s health department under Gov. Nikki Haley.
Are they planning on...eating him? #CIEJ!
And wow, their studio audience went nuts for him.
This is what I was talking about way up there ^. When people who do not know about Bernie Sanders hear about Bernie Sanders they like Bernie Sanders.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's the rest of the source clip for Artw's video.
posted by fifthrider at 7:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by fifthrider at 7:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fees for services that weren't rendered in a timely manner!? Fucking ballsy.
posted by futz at 7:27 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:27 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's some more background on the whole "super predator" thing here, from Human Rights Watch. It does mention House members imputing criminal tendencies to "infants barely out of diapers" but it's hard to say how much of that is tied up with the also-disgusting "crack baby" stuff. It wasn't just rhetoric, of course: "With frequent references to "juvenile predators," "hardened criminals," and "young thugs," U.S. lawmakers at both the state and federal levels have increasingly abandoned efforts to rehabilitate child offenders through the juvenile court system. Instead, many states have responded to a perceived outbreak in juvenile violent crime by moving more children into the adult criminal system. Between 1992 and 1998, at least forty U.S. states adopted legislation making it easier for children to be tried as adults."
posted by dialetheia at 7:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:30 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, none of that makes it better.
posted by Artw at 7:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 7:35 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, Trump burnishes his foreign policy credentials...
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:37 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:37 PM on February 10, 2016
That Bernie video from 1991 from the dailykos link could be from today. That guy is on point and consistent.
posted by ian1977 at 7:38 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:38 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Someone should check on David Brooks and see if he's still breathing.
Did anyone do that wellness check on Mr. Brooks yet? He still hasn't tweeted, or posted any tearful op-eds, and I'm starting to worry.
look, I'm a social worker. Case managers gonna case manage.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:41 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Did anyone do that wellness check on Mr. Brooks yet? He still hasn't tweeted, or posted any tearful op-eds, and I'm starting to worry.
look, I'm a social worker. Case managers gonna case manage.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:41 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
The person who saw Clinton’s Arizona remarks to Goldman said they thought there was no chance the campaign would ever release them. “It would bury her against Sanders,” this person said. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”
posted by threeants at 7:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by threeants at 7:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
The worst part is when she says "we have to bring them to heel" like they're animals. These are children! And in my personal opinion, you can draw a straight line from that kind of rhetoric to the shooting of Tamir Rice - it's that kind of framing that allows armed, grown men to think that a 12 year old boy poses a lethal threat to them, and it didn't just come from the right wing.
The white supremacy underlying Clinton's whole thing is the reason why I think there's a moral imperative not to express support for her beyond a willingness to vote tactically should it come to that. I don't think it's conscious, but her foreign policy today relies on this same mechanism of dehumanizing people of other races.
posted by invitapriore at 7:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
The white supremacy underlying Clinton's whole thing is the reason why I think there's a moral imperative not to express support for her beyond a willingness to vote tactically should it come to that. I don't think it's conscious, but her foreign policy today relies on this same mechanism of dehumanizing people of other races.
posted by invitapriore at 7:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
And, wow, "bring them to heel" really fits right into a lineage of white supremacist messaging that leads directly to Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice.
posted by threeants at 7:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by threeants at 7:44 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
The idea that this statement is ridiculous because he's Jewish, and he will naturally give Israel a blank check, is actually kind of racist. Liberal Jews are some of the main people pushing back on what they see as wrong actions by Israel. It is absolutely no guarantee at ALL that a liberal Jew will side with Israel against Palestine. Kind of the opposite, actually.
As a Jewish person, that's not at all what bothered me about that. I didn't even get that far. I am offended and insulted that, in the immediate aftermath of a sweeping defeat, in what I assume was a moment of panic or desperation, and days after having her surrogates tell my 50-yo, boy-crazy ass that I am going to hell, she tries to woo me back by assuming, as a Jew, I am only concerned about Israel, and tries to pit me against another Jew whose family was destroyed in the Holocaust.
I guess she thought that if trying to shame women into voting for her and then pitting women against each other didn't work maybe trying to guilt Jews and pit them against each other would? This has zero to do with Isreal and everything to do with...whatever the hell her campaign is doing right now.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [30 favorites]
As a Jewish person, that's not at all what bothered me about that. I didn't even get that far. I am offended and insulted that, in the immediate aftermath of a sweeping defeat, in what I assume was a moment of panic or desperation, and days after having her surrogates tell my 50-yo, boy-crazy ass that I am going to hell, she tries to woo me back by assuming, as a Jew, I am only concerned about Israel, and tries to pit me against another Jew whose family was destroyed in the Holocaust.
I guess she thought that if trying to shame women into voting for her and then pitting women against each other didn't work maybe trying to guilt Jews and pit them against each other would? This has zero to do with Isreal and everything to do with...whatever the hell her campaign is doing right now.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:45 PM on February 10, 2016 [30 favorites]
you gotta step back and admire that amount of spite.
You really do. I spent some time a few months ago thinking about what Trump's real motivation(s) for running could be, and still think that's the most plausible. That he's actually winning at this point is just icing on the cake for him.
I think it's spite, but more aimed at Obama. Or the type of people he feels Obama personifies. He's angry at Obama for not being a real American yet being President. He's angry that Obama mocked him harshly at the Correspondents' Dinner and he had no comeback. That's why the entire spine of his campaign is nativism and mocking anyone who stands against him. He wants to reassert his ego.
I don't think he will be able to bully Bernie or Hillary so he can enjoy that while it lasts. I don't know which Republican can really take him down one on one. We are just assuming that the establishment guys will keep dropping and one of them will pick up enough of those votes to win but I'm not sure that's going to happen. Cruz really is, as usual, fucking it all up for the less bonkers Republicans.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
You really do. I spent some time a few months ago thinking about what Trump's real motivation(s) for running could be, and still think that's the most plausible. That he's actually winning at this point is just icing on the cake for him.
I think it's spite, but more aimed at Obama. Or the type of people he feels Obama personifies. He's angry at Obama for not being a real American yet being President. He's angry that Obama mocked him harshly at the Correspondents' Dinner and he had no comeback. That's why the entire spine of his campaign is nativism and mocking anyone who stands against him. He wants to reassert his ego.
I don't think he will be able to bully Bernie or Hillary so he can enjoy that while it lasts. I don't know which Republican can really take him down one on one. We are just assuming that the establishment guys will keep dropping and one of them will pick up enough of those votes to win but I'm not sure that's going to happen. Cruz really is, as usual, fucking it all up for the less bonkers Republicans.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think it's conscious, but her foreign policy today relies on this same mechanism of dehumanizing people of other races.
Did you miss her chumming it up with Henry Fucking Kissinger? I mean, if you need to know the playbook that Hillary Clinton will pursue once in office, that's all you need to know.
posted by daq at 7:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Did you miss her chumming it up with Henry Fucking Kissinger? I mean, if you need to know the playbook that Hillary Clinton will pursue once in office, that's all you need to know.
posted by daq at 7:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm getting flashbacks at how gross I ended up thinking she was in 2008. I kinda forgave and forgot but now I'm remembering. Eww
posted by ian1977 at 7:54 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:54 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Lee Fang has been identifying some of the superdelegates who are pledged for Clinton. Just for example:
- Bill Shaheen is a Hillary superdelegate. His law firm lobbies for one of the biggest providers of opioids in NH
- Jill Alper, a "Hillblazer" fundraising for Hillary, is a superdelegate. Her firm was hired by health insurers to undermine Obamacare in 09.
- Hillary superdelegate Maria Cardona works at Alper's lobbying firm. She, too, is a Hillary superdelegate.
- Joanne Dowdell, VP of gov affairs (translation: lobbying) at [Rupert Murdoch's] News Corp, is a Clinton superdelegate
He also found a story from 2014 where Clinton implied that she would be open to repealing the Obamacare tax on medical devices after giving a speech to a medical device industry conference for $265,000. Pretty rich considering all the fearmongering about Sanders repealing the ACA.
posted by dialetheia at 7:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
- Bill Shaheen is a Hillary superdelegate. His law firm lobbies for one of the biggest providers of opioids in NH
- Jill Alper, a "Hillblazer" fundraising for Hillary, is a superdelegate. Her firm was hired by health insurers to undermine Obamacare in 09.
- Hillary superdelegate Maria Cardona works at Alper's lobbying firm. She, too, is a Hillary superdelegate.
- Joanne Dowdell, VP of gov affairs (translation: lobbying) at [Rupert Murdoch's] News Corp, is a Clinton superdelegate
He also found a story from 2014 where Clinton implied that she would be open to repealing the Obamacare tax on medical devices after giving a speech to a medical device industry conference for $265,000. Pretty rich considering all the fearmongering about Sanders repealing the ACA.
posted by dialetheia at 7:57 PM on February 10, 2016 [22 favorites]
Wait you guys...what if she meant 'bring them to heel..ary'
posted by ian1977 at 8:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 8:01 PM on February 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
'We need to bring them to Hillary, so I can absorb their super predator powers.'
posted by ian1977 at 8:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 8:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, she obviously meant "heal". She just expressed it poorly.
posted by futz at 8:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by futz at 8:07 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
The person who saw Clinton’s Arizona remarks to Goldman said they thought there was no chance the campaign would ever release them. “It would bury her against Sanders,” this person said. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”
I love this article. I love how the Democrats are all on the one hand, Hey, there's nothing bad in here! and on the other hand terrified about how it would look in public.
posted by grobstein at 8:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I love this article. I love how the Democrats are all on the one hand, Hey, there's nothing bad in here! and on the other hand terrified about how it would look in public.
posted by grobstein at 8:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's some good digging into the superdelegates there -- I'm really glad that this is getting coverage, it's a really poorly understood part of the DNC and the election cycle. But beyond that, even knowing a bit about the superdelegate process, it never even occurred to me that they could paint this bad of a picture. It will be interesting to see where that all goes.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:09 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:09 PM on February 10, 2016
Interestingly, the Republicans actually just changed the rules to make the superdelegates bound to primary results because the Paulites, and I always imagine Ron Paul in a hamburglar outfit at this point, leveraged the rules to "steal" a bunch of delegates.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:18 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
That rule was fortified by amendments made at the Republican convention of 2012, ironically to handicap insurgent candidates in the future. It was a response to the phenomenon of Texas Rep. Ron Paul winning nearly all of the delegates in states like Maine, Minnesota and Nevada, in spite of losing wider initial contests in those states.In other words, we just landed in the one circumstance where superdelegates might be viewed by some as necessary, to stop a dangerous person not fit to be President from getting the party nomination on a wave of populism, and they tied their own hands.
This year, experts observe, that rule could function in a manner opposite the way it was intended, by preventing party leaders from voting against a candidate of whom they don't approve.
"The convention rules make it clear that elected members of the Republican National Committee are bound by the same rules and have the same rights and privileges as every other delegate," GOPAC President David Avella told the Examiner.
For that reason, Avella said, he objects to using the term "superdelegate" altogether, because it fails to differentiate the Republican Party from the Democratic Party. The latter explicitly uses the term, and does not have a rule for binding their votes.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:18 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
No, she obviously meant "heal". She just expressed it poorly.
Yes, the plan was to have the FBI help the super predators "heal." Straws are being grasped at. The meaning and usage is clear in the context.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:18 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, the plan was to have the FBI help the super predators "heal." Straws are being grasped at. The meaning and usage is clear in the context.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:18 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's pretty astonishing in and of itself that Clinton is now scrambling to disavow Goldman, given its cozy relationship with the Democratic Party. To me that speaks to the power of Sanders' campaign, irrespective of how the primary turns out.
posted by threeants at 8:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by threeants at 8:20 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sarcasm is being missed at I think. :P
posted by Drinky Die at 8:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sarcasm is being missed at I think. :P
Ooops. Re-calibrating....
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Ooops. Re-calibrating....
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Use my comments as a baseline. I'm always 100% serious and never sarcastic.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm getting flashbacks at how gross I ended up thinking she was in 2008.
It's like she's learned nothing about counterinsurgency campaigns since then!
posted by Apocryphon at 8:34 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's like she's learned nothing about counterinsurgency campaigns since then!
posted by Apocryphon at 8:34 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I wonder how many folks would think that the democratic party is considering their voices worthless if the nominee ended up decided by superdelegates instead of the primary process.
posted by asra at 8:36 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by asra at 8:36 PM on February 10, 2016
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 2/10/16
Jealous draws distinctions in Democratic race
Rachel Maddow: I feel like Secretary Clinton's policy positions are similar to Senator Sanders'....
Ben Jealous: And then you remember 2008, when there were seven democrats on stage, and they were asked specifically, if we get rid of the disparity between crack and powder, which had sent so many black women to prison -- disproportionatly black women to prison -- would you support applying it retroactively? These women could get out and take care of their families and get their kids out of foster care.... Everyone said yes except for her. She said no.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [28 favorites]
Jealous draws distinctions in Democratic race
Rachel Maddow: I feel like Secretary Clinton's policy positions are similar to Senator Sanders'....
Ben Jealous: And then you remember 2008, when there were seven democrats on stage, and they were asked specifically, if we get rid of the disparity between crack and powder, which had sent so many black women to prison -- disproportionatly black women to prison -- would you support applying it retroactively? These women could get out and take care of their families and get their kids out of foster care.... Everyone said yes except for her. She said no.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [28 favorites]
Ooops. Re-calibrating....
It has just not been a great week for the robot-american community.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
It has just not been a great week for the robot-american community.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:43 PM on February 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Regarding Benghazi, it's telling that for all the brouhaha raised by the MSM not one reporter, that I am aware of, has asked her any of the questions raised by Joe in Australia above. It's even more telling that but for Senator Rand Paul she was not asked about the weapons transfers going on between Libya and Syria via Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. Look at her response to Senator Paul...she's lying...through. her. teeth.
People have known about the weapon transfers since almost the beginning, but that was not part of the narrative we were fed by the Government and their partners in crime in the press.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
People have known about the weapon transfers since almost the beginning, but that was not part of the narrative we were fed by the Government and their partners in crime in the press.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
But will robot-americans follow the zeroth law of robotics? How do their silicon brains parse 'humanity'?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:46 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder how many folks would think that the democratic party is considering their voices worthless if the nominee ended up decided by superdelegates instead of the primary process.
posted by asra at 8:36 PM on February 10 [+] [!]
like literally all of them? The Democratic Party would at that point lose all legitimacy.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by asra at 8:36 PM on February 10 [+] [!]
like literally all of them? The Democratic Party would at that point lose all legitimacy.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:51 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, not the superdelegates.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
How do their silicon brains parse 'humanity'?
Given that they're presumably programmed by humans, probably not super well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Given that they're presumably programmed by humans, probably not super well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:53 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It has just not been a great week for the robot-american community.
It looks like robots are having a better week across the pond.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:54 PM on February 10, 2016
It looks like robots are having a better week across the pond.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:54 PM on February 10, 2016
They are not going to overturn the primary process if it gives any kind of margin to Sanders. I'm not sure what margin would be enough that they would flip to him but surely no higher than... 10%?
posted by Justinian at 8:54 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:54 PM on February 10, 2016
In case anyone's trying to keep track, the private email server thing has been in the news for almost a year. And I think anyone who thinks of themselves as a progressive should inherently support Freedom of Information laws in principle.
I am still appalled anyone thinks there's anything normal or SOP about setting up your own email server in your home as a government employee, let alone a high-ranking one. What's more galling is it's not like Clinton was new to this rodeo, she had presumably lived for 8 years in a setting where federal record keeping laws apply.
The dumbest argument about "ah well it's NBD because they copied over the emails to the State Department" is how do you actually independently verify this? The whole point of doing things on a work-owned server is the exact same reasons why many businesses require high-level employees to take vacation now and then -- to mitigate against fraudulent activity. Asking the people who set up a private email server (which is far and away outside of the norms of virtually all federal recordkeeping environments), to comply with federal records laws is essentially asking the fox to guard the hen house. In other words, if someone gets a FOIA request, what independent party can truly verify the actions taken in the context of a private email server that is not part of the overall recordkeeping environment?
It is so, SO embarrassing to see liberals issue defensive excuses for circumventing public records laws, but I suppose when it comes to freedom of information, it's a truly bipartisan "for thee but not me."
posted by mostly vowels at 8:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
I am still appalled anyone thinks there's anything normal or SOP about setting up your own email server in your home as a government employee, let alone a high-ranking one. What's more galling is it's not like Clinton was new to this rodeo, she had presumably lived for 8 years in a setting where federal record keeping laws apply.
The dumbest argument about "ah well it's NBD because they copied over the emails to the State Department" is how do you actually independently verify this? The whole point of doing things on a work-owned server is the exact same reasons why many businesses require high-level employees to take vacation now and then -- to mitigate against fraudulent activity. Asking the people who set up a private email server (which is far and away outside of the norms of virtually all federal recordkeeping environments), to comply with federal records laws is essentially asking the fox to guard the hen house. In other words, if someone gets a FOIA request, what independent party can truly verify the actions taken in the context of a private email server that is not part of the overall recordkeeping environment?
It is so, SO embarrassing to see liberals issue defensive excuses for circumventing public records laws, but I suppose when it comes to freedom of information, it's a truly bipartisan "for thee but not me."
posted by mostly vowels at 8:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Sanders is Zoidberg
Clinton is Mom
Trump is Roberto
Cruz is a scammer alien
Rubio is a brain slug
Jeb is Igner
posted by ian1977 at 8:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton is Mom
Trump is Roberto
Cruz is a scammer alien
Rubio is a brain slug
Jeb is Igner
posted by ian1977 at 8:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
robots are having a better week across the pond.
I'll take Youtube Videos That Made As Much Sense To Me As The Things That Come Out Of Ben Carson's Mouth for $400, Alex.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll take Youtube Videos That Made As Much Sense To Me As The Things That Come Out Of Ben Carson's Mouth for $400, Alex.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:00 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's british guys who think they are robots after they get stoned and they are on a mission to by a 10 pack of ciggies.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:03 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:03 PM on February 10, 2016
Only 10 per pack? What a horrible socialist dystopia.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carson is the Hypno-Toad.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heh, and Bernie visits The Late Show to cap off the day he started on The View. Not a bad way to start trying to grow national name recognition.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:08 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:08 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Omg Facebook random trolls. Why do I argue with you?
posted by ian1977 at 9:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 9:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sorry. That was for a different window and not at all directed at any of you!!! You are not Facebook trolls. You are all metafilter...opposite of trolls. Gnomes?
posted by ian1977 at 9:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 9:19 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sorry. That was for a different window and not at all directed at any of you!!! You are not Facebook trolls. You are all metafilter...opposite of trolls. Gnomes?
Sllorts.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sllorts.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:26 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yoopers.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:28 PM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Or, per Wikipedia, they are the corrupted form of Ents. That makes sense.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on February 10, 2016
Aren't Yoopers already a thing? People who live in that weirdo part of Michigan?
posted by Justinian at 9:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:37 PM on February 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
America, you are letting me down...
...how have no headline writers gone with "Burlington Vote Factory" yet? It's sitting right there.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [37 favorites]
...how have no headline writers gone with "Burlington Vote Factory" yet? It's sitting right there.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:52 PM on February 10, 2016 [37 favorites]
Finally found a three-way poll between Trump, Sanders, and Bloomberg. It's total crap, of course, and the Bloomberg polling is all over the place in general, but hey. Most of the three-way polling I could find only included Clinton, not Sanders for some reason.
As of 1/24, they have it at Sanders: 35%; Trump 34%; Bloomberg 12% (with 19% undecided). Bloomberg cuts into Sanders' numbers more than Trump's, but it's still very close. Anyway, my point is only to provide some evidence that it might be slightly premature for the "line up behind Bloomberg, Democrats" talk.
posted by dialetheia at 10:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
As of 1/24, they have it at Sanders: 35%; Trump 34%; Bloomberg 12% (with 19% undecided). Bloomberg cuts into Sanders' numbers more than Trump's, but it's still very close. Anyway, my point is only to provide some evidence that it might be slightly premature for the "line up behind Bloomberg, Democrats" talk.
posted by dialetheia at 10:05 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
While trying to find that, I also found this nausea-inducing piece of propaganda about how desperately Silicon Valley CEOs want Bloomberg to run. Not often I see a poll of CEOs instead of voters in a horse race article.
posted by dialetheia at 10:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 10:10 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Should he run, we could once again witness how Silicon Valley can disrupt campaigning for the most important elected office in America.”
I'll be back, need to go slam my head against the desk for a while.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'll be back, need to go slam my head against the desk for a while.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:13 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
In 2016, I have to think the Brogrammer Overlords know how douchey and ridiculous "disrupt" sounds, but can't resist trolling us with it anyway.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 PM on February 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bernie and the New Left: "A generation gap as wide as the Grand Canyon seems to be opening up in the Democratic Party and American liberalism more generally. To some in the opposing camps, the divisions appear rooted in incompatible ideologies and counterposed strategic conceptions of how to promote the progressive cause. Look more closely, however—as both sides must—and the divide appears less fundamental, less socialism-versus-liberalism, less idealism-versus-pragmatism. The Democratic Party as a whole is moving left, but at two different speeds. What makes these differences seem so intense is less a sharp clash of beliefs, and more that the divisions have emerged in the course of an almost unimaginably high-stakes presidential contest."
posted by dialetheia at 11:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 11:03 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
While trying to find that, I also found this nausea-inducing piece of propaganda about how desperately Silicon Valley CEOs want Bloomberg to run. Not often I see a poll of CEOs instead of voters in a horse race article.
Gross. The weirdness of a CEO poll and lack of actual real names makes it sound kind of made up though.
posted by Artw at 11:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gross. The weirdness of a CEO poll and lack of actual real names makes it sound kind of made up though.
posted by Artw at 11:09 PM on February 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
First off, any survey of Silicon Valley CEOs is likely to be less representative of SV than it is about CEOs in general. Second, a bunch of brogrammers disrupted the Romney campaign in 2012, previously.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:19 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:19 PM on February 10, 2016
Bernie Sanders Reveals How as President He'll Beat Obstructionist Congress
I want you to be out there, I want you to be on the phone, I want you to tell your senators. I will be in your state so that a few hundred thousand of us can say hello to your senator and the need to support legislation.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I want you to be out there, I want you to be on the phone, I want you to tell your senators. I will be in your state so that a few hundred thousand of us can say hello to your senator and the need to support legislation.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:23 PM on February 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
He's talking about direct action instigated from the bully pulpit of the White House. He's emphasizing the fact that he can't do it alone, we have to stand up in unison and solidarity.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:27 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:27 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
So basically the same thing that Obama said in 2008 which didn't work.
posted by Justinian at 11:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:47 PM on February 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
He addresses that in the video.
posted by dialetheia at 11:54 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 11:54 PM on February 10, 2016
That's like a whole 1:46 seconds.
fine...
posted by Justinian at 11:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
fine...
posted by Justinian at 11:56 PM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Dear Metafilter: I would like to congratulate you on actually altering my opinions. Somewhat. While I stand by my earlier statement that I will be happy to vote for either Bernie or Hillary come the general election, this thread (and assorted materials that happen to be linked) have made me feel better about Bernie's electability and less-bad about what I'm increasingly seeing as Hillary's likely defeat. (I still think people are unreasonably shitty toward her.)
So, congratulations, Metafilter! Don't ever let anyone tell you that arguing on the internet never changed anyone's mind, because it happened here with me. Sorta.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:01 AM on February 11, 2016 [22 favorites]
So, congratulations, Metafilter! Don't ever let anyone tell you that arguing on the internet never changed anyone's mind, because it happened here with me. Sorta.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:01 AM on February 11, 2016 [22 favorites]
Why America is Moving Left, Peter Beinart:
In November 1969, in a speech from the Oval Office, Richard Nixon uttered the phrase silent majority. It soon became shorthand for those white Americans who, shaken by crime and appalled by radicalism, turned against the Democratic Party in the ’60s and ’70s. For Americans with an ear for historical parallels, the return of that era’s phrases and images suggests that a powerful conservative backlash is headed our way.posted by dialetheia at 12:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
At least, that was my thesis when I set out to write this essay. I came of age in the ’80s and ’90s, when the backlash against ’60s liberalism still struck terror into Democratic hearts. I watched as Ronald Reagan moved the country hard to the right, and as Bill Clinton made his peace with this new political reality by assuring white America that his party would fight crime mercilessly. Seeing this year’s Democratic candidates crumple before Black Lives Matter and shed Clinton’s ideological caution as they stampeded to the left, I imagined the country must be preparing for a vast conservative reaction.
But I was wrong. The more I examined the evidence, the more I realized that the current moment looks like a mirror image of the late ’60s and early ’70s. The resemblances are clear, but their political significance has been turned upside down. There is a backlash against the liberalism of the Obama era. But it is louder than it is strong. Instead of turning right, the country as a whole is still moving to the left.
I can't stop thinking about how Hillary is really in the catbird seat. She has formidable knowledge about the workings of government and could singlehandedly burn the system down and loop Bernie around the left on every topic currently a liability for her. Explain how all the bad stuff came to be normal, so normal she thought it herself. A real Road to Damascus operation.
posted by rhizome at 3:02 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 3:02 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
3 weeks before the iowa [caucus] 538 was talking about how sanders would have only 30% of the vote in iowa.
The above is flatly untrue. Follow the link provided and you see that 538 clearly projects a 48%-45% Hillary/Bernie vote split. You're confusing the initial statement giving Hillary a 67% chance of winning with the projected vote totals.
This election has certainly been tough to predict in many ways, but 538 got Iowa about right, and you shouldn't mislead people about that.
posted by mediareport at 3:22 AM on February 11, 2016
The above is flatly untrue. Follow the link provided and you see that 538 clearly projects a 48%-45% Hillary/Bernie vote split. You're confusing the initial statement giving Hillary a 67% chance of winning with the projected vote totals.
This election has certainly been tough to predict in many ways, but 538 got Iowa about right, and you shouldn't mislead people about that.
posted by mediareport at 3:22 AM on February 11, 2016
Oh, shoot. I apologize. I assumed that article was *dated* three weeks before the Iowa caucus. You were right; the third graph shows clearly that 538 had Bernie with around 30% of the vote in the weeks before the caucus. Apologies again.
posted by mediareport at 3:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 3:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Folks, I think I've found Trump's VP pick
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 3:40 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 3:40 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Thoughtful piece at Slate (I know, I know):
Hard Choices: I used to hate Hillary. Now I’m voting for her.
Lots to agree and disagree with (my fave is characterizing the centrist Dem coddling of Wall Street as "believing Wall Street has a role to play in the economy" - yeesh), but very articulate about the pressures Hillary has faced as a woman throughout her public career. Worth a read.
posted by mediareport at 4:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hard Choices: I used to hate Hillary. Now I’m voting for her.
Lots to agree and disagree with (my fave is characterizing the centrist Dem coddling of Wall Street as "believing Wall Street has a role to play in the economy" - yeesh), but very articulate about the pressures Hillary has faced as a woman throughout her public career. Worth a read.
posted by mediareport at 4:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hard Choices: I used to hate Hillary. Now I’m voting for her.
"There’s no way to know how much of this rebuke is about Clinton the individual, and how much about Clinton the woman.
Are you kidding me? Now Hillary defenders are just calling women liars? There are probably 20 different reasons people don't want to vote for Hillary right here in this thread, but we may never know if the real reason they're not voting for Hillary?? What will it take, how many voters does she have to lose before she and her supporters accept any responsibility for her declining support?
Also, the whole premise is confusing. The supporters she has been hemorrhaging since Decemebr didn't start off hating her, her policies and past actions are being rejected by people who now have an alternative.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
"There’s no way to know how much of this rebuke is about Clinton the individual, and how much about Clinton the woman.
Are you kidding me? Now Hillary defenders are just calling women liars? There are probably 20 different reasons people don't want to vote for Hillary right here in this thread, but we may never know if the real reason they're not voting for Hillary?? What will it take, how many voters does she have to lose before she and her supporters accept any responsibility for her declining support?
Also, the whole premise is confusing. The supporters she has been hemorrhaging since Decemebr didn't start off hating her, her policies and past actions are being rejected by people who now have an alternative.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I actually liked the Slate piece, and also this one: Stop Berniesplaining to Black Voters.
I won't say this thread tipped me into being a Hillary supporter, but it did have a hand, especially with all the breathless "now Hillary supporters are resorting to..." stuff, which at least makes actual discussion of anything nearly impossible. I'm tired of trying some reasonable discussion about Bernie and getting shouted down about how "ok, if your Hillary values work for you" and yeah, Benghazi and the emails are longstanding Republican talking points that Bernie supporters are now using quite a bit.
I'm sure this is a super unpopular opinion in this thread, but I just want people to know there is still a ton of Hillary support out there, and that this thing is really, really early. Though I like a lot of what Bernie's saying I don't think he's right for the job of POTUS.
If anything, I thank this thread for railing against HRC supporters as hawkish Wall Street lovers or just ignorant fools who sadly haven't heard the good news yet, because it helped me realize that I am not those things, but still want to make a different choice than Bernie Sanders.
posted by sweetkid at 5:19 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I won't say this thread tipped me into being a Hillary supporter, but it did have a hand, especially with all the breathless "now Hillary supporters are resorting to..." stuff, which at least makes actual discussion of anything nearly impossible. I'm tired of trying some reasonable discussion about Bernie and getting shouted down about how "ok, if your Hillary values work for you" and yeah, Benghazi and the emails are longstanding Republican talking points that Bernie supporters are now using quite a bit.
I'm sure this is a super unpopular opinion in this thread, but I just want people to know there is still a ton of Hillary support out there, and that this thing is really, really early. Though I like a lot of what Bernie's saying I don't think he's right for the job of POTUS.
If anything, I thank this thread for railing against HRC supporters as hawkish Wall Street lovers or just ignorant fools who sadly haven't heard the good news yet, because it helped me realize that I am not those things, but still want to make a different choice than Bernie Sanders.
posted by sweetkid at 5:19 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yeah, but when they stick to the issues, Hillary Clinton's support erodes.
Sure she's been pro-choice, that's great.
But what's that compared to when Berniecare kicks in, Christian extremist employers who would deny contraceptive coverage are cut out of the loop, and that's the end of fighting for reproductive rights.
So, it's holding-the-line with Hillary Clinton and maybe moving the ball a few yards, or finally resolving the root-cause of the issue with Bernie Sanders.
I still think the nominee is going the be Hillary Clinton, but that's mostly because I haven't seen anything to give me any trust in the infrastructure counting the votes.
posted by mikelieman at 5:29 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure she's been pro-choice, that's great.
But what's that compared to when Berniecare kicks in, Christian extremist employers who would deny contraceptive coverage are cut out of the loop, and that's the end of fighting for reproductive rights.
So, it's holding-the-line with Hillary Clinton and maybe moving the ball a few yards, or finally resolving the root-cause of the issue with Bernie Sanders.
I still think the nominee is going the be Hillary Clinton, but that's mostly because I haven't seen anything to give me any trust in the infrastructure counting the votes.
posted by mikelieman at 5:29 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, actually there IS a way to know how much is about Clinton Individual or Clinton Woman. ASK US. I'm a white 49 year old woman that is financially secure and if I have to vote Clinton in the general I"ll do it, but cringe while I fill in that bubble. I'm as feminist as they come, but I don't owe her a damn thing. I have serious reservations about her motivations and obligations, and I flat don't believe her that she's going to work for ME or my daughter or my mother if she's in office. I think she's going to work for her interests and the "people" who have helped her get there. When you get to the ball, you have to dance with the "one who brung you" and I think she's got her dance card filled with Wall Street.
Her folksy "I'm just like you public servants out there struggling" schtick, her shaming women who aren't automatically giving her their vote and her increasingly negative slamming of the opposition are super off putting. Especially when it's immediately followed by a guy who sticks to issues in his speeches, preaches party unity in the general and has an enormous aura of brutal honesty about him.
And I totally agree with Room 641-A, I didn't start off feeling negatively about her. My feelings have changed over time since campaigning started in earnest.
posted by hollygoheavy at 5:31 AM on February 11, 2016 [22 favorites]
Her folksy "I'm just like you public servants out there struggling" schtick, her shaming women who aren't automatically giving her their vote and her increasingly negative slamming of the opposition are super off putting. Especially when it's immediately followed by a guy who sticks to issues in his speeches, preaches party unity in the general and has an enormous aura of brutal honesty about him.
And I totally agree with Room 641-A, I didn't start off feeling negatively about her. My feelings have changed over time since campaigning started in earnest.
posted by hollygoheavy at 5:31 AM on February 11, 2016 [22 favorites]
Your Sodas Will be YUGE
> Man he could have won Iowa if he'd come out with that sooner
Cause of all the corn syrup in the sodas
Corn, Iowa
Get it?
Bah! Even Iowans know that the best sweetener in soda is cane sugar. I get mine in little 10 once bottles at the Pakistani bodega.
Way to stereotype, man.
Also, in Iowa we call a 48 oz. soda a small.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:45 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Man he could have won Iowa if he'd come out with that sooner
Cause of all the corn syrup in the sodas
Corn, Iowa
Get it?
Bah! Even Iowans know that the best sweetener in soda is cane sugar. I get mine in little 10 once bottles at the Pakistani bodega.
Way to stereotype, man.
Also, in Iowa we call a 48 oz. soda a small.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:45 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
sweetkid, we agree on most things, and I'm pretty sure that you and I would eventually end up in the same side of most other issues so this isn't personal at all. I think you're A-OK. But you're right, I find it difficult to discuss the issues when any time I'm not supporting Hillary it's because she's a woman. And it may be breathless, you're right, but it is Hillary supporters saying these things. Some, by their own initiative, and others as official spokespeople for the Clinton campaign.
She says that she and Bernie have the same goals, just different ways to achieve them. So explain to me (not you-you) why her plan for tuition-free higher education is better than Bernie's, but don't tell me that, after hearing her plan and rejecting it, I'm doing it because she's a woman. Tell me which of Bernie's policies you don't like and ask me why I support them. There's a huge difference between hammering a candidate on, say, hanging with Kissenger, and asking her supporters how they reconcile that, and being hand-wavey and dismissing those criticisms as just more attacks on Hillary Clinton, the woman. I still haven't heard the rationalization for the Kissenger thing. (That is absolutely one thing that would have made me switch if I was still a supporter.)
As I've said before, I always assumed I would vote for Hillary, first when I didn't think there would be much if a choice, and later when I saw the choice but didn't think he could win. I can't even remember who all started off in this race but of course Hillary being a woman would have been important to me in the bigger picture against a similar, imperfect male candidate.
I mean, can you at least understand how hurtful and stupid the comments by Steinem and Albright were, and how women pushed back hard on that? Well, there's been a lot of that since Sanders started gaining on Hillary. And once agin, I will vote for her if she's the nom, 100% it's really not personal for me.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
She says that she and Bernie have the same goals, just different ways to achieve them. So explain to me (not you-you) why her plan for tuition-free higher education is better than Bernie's, but don't tell me that, after hearing her plan and rejecting it, I'm doing it because she's a woman. Tell me which of Bernie's policies you don't like and ask me why I support them. There's a huge difference between hammering a candidate on, say, hanging with Kissenger, and asking her supporters how they reconcile that, and being hand-wavey and dismissing those criticisms as just more attacks on Hillary Clinton, the woman. I still haven't heard the rationalization for the Kissenger thing. (That is absolutely one thing that would have made me switch if I was still a supporter.)
As I've said before, I always assumed I would vote for Hillary, first when I didn't think there would be much if a choice, and later when I saw the choice but didn't think he could win. I can't even remember who all started off in this race but of course Hillary being a woman would have been important to me in the bigger picture against a similar, imperfect male candidate.
I mean, can you at least understand how hurtful and stupid the comments by Steinem and Albright were, and how women pushed back hard on that? Well, there's been a lot of that since Sanders started gaining on Hillary. And once agin, I will vote for her if she's the nom, 100% it's really not personal for me.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I actually liked the Slate piece, and also this one: Stop Berniesplaining to Black Voters.
I liked the Blow piece as well (he's definitely my favorite NYT op-ed columnist these days. Practically the only reasonable one they have left). I get it. It made me feel legitimately chastened, if only for my private thoughts. It's condescending and patronizing to say that southern black voters are just voting for the wrong person and if they only understood what they were doing etc.
It's funny though, you often hear the same thing from the left about the white working class, that they're voting against their interests and that they just don't understand what's good for them. And the thing is, I think it's just damn true in that case. Right wing policies are bad for working people, hell they generally have a fuck-you to working people of some sort at the center of their platform, whether it's tax cuts for the rich, cutting the safety net, or undermining unions, the list goes on. The portion of union membership that votes Republican is just plain baffling to me, it boggles and the only thing that can explain it is the old marxist figure of false-consciousness. They just don't realize where their interests lie.
I don't think it's quite the same for Southern Black voters but it remains the case that Clinton supported and fought for the kinds of draconian criminal justice legislation that is absolutely devastating to black communities and whose reform is crucial to overcoming our current national nightmare. This isn't a "leftist economic policies are in the best interests of everybody, including blacks" argument, but a: Clinton has actively done harm to black communities, and it's hard to believe that she's going to own up to that, much less work actively to reverse the harm. So, yeah, there's that. Maybe that's Berniesplaining. I dunno. I'll still vote for her in the general, especially since who knows what NY will do if Trump is on the ticket.
posted by dis_integration at 6:11 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I liked the Blow piece as well (he's definitely my favorite NYT op-ed columnist these days. Practically the only reasonable one they have left). I get it. It made me feel legitimately chastened, if only for my private thoughts. It's condescending and patronizing to say that southern black voters are just voting for the wrong person and if they only understood what they were doing etc.
It's funny though, you often hear the same thing from the left about the white working class, that they're voting against their interests and that they just don't understand what's good for them. And the thing is, I think it's just damn true in that case. Right wing policies are bad for working people, hell they generally have a fuck-you to working people of some sort at the center of their platform, whether it's tax cuts for the rich, cutting the safety net, or undermining unions, the list goes on. The portion of union membership that votes Republican is just plain baffling to me, it boggles and the only thing that can explain it is the old marxist figure of false-consciousness. They just don't realize where their interests lie.
I don't think it's quite the same for Southern Black voters but it remains the case that Clinton supported and fought for the kinds of draconian criminal justice legislation that is absolutely devastating to black communities and whose reform is crucial to overcoming our current national nightmare. This isn't a "leftist economic policies are in the best interests of everybody, including blacks" argument, but a: Clinton has actively done harm to black communities, and it's hard to believe that she's going to own up to that, much less work actively to reverse the harm. So, yeah, there's that. Maybe that's Berniesplaining. I dunno. I'll still vote for her in the general, especially since who knows what NY will do if Trump is on the ticket.
posted by dis_integration at 6:11 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
> Folks, I think I've found Trump's VP pick
If you can dismiss her anti-science, pro-gun, anti-immigrant, anti-government views Michele Fiore isn't a total loss of a politician. I mean, we are talking about Nevada here. She's pandering to her constituents and the NRA. She did help usher through one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country (probably stronger than the one in your state if you are lucky enough to live in a state with an anti-SLAPP law). Her world view isn't that difficult to understand once you realize she believes the 1st and 2nd Amendment are where all other rights come from. She voted for lifting the ban on marriage equity and medical marijuana (and if you don't think that took guts in a GOP controlled state and as a member of said party I don't know what to say). She also sponsored a medical "right to try" bill (which I have mixed feelings about) that allows terminal people to try unapproved medicines. Oh yeah, and she ended the insurgent standoff in Oregon.
So while her taste in Christmas cards can be questioned you could do worse for a GOP VP choice. I hate ruining a good joke with facts.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you can dismiss her anti-science, pro-gun, anti-immigrant, anti-government views Michele Fiore isn't a total loss of a politician. I mean, we are talking about Nevada here. She's pandering to her constituents and the NRA. She did help usher through one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country (probably stronger than the one in your state if you are lucky enough to live in a state with an anti-SLAPP law). Her world view isn't that difficult to understand once you realize she believes the 1st and 2nd Amendment are where all other rights come from. She voted for lifting the ban on marriage equity and medical marijuana (and if you don't think that took guts in a GOP controlled state and as a member of said party I don't know what to say). She also sponsored a medical "right to try" bill (which I have mixed feelings about) that allows terminal people to try unapproved medicines. Oh yeah, and she ended the insurgent standoff in Oregon.
So while her taste in Christmas cards can be questioned you could do worse for a GOP VP choice. I hate ruining a good joke with facts.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh yeah, and she ended the insurgent standoff in Oregon.
That's a bit of a stretch. She was around at the end of a crisis she should be in jail for helping to instigate. If those four idiots got themselves killed she'd absolutely be one of the people to blame.
posted by Artw at 6:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's a bit of a stretch. She was around at the end of a crisis she should be in jail for helping to instigate. If those four idiots got themselves killed she'd absolutely be one of the people to blame.
posted by Artw at 6:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders campaign says he has raised $5.2 million since yesterday. The average contribution is $34
No, not the average!!! What's the median??
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:39 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, not the average!!! What's the median??
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:39 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stop Berniesplaining to Black Voters.
I've tried hard not to do this. Which is fairly easy for me. I don't know enough black people to go explaining anything to. This said, what I would like is someone to blacksplain to me why Sanders shouldn't be their choice. I mean, if you want to pick a candidate by skin color then Carson is your man. If you want to pick by stance on issues I think the choice is obvious, but then I am smart enough to realize people are complex and usually aren't single issue voters, and what it obvious to me isn't always the truth. I have the same cognitive dissonance when it comes to women in the GOP (and Texas) and Log Cabin Republicans. I just don't get it, but I long ago accepted the fact that I don't have to get it.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've tried hard not to do this. Which is fairly easy for me. I don't know enough black people to go explaining anything to. This said, what I would like is someone to blacksplain to me why Sanders shouldn't be their choice. I mean, if you want to pick a candidate by skin color then Carson is your man. If you want to pick by stance on issues I think the choice is obvious, but then I am smart enough to realize people are complex and usually aren't single issue voters, and what it obvious to me isn't always the truth. I have the same cognitive dissonance when it comes to women in the GOP (and Texas) and Log Cabin Republicans. I just don't get it, but I long ago accepted the fact that I don't have to get it.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
the great thing about the 21st century is one dont have to justify one's stance on anything, you can just use obscure and obnoxious neologisms to call your opponent some sort of bigot
(sorry i was splainsplaining right there.)
posted by entropicamericana at 6:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
(sorry i was splainsplaining right there.)
posted by entropicamericana at 6:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
So while her taste in Christmas cards can be questioned you could do worse for a GOP VP choice.
Her "non-conformism" is an exaggerated performance, probably much like Trump's is. Most of it is dog whistles: "I'm bad but only in ways my base indulges" bad. She loves guns, softcore porn, and probably walks in the rain. This is straight out of the right-wing blowhard playbook.
Unity through veniality.
posted by bonehead at 6:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Her "non-conformism" is an exaggerated performance, probably much like Trump's is. Most of it is dog whistles: "I'm bad but only in ways my base indulges" bad. She loves guns, softcore porn, and probably walks in the rain. This is straight out of the right-wing blowhard playbook.
Unity through veniality.
posted by bonehead at 6:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
So while her taste in Christmas cards can be questioned you could do worse for a GOP VP choice.
But good lord, what's with the rhinos on her shoulders? Is that some sort of secret message that I'm not getting?
posted by sour cream at 6:53 AM on February 11, 2016
But good lord, what's with the rhinos on her shoulders? Is that some sort of secret message that I'm not getting?
posted by sour cream at 6:53 AM on February 11, 2016
> That's a bit of a stretch.
> Her "non-conformism" is an exaggerated performance […]
Yeah, I'm not going to carry her water. I was just trying to point out that she's a bit more than a two dimensional politician. There are worse out there and even worse from Nevada. I guess I put myself in the position, but I don't plan to spend any more time defending her (if that's what I did).
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 AM on February 11, 2016
> Her "non-conformism" is an exaggerated performance […]
Yeah, I'm not going to carry her water. I was just trying to point out that she's a bit more than a two dimensional politician. There are worse out there and even worse from Nevada. I guess I put myself in the position, but I don't plan to spend any more time defending her (if that's what I did).
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 AM on February 11, 2016
Yeah I'm out of this thread. I'm a motherfucking communist and I guess why set forth my liberal credentials because why. But the amount of sheer what the fuck leftists is too much for my head. I have not seen one thing in this thread that effectively makes the case that Sanders could govern this dysfunctional, racist, facist-trending country.
posted by angrycat at 6:53 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 6:53 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments deleted: please focus your comments on the topic at hand — not at other members of the site. I genuinely believe that a little bit of assuming good faith does go a long way in maintaining the peace.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 7:00 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 7:00 AM on February 11, 2016
Yeah, I'm not going to carry her water. I was just trying to point out that she's a bit more than a two dimensional politician.
Yeah, sorry if it came off that way, not suggesting you were. She does seem to be cultivating the folksy image, a carefully constructed sinner. If she's actually got substance and competence, she could be dangerous. A Sarah Palin who was a good politician would be terrifying.
Her posing with rinos is hilarious though, doubly so if it's intentional. Good catch.
posted by bonehead at 7:05 AM on February 11, 2016
Yeah, sorry if it came off that way, not suggesting you were. She does seem to be cultivating the folksy image, a carefully constructed sinner. If she's actually got substance and competence, she could be dangerous. A Sarah Palin who was a good politician would be terrifying.
Her posing with rinos is hilarious though, doubly so if it's intentional. Good catch.
posted by bonehead at 7:05 AM on February 11, 2016
5 things to watch in tonight's [Democrat] debate
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 AM on February 11, 2016
U.S. congressmen introduce bill that stops states from banning strong encryption
Now if only he could pass a bill stopping a certain presidential candidate from believing breaking encryption is a good idea.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Now if only he could pass a bill stopping a certain presidential candidate from believing breaking encryption is a good idea.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah, no wonder I couldn't find HRCs post-NH fundraising. Per MSNBC, they aren't releasing the figures ( but "are pleased with the number.)
posted by Room 641-A at 7:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have not seen one thing in this thread that effectively makes the case that Sanders could govern this dysfunctional, racist, facist-trending country.
But Clinton could?
Sanders has a proven track record during his legislative career of being able to stick to his values while at the same time holding his nose and voting for bills if there are things in them which he supports. His republican colleagues in the senate and house have said as much. Combine this legislative pragmatism with the bully pulpit of the White House and millions of Americans actually getting off their asses and doing something after they cast their ballot and I see, for the first time in my lifetime, a moment where transformational change is possible. The key is, and Sanders has been harping on this since the beginning of his campaign, that he can't do it alone. Sanders being in the White House in isolation is not likely to accomplish much. But a Sanders presidency that coincides with an energized and activist group of citizens willing to fight for what they believe in and start shutting things down if congress doesn't play along is an exhilarating prospect.
In my opinion a vote for Clinton in the primaries is a vote for more of the same, while a vote for Clinton in the general (even though I will not be doing so), if it comes to that, is a clearly levelheaded and defensible position for a progressive to have. I guess I can only beg, plead, and advocate that progressives really think hard and look at the candidates respective records and vote for who best represents their values. I truly believe that an honest look at both candidates leaves only one option, and find it hard to understand how some progressives can look at Clinton's record and come to the conclusion that she is progressive. That being said not everyone will agree and obviously many are still going to support Clinton in the primaries, which I think is a regrettable but predictable consequence of the normalization of predatory capitalism (i.e. the dismantling of the New Deal), an out of control police state (which inordinately affects minorities and the poor), and never ending war which has proceeded apace since the end of the last world war and accelerated since 911.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:19 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
But Clinton could?
Sanders has a proven track record during his legislative career of being able to stick to his values while at the same time holding his nose and voting for bills if there are things in them which he supports. His republican colleagues in the senate and house have said as much. Combine this legislative pragmatism with the bully pulpit of the White House and millions of Americans actually getting off their asses and doing something after they cast their ballot and I see, for the first time in my lifetime, a moment where transformational change is possible. The key is, and Sanders has been harping on this since the beginning of his campaign, that he can't do it alone. Sanders being in the White House in isolation is not likely to accomplish much. But a Sanders presidency that coincides with an energized and activist group of citizens willing to fight for what they believe in and start shutting things down if congress doesn't play along is an exhilarating prospect.
In my opinion a vote for Clinton in the primaries is a vote for more of the same, while a vote for Clinton in the general (even though I will not be doing so), if it comes to that, is a clearly levelheaded and defensible position for a progressive to have. I guess I can only beg, plead, and advocate that progressives really think hard and look at the candidates respective records and vote for who best represents their values. I truly believe that an honest look at both candidates leaves only one option, and find it hard to understand how some progressives can look at Clinton's record and come to the conclusion that she is progressive. That being said not everyone will agree and obviously many are still going to support Clinton in the primaries, which I think is a regrettable but predictable consequence of the normalization of predatory capitalism (i.e. the dismantling of the New Deal), an out of control police state (which inordinately affects minorities and the poor), and never ending war which has proceeded apace since the end of the last world war and accelerated since 911.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:19 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
(sorry i was splainsplaining right there.)
Trollsplaining should def be a word if it's not already, though I guess a lot of that is captured by sealioning.
posted by phearlez at 7:28 AM on February 11, 2016
Trollsplaining should def be a word if it's not already, though I guess a lot of that is captured by sealioning.
posted by phearlez at 7:28 AM on February 11, 2016
Why America is Moving Left
This article gives me so much hope, and anyone who's hoping for a Republican to win in order to 'galvanize liberals and accelerate change' should really read it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This article gives me so much hope, and anyone who's hoping for a Republican to win in order to 'galvanize liberals and accelerate change' should really read it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This said, what I would like is someone to blacksplain to me why Sanders shouldn't be their choice.
Blow's op-ed quotes the inimitable Baldwin as a way of
blacksplaining support for HRC:
posted by dis_integration at 7:40 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Blow's op-ed quotes the inimitable Baldwin as a way of
blacksplaining support for HRC:
Of all Americans, Negroes distrust politicians most, or, more accurately, they have been best trained to expect nothing from them; more than other Americans, they are always aware of the enormous gap between election promises and their daily lives. It is true that the promises excite them, but this is not because they are taken as proof of good intentions. They are the proof of something more concrete than intentions: that the Negro situation is not static, that changes have occurred, and are occurring and will occur — this, in spite of the daily, dead-end monotony. It is this daily, dead-end monotony, though, as well as the wise desire not to be betrayed by too much hoping, which causes them to look on politicians with such an extraordinarily disenchanted eye.It's a moving point. The thing is, however, that it's a position that well represents the American left in general. I have been trained to expect nothing from our alleged representatives, so much so that if the spectral horror of the right wasn't so real, I would be inclined to just stay home. When I hear someone speaking my language, offering genuinely progressive policy proposals, I am immediately suspicious of them: either they're conning us, or they just don't stand a chance of winning, and I figure I'm better off voting for whatever center-right candidate the Democratic party offers. I for one was burned, burned by Obama and the hope he offered. I felt betrayed by too much hoping and was resigned to returning to politics as usual. It's only the win in NH that has buoyed my spirits. Bernie is the salve for those burned by too much hoping. Although even still I'm psychologically preparing for a letdown on March 1st.
This fatalistic indifference is something that drives the optimistic American liberal quite mad; he is prone, in his more exasperated moments, to refer to Negroes as political children, an appellation not entirely just. Negro liberals, being consulted, assure us that this is something that will disappear with “education,” a vast, all-purpose term, conjuring up visions of sunlit housing projects, stacks of copybooks and a race of well-soaped, dark-skinned people who never slur their R’s. Actually, this is not so much political irresponsibility as the product of experience, experience which no amount of education can quite efface.
posted by dis_integration at 7:40 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm much more worried about the voters who actually voted for the winners over the last 25 years than I am about the irrelevant boogymen of splinter berniebros or PUMAS.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary Reaches Base With AOL Login Page Ad
Gotta go where your supporters are.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:45 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gotta go where your supporters are.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:45 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Too often individuals are appointed to speak for black people. I don’t want any part of it. Black voters deserve to be addressed in all of their beautiful and wonderful complications, not through the lens of unelected “thought-leaders.” -- Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Against Endorsements"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, can you at least understand how hurtful and stupid the comments by Steinem and Albright were, and how women pushed back hard on that?
I realize your comment is meant well, and I agree that it's not personal or anything, this is just not anything but a pro Bernie thread and not only that, but a YASSSS BERNIE thread pretty much. I just wanted to write something for people who might feel another way, a Bernie nomination is not at all inevitable despite what's going on in this thread.
But "can you at least understand" is really part of the problem here. Yes, I understand? So? My comment was not about them. Honestly, I don't really care what they said. I think it was shitty but...it's over now and Steinem at least has always been a polarizing but also trailblazing figure. I heard what they said. But I don't really care. Also I'm a woman, too, by the way.
I feel like there's this thing about oh if I only explain more, then people will totes understand but that's exactly why people call it Berniesplaining.
I think Bernie Sanders' values are fine. I don't want him to be President. I don't buy the arguments about how he's going to accomplish the things he wants to accomplish at all, no matter how much people try to explain them, and I do value HRC's long history of hard work, and I think a lot of voters do, too. I think he's doing a good job moving things left on the national stage. But I don't think he should be President.
I just don't buy Sanders for this job. It doesn't mean I don't understand, or I'm not progressive, or I've normalized dysfunction, or I want to carpet bomb the Middle East, or even that I agree 1000% with Clinton on everything.
I feel like the reasons why aren't really important in this thread though, which is completely YASS BERNIE and oh my gosh Clinton sent a campaign email that is exactly like all the Democratic Party campaign emails but she's a bitch eating crackers at this point for a lot of people so, cool.
posted by sweetkid at 7:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Ben Jealous: And then you remember 2008, when there were seven democrats on stage, and they were asked specifically, if we get rid of the disparity between crack and powder, which had sent so many black women to prison -- disproportionatly black women to prison -- would you support applying it retroactively? These women could get out and take care of their families and get their kids out of foster care.... Everyone said yes except for her. She said no.
I didn't know this. Truly disappointing.
What was up in the 90s that there was SUCH strong support for obviously and thoroughly racist policies on both sides of the aisle? I'm having a tough time understanding the lack of fight over this stuff from well-informed, well-meaning people. Is it the lack of Internet? I cannot believe humanity has progressed so fast that a couple decades really makes a difference...but there's no way I can see this stuff passing today. Just no chance. Maybe I'm naive.
posted by sallybrown at 7:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I didn't know this. Truly disappointing.
What was up in the 90s that there was SUCH strong support for obviously and thoroughly racist policies on both sides of the aisle? I'm having a tough time understanding the lack of fight over this stuff from well-informed, well-meaning people. Is it the lack of Internet? I cannot believe humanity has progressed so fast that a couple decades really makes a difference...but there's no way I can see this stuff passing today. Just no chance. Maybe I'm naive.
posted by sallybrown at 7:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I have not seen one thing in this thread that effectively makes the case that Sanders could govern this dysfunctional, racist, facist-trending country.
Fair enough. I disagree about the direction the country is moving, though. Trump and the Republicans are loud as hell, but they aren't right-wing superpowers like they used to be. We can fight back. That "Why America is Moving Left" article might be worth a second look. While Congress appears super right-wing because of gerrymandering, it doesn't necessarily reflect the country as a whole. We really have moved substantially leftward in the Obama era - especially Millenials, who are much more liberal (even Republican Millenials are much more liberal). He makes a very convincing argument that while we are in a super weird transitional time right now, Obama has functioned as a Reagan figure and it's the conservatives who are now back on their heels questioning their movement (see: the coalition-breaking chaos in the Republican party this year).
I am very worried about Trump and his fascist supporters. I think one of the most worrying things is the way he's taking economic issues back from Democrats - if you actually listen to his stump speeches, he's not just talking about bigotry. He's also talking about saving Social Security, helping the uninsured, ending trade deals that have eviscerated the working class... a whole bunch of populist stuff that the Republican party has refused to touch because of their big business wing. He's also talking a lot about money in politics, and how he doesn't take money from any of them.
Because of that, I fear that if we run Clinton, with her lukewarm commitment to economic issues and the existing distrust that these voters have for her (which is not going away), Trump would be able to poach and turn out poor voters who just don't believe the Democrats anymore because they think they represent rich people, not them (I know it seems kind of crazy that Trump could be seen as in favor of the little guy, but somehow they do see it that way so far). Sanders would allow us to make a play for some of his voters - I know there's a lot of disbelief at the "Sanders or Trump" voters but they're definitely out there. People who see the entire system as bought and don't have the privilege of waiting for another opportunity to change our political system see those two as the only real options. Sanders did extraordinarily well with working-class and less-educated voters in New Hampshire. He needs to make big inroads with Black and Latino voters to get the nomination, but he has the beginnings of a coalition that actually could drain some of Trump's power, whereas I don't think that's true of Clinton.
As far as congressional gridlock, I still feel the same way about Clinton - I still don't see how she moves anything through Congress either, as long as we're already giving up on winning the legislative branch for some reason, so it comes down to who you think would be stronger in the executive branch. To me, it's well worth it just to have a Treasury secretary who isn't a Wall Street insider (Clinton won't promise not to - it's the difference between Larry Summers and Elizabeth Warren at treasury) and who is willing to pursue regulation as strongly as possible.
I hope that arguments against Clinton's candidacy aren't being read as attacks on Clinton supporters. I don't think anyone is in Wall Street's pocket for supporting her. But I do think it's fair to make a generally issue-based case against her candidacy. To the extent that the rest of the electability stuff comes up, I think most Sanders supporters would be much happier talking about the issues and skipping the electability arguments altogether if we weren't being forced to make it.
I think people on both sides are feeling pretty attacked. I know that among female Sanders supporters, the Steinem and Albright comments really hurt and seemed intended to drive a wedge between feminists. And there are just as many uncharitable characterizations of Sanders supporters in this thread - they're all dumb idealistic kids, they're sexist, they're ideological purists, they're going to turn around and vote third-party, they don't care about reproductive rights, etc. There's insulting stuff flying around on all sides. If we could keep it more about issues than about whose supporters are being shittier, everything would probably go more smoothly.
posted by dialetheia at 7:56 AM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
Fair enough. I disagree about the direction the country is moving, though. Trump and the Republicans are loud as hell, but they aren't right-wing superpowers like they used to be. We can fight back. That "Why America is Moving Left" article might be worth a second look. While Congress appears super right-wing because of gerrymandering, it doesn't necessarily reflect the country as a whole. We really have moved substantially leftward in the Obama era - especially Millenials, who are much more liberal (even Republican Millenials are much more liberal). He makes a very convincing argument that while we are in a super weird transitional time right now, Obama has functioned as a Reagan figure and it's the conservatives who are now back on their heels questioning their movement (see: the coalition-breaking chaos in the Republican party this year).
I am very worried about Trump and his fascist supporters. I think one of the most worrying things is the way he's taking economic issues back from Democrats - if you actually listen to his stump speeches, he's not just talking about bigotry. He's also talking about saving Social Security, helping the uninsured, ending trade deals that have eviscerated the working class... a whole bunch of populist stuff that the Republican party has refused to touch because of their big business wing. He's also talking a lot about money in politics, and how he doesn't take money from any of them.
Because of that, I fear that if we run Clinton, with her lukewarm commitment to economic issues and the existing distrust that these voters have for her (which is not going away), Trump would be able to poach and turn out poor voters who just don't believe the Democrats anymore because they think they represent rich people, not them (I know it seems kind of crazy that Trump could be seen as in favor of the little guy, but somehow they do see it that way so far). Sanders would allow us to make a play for some of his voters - I know there's a lot of disbelief at the "Sanders or Trump" voters but they're definitely out there. People who see the entire system as bought and don't have the privilege of waiting for another opportunity to change our political system see those two as the only real options. Sanders did extraordinarily well with working-class and less-educated voters in New Hampshire. He needs to make big inroads with Black and Latino voters to get the nomination, but he has the beginnings of a coalition that actually could drain some of Trump's power, whereas I don't think that's true of Clinton.
As far as congressional gridlock, I still feel the same way about Clinton - I still don't see how she moves anything through Congress either, as long as we're already giving up on winning the legislative branch for some reason, so it comes down to who you think would be stronger in the executive branch. To me, it's well worth it just to have a Treasury secretary who isn't a Wall Street insider (Clinton won't promise not to - it's the difference between Larry Summers and Elizabeth Warren at treasury) and who is willing to pursue regulation as strongly as possible.
I hope that arguments against Clinton's candidacy aren't being read as attacks on Clinton supporters. I don't think anyone is in Wall Street's pocket for supporting her. But I do think it's fair to make a generally issue-based case against her candidacy. To the extent that the rest of the electability stuff comes up, I think most Sanders supporters would be much happier talking about the issues and skipping the electability arguments altogether if we weren't being forced to make it.
I think people on both sides are feeling pretty attacked. I know that among female Sanders supporters, the Steinem and Albright comments really hurt and seemed intended to drive a wedge between feminists. And there are just as many uncharitable characterizations of Sanders supporters in this thread - they're all dumb idealistic kids, they're sexist, they're ideological purists, they're going to turn around and vote third-party, they don't care about reproductive rights, etc. There's insulting stuff flying around on all sides. If we could keep it more about issues than about whose supporters are being shittier, everything would probably go more smoothly.
posted by dialetheia at 7:56 AM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
I cannot believe humanity has progressed so fast that a couple decades really makes a difference...but there's no way I can see this stuff passing today.
The City of Cleveland sent Tamir Rice's mother a bill for his ambulance. People in Flint, Michigan have to drive or get rides to obtain clean, bottled water. Things aren't that different.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The City of Cleveland sent Tamir Rice's mother a bill for his ambulance. People in Flint, Michigan have to drive or get rides to obtain clean, bottled water. Things aren't that different.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I guess I'm talking more about Congress than local politics (I would not be surprised at all if things in Flint and Cleveland were just as bad or even worse in the 90s, unfortunately.)
posted by sallybrown at 7:58 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 7:58 AM on February 11, 2016
I'm having a tough time understanding the lack of fight over this stuff from well-informed, well-meaning people.
It was the New Democrats' acquiescence to the right-wing framing and agenda in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, as led by Bill Clinton, that brought the Democratic party so far to the right in the 90s. There's more reading under the Democratic Leadership Council. The general idea was that Reagan was right about a lot of things wrong with liberalism, and that the Democratic party would have to change - become more economically neoliberal and more tough on crime and social issues - in order to compete.
The legacy of that shift is a huge, huge part of why many Democrats are hesitant to hand the party back over to the Clintons. Times have changed a lot, and arguably Obama has just given us our own Reagan Revolution for the left. Some people think it would move us in the wrong direction to elect a candidate who was one of the co-leaders of this movement (she was largely responsible for convincing feminists that this was a good idea, too), even if many of her positions have changed since then.
posted by dialetheia at 8:04 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
It was the New Democrats' acquiescence to the right-wing framing and agenda in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, as led by Bill Clinton, that brought the Democratic party so far to the right in the 90s. There's more reading under the Democratic Leadership Council. The general idea was that Reagan was right about a lot of things wrong with liberalism, and that the Democratic party would have to change - become more economically neoliberal and more tough on crime and social issues - in order to compete.
The legacy of that shift is a huge, huge part of why many Democrats are hesitant to hand the party back over to the Clintons. Times have changed a lot, and arguably Obama has just given us our own Reagan Revolution for the left. Some people think it would move us in the wrong direction to elect a candidate who was one of the co-leaders of this movement (she was largely responsible for convincing feminists that this was a good idea, too), even if many of her positions have changed since then.
posted by dialetheia at 8:04 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
The past 20 years have definitely been more complex than moving more to the left. At the same time that we've seen things like decriminalization to outright legalization of Cannabis, as well as expansion of marriage to same sex couples, the country has also taken a drastically more authoritarian turn when it comes to the expansion of prison systems and incarceration rates, the militarization of law enforcement, suppression of protests, and the expansion of the surveillance system into something that most couldn't have even imagined 20 years ago. These are just a couple of things - my point is that it's certainly not that simple.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
A lot of that is a continuation of forces set into motion in the 80s and 90s, though. The article makes a good case that the reaction to e.g. police brutality is so much different than it was when the country was right-wing - if we weren't moving to the left, there wouldn't be nearly as much support for Black Lives Matter. While there are certainly conservative people who don't support them, by and large the movement has been welcomed by the Democratic establishment. That wouldn't have been the case at all in the 1970s, or even the 1990s.
posted by dialetheia at 8:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
But "can you at least understand" is really part of the problem here. Yes, I understand? So? My comment was not about them. Honestly, I don't really care what they said. I think it was shitty but...it's over now and Steinem at least has always been a polarizing but also trailblazing figure. I heard what they said. But I don't really care. Also I'm a woman, too, by the way.
I feel like there's this thing about oh if I only explain more, then people will totes understand but that's exactly why people call it Berniesplaining.
It's funny, I feel like the "Berniesplaing" here mostly isn't about why someone should vote for Bernie but about why a woman can vote for Bernie and not betray women. It's fine that you are over those comments but I am not and the fact is they were extremely devisive. In defending and explaining my choices I hope I've been able to keep my comments directed towards Hillary's policies and specific statements spoken or written by her contingent; it is my goal.
Anyway, today my attentions are directed elsewhere so I will have to leave it at that for now.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel like there's this thing about oh if I only explain more, then people will totes understand but that's exactly why people call it Berniesplaining.
It's funny, I feel like the "Berniesplaing" here mostly isn't about why someone should vote for Bernie but about why a woman can vote for Bernie and not betray women. It's fine that you are over those comments but I am not and the fact is they were extremely devisive. In defending and explaining my choices I hope I've been able to keep my comments directed towards Hillary's policies and specific statements spoken or written by her contingent; it is my goal.
Anyway, today my attentions are directed elsewhere so I will have to leave it at that for now.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
The death penalty is barbaric, increases our collective cognitive dissonance, and is a harbinger of a sick society, imo. In a post-Hurst world, coupled with trends on capital punishment in the past few years, it seems to me that Clinton's pro-death penalty position is one that is best left in the yard waste bin of history along with the dog crap my neighborhood puts in it if I don't bring my bins home quickly enough.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:16 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:16 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The legacy of that shift is a huge, huge part of why many Democrats are hesitant to hand the party back over to the Clintons.
This whole "the Clintons" business needs to stop. Whatever one's opinions of Hillary Clinton's political views and choices, it is undeniable that she is an incredibly accomplished woman in her own right, and rendering her as simply part of a larger whole that includes her husband is, consciously or unconsciously, incredibly diminishing of that.
It is interesting to note that this is NOT something people tend to do with, say, Jeb Bush (or his brother George W. before him). We say (or hear others saying) "another Bush," but only very rarely "the Bushes" or "back to the Bushes."
I don't think that overt, intentional sexism is at work here (in most cases, anyway), but it does seem likely to me the reason for "the Clintons" is rooted, somehow, in the way we--many of us, anyway--are often more likely to look at women as part of a family unit rather than purely as individuals.
posted by dersins at 8:25 AM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
This whole "the Clintons" business needs to stop. Whatever one's opinions of Hillary Clinton's political views and choices, it is undeniable that she is an incredibly accomplished woman in her own right, and rendering her as simply part of a larger whole that includes her husband is, consciously or unconsciously, incredibly diminishing of that.
It is interesting to note that this is NOT something people tend to do with, say, Jeb Bush (or his brother George W. before him). We say (or hear others saying) "another Bush," but only very rarely "the Bushes" or "back to the Bushes."
I don't think that overt, intentional sexism is at work here (in most cases, anyway), but it does seem likely to me the reason for "the Clintons" is rooted, somehow, in the way we--many of us, anyway--are often more likely to look at women as part of a family unit rather than purely as individuals.
posted by dersins at 8:25 AM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
From Kiese Laymon on Facebook:
posted by sallybrown at 8:26 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Some of you Bernie folks are just begging to be obliterated. One of the reasons Bernie, like any viable major party Presidential candidate, is "electable" is because he has supported violent anti-black legislation in the past. He voted for the 1994 crime bill which literally helped incarcerate three of my cousins and two of my uncles, which literally made it harder for parts of my family to escape poverty, which literally made their children more likely to die and suffer before Bernie's grandchildren. This ain't theoretical, dumb fuckers. I will reluctantly vote for him because I do not want to give a primary architect of my people's death and destruction The White House again. But stop with all the bullshit. Bernie Sanders has not spent his time or power fighting to specifically dismantle a system that gave him as an able-bodied white man healthier choice and second chances than the black cis, trans and genderqueer folk in this country. He just learned to mouth Black Lives Matter and yall wanna make this joker the second coming? Please. He's "good" for a Presidential candidate, which is like me saying I'm benevolent for a pimp. Just stop. You tellin on yourselves."I can see how the choice between Clinton and Sanders feels like "would you like punch in the face or a punch in the gut" for some people. It's pathetic that we still aren't in a place to do better.
posted by sallybrown at 8:26 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree that the reaction we are seeing to much of the use of force from police is changing - but I will tell you one word that will generally galvanize public attitudes towards militarized law enforcement and authoritarian policies: terrorism. It's the same word responsible for the growth of our intelligence and surveillance agencies into the bloated hydra that it has become.
I don't want to derail entirely - I just never believe that it's as simple as to say we're moving right or we're moving left. But similar to what I said earlier, headed "northeast" or whatever doesn't make any sense - we don't really have a great commonly understood framework other than that of two opposites.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:28 AM on February 11, 2016
I don't want to derail entirely - I just never believe that it's as simple as to say we're moving right or we're moving left. But similar to what I said earlier, headed "northeast" or whatever doesn't make any sense - we don't really have a great commonly understood framework other than that of two opposites.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:28 AM on February 11, 2016
Kiese Laymon seems to misunderstand the 1994 crime bill.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is interesting to note that this is NOT something people tend to do with, say, Jeb Bush (or his brother George W. before him). We say (or hear others saying) "another Bush," but only very rarely "the Bushes" or "back to the Bushes."
I hear that all the time about the Bushes - he's been running away from his brother's and father's legacy as hard as he can all year - and furthermore, she runs on her record of leadership during that era, too. Her public statements on crime and super predators and deadbeats and welfare reform are absolutely fair game. As for the specific claim I made, like I said, she was responsible for bringing feminists around on the New Democrat line. She was one of Bill's closest advisors, as we're told when she's running on his economic record. She references "Clinton-era prosperity" frequently on the stump. I think it does her a total disservice as a leader to pretend she had nothing to do with that era.
He voted for the 1994 crime bill
This comes up a lot even though Hillary Clinton also lobbied for that bill, and IIRC it was bundled with the Violence Against Women Act and that is why says he voted for it. But if you watch the speech he made about it, he was one of the few at the time to speak out against shifting funding from poverty to prisons and speaking out against the movement toward incarceration:
"And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance."
posted by dialetheia at 8:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I hear that all the time about the Bushes - he's been running away from his brother's and father's legacy as hard as he can all year - and furthermore, she runs on her record of leadership during that era, too. Her public statements on crime and super predators and deadbeats and welfare reform are absolutely fair game. As for the specific claim I made, like I said, she was responsible for bringing feminists around on the New Democrat line. She was one of Bill's closest advisors, as we're told when she's running on his economic record. She references "Clinton-era prosperity" frequently on the stump. I think it does her a total disservice as a leader to pretend she had nothing to do with that era.
He voted for the 1994 crime bill
This comes up a lot even though Hillary Clinton also lobbied for that bill, and IIRC it was bundled with the Violence Against Women Act and that is why says he voted for it. But if you watch the speech he made about it, he was one of the few at the time to speak out against shifting funding from poverty to prisons and speaking out against the movement toward incarceration:
"And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance."
posted by dialetheia at 8:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I've been thinking about Bernie/Hillary. This is a little long but bear with me.
First off, it's weird that she's not doing better. I don't agree with many of her positions, but she is a good politician and she should be a great candidate. She has the connections, the experience, the money, the media influence, the centrist positions, the pragmatic approaches. Her positions are what the majority of America wants -- they always have been. So it's weird that all of that is not enough. Not 8 years ago, not now. The male version of her, you know -- Bill -- was tremendously popular.
And it's not that Sanders supporters hate women, or don't genuinely believe in his positions. There are a number of leftists who have been unrepresented for a long time now and are finally seeing a somewhat viable candidate whose views start to approach their own. And there's a segment of the population who don't like Clinton and wouldn't if she were a man.
But there's a segment of the center whose completely subconscious sexism sees her as unlikable because she's "abrasive" or insufficiently "strong" to be presidential. You think that muscular thing is something they're pulling out of their asses? They've done a million opinion polls to see what people think of Hillary.
And when I say a lot of the voting public wouldn't be quite so open to Bernie if he were the exact same 74-year-old with the same exact same positions, but a woman -- I mean, take a second to develop a mental image of Bernie as a woman. Then tell me if she seems presidential, if all those Redditors and meme-makers would be quite so enthusiastic about her -- it's not that I'm not glad to see him supported, and don't hope to see him elected. But I absolutely believe the only reason this isn't a cakewalk for Clinton is that there are a lot of people in the middle of the party who will go a little further left or a little further right to avoid her, and wouldn't if she were a man.
I used to roll my eyes at the adage that women have to be twice as good to as men to be perceived as equal. I actually don't think that's true at the bottoms of things. Women at the beginnings to middles of their careers are treated quite equitably in the vast majority of fields. But the glass ceiling is empirically real. And Hillary wouldn't be twice the president Sanders would be -- but she's gotta be at least 1.5 times the political candidate he is, based on the word "socialist" alone.
So I'm glad to see things go well for Sanders and I'm glad to see him move the party leftward even if he doesn't get the nomination. I think some of his success is for exactly the right reasons.
But not all of it, and that's what bums me out, and that's what makes me say "oh Bernie is all forgiven for BLM, but Clinton's apologies about the prison stuff don't count?" I actually don't think her apologies count! And I think Bernie, while secretly kind of rolling his eyes about it, is a smart enough politician to know he has to take this shit seriously and has ultimately done a better job of addressing BLM than she has. The two situations aren't even really parallel. But sometimes those things come up reflexively for me as a proxy for how in the deepest, most fundamental way, there are people who are going to give him a pass for shit they won't give her, and I can't help noticing it and resenting it.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 8:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
First off, it's weird that she's not doing better. I don't agree with many of her positions, but she is a good politician and she should be a great candidate. She has the connections, the experience, the money, the media influence, the centrist positions, the pragmatic approaches. Her positions are what the majority of America wants -- they always have been. So it's weird that all of that is not enough. Not 8 years ago, not now. The male version of her, you know -- Bill -- was tremendously popular.
And it's not that Sanders supporters hate women, or don't genuinely believe in his positions. There are a number of leftists who have been unrepresented for a long time now and are finally seeing a somewhat viable candidate whose views start to approach their own. And there's a segment of the population who don't like Clinton and wouldn't if she were a man.
But there's a segment of the center whose completely subconscious sexism sees her as unlikable because she's "abrasive" or insufficiently "strong" to be presidential. You think that muscular thing is something they're pulling out of their asses? They've done a million opinion polls to see what people think of Hillary.
And when I say a lot of the voting public wouldn't be quite so open to Bernie if he were the exact same 74-year-old with the same exact same positions, but a woman -- I mean, take a second to develop a mental image of Bernie as a woman. Then tell me if she seems presidential, if all those Redditors and meme-makers would be quite so enthusiastic about her -- it's not that I'm not glad to see him supported, and don't hope to see him elected. But I absolutely believe the only reason this isn't a cakewalk for Clinton is that there are a lot of people in the middle of the party who will go a little further left or a little further right to avoid her, and wouldn't if she were a man.
I used to roll my eyes at the adage that women have to be twice as good to as men to be perceived as equal. I actually don't think that's true at the bottoms of things. Women at the beginnings to middles of their careers are treated quite equitably in the vast majority of fields. But the glass ceiling is empirically real. And Hillary wouldn't be twice the president Sanders would be -- but she's gotta be at least 1.5 times the political candidate he is, based on the word "socialist" alone.
So I'm glad to see things go well for Sanders and I'm glad to see him move the party leftward even if he doesn't get the nomination. I think some of his success is for exactly the right reasons.
But not all of it, and that's what bums me out, and that's what makes me say "oh Bernie is all forgiven for BLM, but Clinton's apologies about the prison stuff don't count?" I actually don't think her apologies count! And I think Bernie, while secretly kind of rolling his eyes about it, is a smart enough politician to know he has to take this shit seriously and has ultimately done a better job of addressing BLM than she has. The two situations aren't even really parallel. But sometimes those things come up reflexively for me as a proxy for how in the deepest, most fundamental way, there are people who are going to give him a pass for shit they won't give her, and I can't help noticing it and resenting it.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 8:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Women at the beginnings to middles of their careers are treated quite equitably in the vast majority of fields.
Cite, please.
posted by agregoli at 8:39 AM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Cite, please.
posted by agregoli at 8:39 AM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
This whole "the Clintons" business needs to stop. Whatever one's opinions of Hillary Clinton's political views and choices, it is undeniable that she is an incredibly accomplished woman in her own right, and rendering her as simply part of a larger whole that includes her husband is, consciously or unconsciously, incredibly diminishing of that.
This. As much as I'm a huge fan of dialetheia's otherwise excellent contributions in these threads, I'm uncomfortable with this turn toward catapulting the right wing propaganda. It begins with "here's what the wingnuts are saying", then it's "here's what we're in for if Hillary is the nominee" but at some point, highlighting those attacks is indistinguishable from boosting their signal so that they hurt your political adversary. Using the right's "the Clintons" framing is a clear sign to me that it's no longer about the candidate's own merits (or lack thereof) and just about strange bedfellow alliances between traditional sources of weaponized outrage and a new political coalition that wants to use any available resources to gain a rhetorical edge.
I intend to vote for Bernie in my state's primary, and I find much to dislike about Hillary's record, but I'm starting to understand why Hillary supporters and/or Bernie skeptics are crying foul here. If you support Bernie, follow his advice and focus your conversation on the issues, not these nasty attacks that will just end up hurting both Democratic candidates when the general election comes around.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:39 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
This. As much as I'm a huge fan of dialetheia's otherwise excellent contributions in these threads, I'm uncomfortable with this turn toward catapulting the right wing propaganda. It begins with "here's what the wingnuts are saying", then it's "here's what we're in for if Hillary is the nominee" but at some point, highlighting those attacks is indistinguishable from boosting their signal so that they hurt your political adversary. Using the right's "the Clintons" framing is a clear sign to me that it's no longer about the candidate's own merits (or lack thereof) and just about strange bedfellow alliances between traditional sources of weaponized outrage and a new political coalition that wants to use any available resources to gain a rhetorical edge.
I intend to vote for Bernie in my state's primary, and I find much to dislike about Hillary's record, but I'm starting to understand why Hillary supporters and/or Bernie skeptics are crying foul here. If you support Bernie, follow his advice and focus your conversation on the issues, not these nasty attacks that will just end up hurting both Democratic candidates when the general election comes around.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:39 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
This whole "the Clintons" business needs to stop. Whatever one's opinions of Hillary Clinton's political views and choices, it is undeniable that she is an incredibly accomplished woman in her own right, and rendering her as simply part of a larger whole that includes her husband is, consciously or unconsciously, incredibly diminishing of that.
It's also undeniable that Secretary Clinton was much more involved in the policies of her husband's administration than any other First Lady before or since.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's also undeniable that Secretary Clinton was much more involved in the policies of her husband's administration than any other First Lady before or since.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
MysticMJ: I just never believe that it's as simple as to say we're moving right or we're moving left.
Have you read the Why America is Moving Left article yet?
If you haven't, I'd recommend it. The author supports his conclusion with plenty of statistics and the gist is more nuanced than a simple, "we're moving to the left".
posted by syzygy at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you read the Why America is Moving Left article yet?
If you haven't, I'd recommend it. The author supports his conclusion with plenty of statistics and the gist is more nuanced than a simple, "we're moving to the left".
posted by syzygy at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Using the right's "the Clintons" framing is a clear sign to me that it's no longer about the candidate's own merits (or lack thereof) and just about strange bedfellow alliances between traditional sources of weaponized outrage and a new political coalition that wants to use any available resources to gain a rhetorical edge.
I fundamentally disagree. Bill is currently stumping for her and she runs heavily on her record during that time as well. I personally hold her responsible for convincing feminists that the New Democrats' rightward turn was a good idea, and again I think it's a disservice to her leadership to excuse her from her own record.
posted by dialetheia at 8:43 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I fundamentally disagree. Bill is currently stumping for her and she runs heavily on her record during that time as well. I personally hold her responsible for convincing feminists that the New Democrats' rightward turn was a good idea, and again I think it's a disservice to her leadership to excuse her from her own record.
posted by dialetheia at 8:43 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't think it makes it better that Sanders recognized how pernicious the 1994 crime bill was and yet still voted for it. It means he weighed the costs and benefits and felt the trade off was worth it. How many people lost their free lives or their family members because of that trade off? What would this country look like today with those hundreds of thousands of people not behind bars, not barred from voting, not denied or turned away from jobs because of that felon status? Feingold and Paul Simon both voted against it in the Senate, and Rangel and Waters and a bunch of others voted against it in the House. It wasn't impossible to stand up and say no. It just took some foresight, and of course, the ability to fully value the lives that bill cost.
posted by sallybrown at 8:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I agree sallybrown. I think it would have been better to vote against it, all things considered. But if he had voted against it, right now we'd be hearing about how sexist he is and how many women have died from domestic violence for his voting against the Violence Against Women Act. The way that those bills were bundled together isn't a coincidence (I believe Joe Biden, noted anti-crime warrior, was the one who bundled it that way) - it speaks to the way that white women were used as shields to pass some of this awful legislation, too.
posted by dialetheia at 8:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
This whole "the Clintons" business needs to stop. Whatever one's opinions of Hillary Clinton's political views and choices, it is undeniable that she is an incredibly accomplished woman in her own right, and rendering her as simply part of a larger whole that includes her husband is, consciously or unconsciously, incredibly diminishing of that.
Somebody should have mentioned that back in the 1990s when the Clintons themselves were using the phrase "you get two for the price of one" on the campaign trail.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [22 favorites]
Somebody should have mentioned that back in the 1990s when the Clintons themselves were using the phrase "you get two for the price of one" on the campaign trail.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:50 AM on February 11, 2016 [22 favorites]
I don't think it makes it better that Sanders recognized how pernicious the 1994 crime bill was and yet still voted for it. It means he weighed the costs and benefits and felt the trade off was worth it. How many people lost their free lives or their family members because of that trade off?
I think both sides would do well to apply at least a partial discount to what the candidates did in the 1990s. So much has changed in the intervening decades that I put a lot more stock in what they've done (and to some extent what they've said) in recent years than the things they did or said back then. That doesn't mean you ignore those things, but this constant focus on what they did 20+ years ago seems misguided. Yes, Bernie's become more progressive, and yes, Hillary has "evolved" on things as well. If you don't buy it that's fine, but at least acknowledge that as time goes on candidates' ideologies change, and their political strategies change as the window of what's politically possible begins to shift.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think both sides would do well to apply at least a partial discount to what the candidates did in the 1990s. So much has changed in the intervening decades that I put a lot more stock in what they've done (and to some extent what they've said) in recent years than the things they did or said back then. That doesn't mean you ignore those things, but this constant focus on what they did 20+ years ago seems misguided. Yes, Bernie's become more progressive, and yes, Hillary has "evolved" on things as well. If you don't buy it that's fine, but at least acknowledge that as time goes on candidates' ideologies change, and their political strategies change as the window of what's politically possible begins to shift.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, you're never going to roll back "the Clintons." It's their brand.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, looked up to Hillary Clinton for her role in his administration during the 90s! I saw her as a vital part of her husband's administration. She was inspirational to young women then because of her involvement in his administration. I went to see her speak in the late 90s and was very inspired by her story of being an equal part of his administration, her spearheading of health care, the way that Bill looked to her for advice as an equal. This is all part of her story.
posted by dialetheia at 8:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
“There is of course no problem with superdelegates choosing to endorse whichever candidate they prefer, but when it comes time to select the party’s nominee at the Democratic Convention, superdelegates must stand with voters and honor the outcomes of primaries and caucuses held across the country. The party’s base simply will not tolerate any anti-democratic efforts by superdelegates to thwart the will of the people.”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:56 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:56 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This whole "the Clintons" business needs to stop.
I don't disagree, but they have a lot to do with it themselves, starting with Bill's pledge in 1992 that the country would get "two for the price of one". They marketed themselves as a package deal at the (national) beginning. And having sold themselves as a partnership, and not really disavowing it since then, is it so surprising that people still have that idea?
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:57 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't disagree, but they have a lot to do with it themselves, starting with Bill's pledge in 1992 that the country would get "two for the price of one". They marketed themselves as a package deal at the (national) beginning. And having sold themselves as a partnership, and not really disavowing it since then, is it so surprising that people still have that idea?
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:57 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I completely agree that it's not necessarily predictive of future conduct, but I think it's a good example of why voters shouldn't be chastened for not feeling the Bern. As we hear a lot, politics requires compromise. Some voters are tired of their lives being the compromise and for that reason still not over 1994.
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
The long-term goal is to win the general election.
Winning primaries by undermining your party's ability to win the general election is not a good long-term strategy.
Assuming that your candidate will be the only possible nominee is not a good long-term strategy, either. Hell, it's not an especially smart short-term strategy. Especially not when she or he has only won a single primary. Out of two. And there are dozens of primaries ahead.
Endlessly bashing and vilifying supporters of your primary opponent when you're all nominally on the same side has to be one of the stupidest, moronic, dumbass, inane long-term strategies imaginable.
Keeping in mind the long-term goal while working towards short term ones is a strategy so fundamental that it is an axiom in many sports. Win the race, not the sprint, etc. And that strategy is one of the reasons why Democrats in particular normally do not go too negative against each other. Why in many primary races, even candidates on opposite sides may agree not to air negative attack ads.
The long-term goal is to win the general election.
Lose sight of that, and well, it's yours to lose.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Winning primaries by undermining your party's ability to win the general election is not a good long-term strategy.
Assuming that your candidate will be the only possible nominee is not a good long-term strategy, either. Hell, it's not an especially smart short-term strategy. Especially not when she or he has only won a single primary. Out of two. And there are dozens of primaries ahead.
Endlessly bashing and vilifying supporters of your primary opponent when you're all nominally on the same side has to be one of the stupidest, moronic, dumbass, inane long-term strategies imaginable.
Keeping in mind the long-term goal while working towards short term ones is a strategy so fundamental that it is an axiom in many sports. Win the race, not the sprint, etc. And that strategy is one of the reasons why Democrats in particular normally do not go too negative against each other. Why in many primary races, even candidates on opposite sides may agree not to air negative attack ads.
The long-term goal is to win the general election.
Lose sight of that, and well, it's yours to lose.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I've appreciated your contributions to this and the other thread as well, dialetheia. I'd like to make clear that my last comment wasn't directed specifically at you or things you've said here (or there!). More towards tonycpsu's general comment, and the overall tone this thread and the other one has taken at times.
posted by zarq at 9:01 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 9:01 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The long-term goal is to win the general election.
As a sometimes-Hillary sometimes-Bernie person, I am very very very endlessly glad to have a viable Clinton challenger this cycle as the email thing plays out. What the heck would we do without Bernie if something very bad comes to light?
posted by sallybrown at 9:03 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
As a sometimes-Hillary sometimes-Bernie person, I am very very very endlessly glad to have a viable Clinton challenger this cycle as the email thing plays out. What the heck would we do without Bernie if something very bad comes to light?
posted by sallybrown at 9:03 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Endlessly bashing and vilifying supporters of your primary opponent when you're all nominally on the same side has to be one of the stupidest, moronic, dumbass, inane long-term strategies imaginable.
Or you could argue that it makes your side stronger, because it weeds out candidates who have personal or political shortcomings that wouldn't allow them to survive a general election. Do you want your strongest candidate put forward, or do you want a candidate who may or may not have a bunch of skeletons tumble out of their closet once opposition research goes into high gear turning the general election?
posted by clawsoon at 9:05 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or you could argue that it makes your side stronger, because it weeds out candidates who have personal or political shortcomings that wouldn't allow them to survive a general election. Do you want your strongest candidate put forward, or do you want a candidate who may or may not have a bunch of skeletons tumble out of their closet once opposition research goes into high gear turning the general election?
posted by clawsoon at 9:05 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Endlessly bashing and vilifying supporters of your primary opponent when you're all nominally on the same side has to be one of the stupidest, moronic, dumbass, inane long-term strategies imaginable.
Or you could argue that it makes your side stronger, because it weeds out candidates who have personal or political shortcomings that wouldn't allow them to survive a general election.
There's a massive gap between those two sentences. Attacking the candidate is not attacking the supporters of a candidate.
posted by Etrigan at 9:06 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Or you could argue that it makes your side stronger, because it weeds out candidates who have personal or political shortcomings that wouldn't allow them to survive a general election.
There's a massive gap between those two sentences. Attacking the candidate is not attacking the supporters of a candidate.
posted by Etrigan at 9:06 AM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I think it's great to battle-test the candidates, but attacks on supporters is generally beyond the pale.
on preview: Etrigan knows what's up!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:07 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
on preview: Etrigan knows what's up!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:07 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am very very very endlessly glad to have a viable Clinton challenger this cycle as the email thing plays out.
I agree!
And as her giving up on single payer health care comes to light. And as the appalling comments she made in '96 about preteen "predators" come to light. And many others. I'm extremely thankful he's running.
What the heck would we do without Bernie if something very bad comes to light?
A heck of a lot already has. The question is, will it sink her candidacy?
posted by zarq at 9:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree!
And as her giving up on single payer health care comes to light. And as the appalling comments she made in '96 about preteen "predators" come to light. And many others. I'm extremely thankful he's running.
What the heck would we do without Bernie if something very bad comes to light?
A heck of a lot already has. The question is, will it sink her candidacy?
posted by zarq at 9:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or you could argue that it makes your side stronger, because it weeds out candidates who have personal or political shortcomings that wouldn't allow them to survive a general election.
That logic can be used to justify any level of attack on any political opponent in the name of toughening them up / shedding light on their general election liabilities. All some of us are requesting is that you take a moment to consider whether the monomaniacal focus on your adversary's shortcomings is likely to result in a positive outcome. If you've made that calculation and double-checked it and still come up with the same answer, then there are no bright-line rules of political warfare that I or anyone else can point to in order to change your mind, but I'm getting skeeved out by the slow but steady trend toward, as Bernie calls it, "the kitchen sink" approach.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
That logic can be used to justify any level of attack on any political opponent in the name of toughening them up / shedding light on their general election liabilities. All some of us are requesting is that you take a moment to consider whether the monomaniacal focus on your adversary's shortcomings is likely to result in a positive outcome. If you've made that calculation and double-checked it and still come up with the same answer, then there are no bright-line rules of political warfare that I or anyone else can point to in order to change your mind, but I'm getting skeeved out by the slow but steady trend toward, as Bernie calls it, "the kitchen sink" approach.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Kiese Laymon seems to misunderstand the 1994 crime bill.
As a Bernie supporter, I absolutely disagree. This is a direct comment on how a vote had direct influence on so many lives. The fact that Bernie recognized and spoke up about this likely outcome doesn't make their lives better. It may show better judgement than Hillary campaigning for the vengeance parts of the bill - or not. Either way, it is a fundamentally valid complaint to say "Both of these candidates have acted to hurt me and my family."
At the start of this campaign I gave my money to Bernie, and put my money on Hillary. I thought his message would help her campaign see the political winds as I see them. I thought she would find ways to pivot to what I think are stronger positions. Frankly, I'm disappointed and my expectations have shifted from supporting Bernie as a needed voice, to supporting Bernie as the better candidate to represent my views.
I hope that however this nomination process works out, the party will recognize the opportunity here to re-ignite the fifty state strategy and reconnect with the desperate and vulnerable. To learn again how to say that there is a way we can build a better future together. Political change is slow; I think it takes the wrong message from the Obama presidency to simply regard the parts that didn't work out as many of us have liked. He has opened many doors along a progressive path, we just need the courage to keep walking through them.
posted by meinvt at 9:22 AM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
As a Bernie supporter, I absolutely disagree. This is a direct comment on how a vote had direct influence on so many lives. The fact that Bernie recognized and spoke up about this likely outcome doesn't make their lives better. It may show better judgement than Hillary campaigning for the vengeance parts of the bill - or not. Either way, it is a fundamentally valid complaint to say "Both of these candidates have acted to hurt me and my family."
At the start of this campaign I gave my money to Bernie, and put my money on Hillary. I thought his message would help her campaign see the political winds as I see them. I thought she would find ways to pivot to what I think are stronger positions. Frankly, I'm disappointed and my expectations have shifted from supporting Bernie as a needed voice, to supporting Bernie as the better candidate to represent my views.
I hope that however this nomination process works out, the party will recognize the opportunity here to re-ignite the fifty state strategy and reconnect with the desperate and vulnerable. To learn again how to say that there is a way we can build a better future together. Political change is slow; I think it takes the wrong message from the Obama presidency to simply regard the parts that didn't work out as many of us have liked. He has opened many doors along a progressive path, we just need the courage to keep walking through them.
posted by meinvt at 9:22 AM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
but she is a good politician
But apparently not a good campaigner. I don't think that's all that unusual a condition, though it's somewhat more rare on the national stage when you're talking about someone who has landed office before.
Points about the sublimated sexism in play are well taken, though I'm not sure I think there's anyone in this thread who wouldn't agree. Clinton unquestionably takes it on the chin harder because of years of slander and sexism. I'm someone who isn't much of a fan of hers I would agree with that assessment of unfair treatment completely.
I am always vaguely concerned when I have a negative reaction to her because of recognition of media/(R)/sexism poisoning. I think there's also some of this playing into the media narrative going on here about perception of her camp's things said about Sanders and Sanders supporters. But at some point I have to accept that a pile of things, even amplified 10x, adds up to stuff that bothers me.
She is treated unfairly, ascribed negatives that would not be pointed at a man or a non-Clinton, judged more harshly for things that would be considered lesser offenses by men. Everyone would do well to keep that in mind, but it doesn't mean we can't still mindfully dislike her.
posted by phearlez at 9:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
But apparently not a good campaigner. I don't think that's all that unusual a condition, though it's somewhat more rare on the national stage when you're talking about someone who has landed office before.
Points about the sublimated sexism in play are well taken, though I'm not sure I think there's anyone in this thread who wouldn't agree. Clinton unquestionably takes it on the chin harder because of years of slander and sexism. I'm someone who isn't much of a fan of hers I would agree with that assessment of unfair treatment completely.
I am always vaguely concerned when I have a negative reaction to her because of recognition of media/(R)/sexism poisoning. I think there's also some of this playing into the media narrative going on here about perception of her camp's things said about Sanders and Sanders supporters. But at some point I have to accept that a pile of things, even amplified 10x, adds up to stuff that bothers me.
She is treated unfairly, ascribed negatives that would not be pointed at a man or a non-Clinton, judged more harshly for things that would be considered lesser offenses by men. Everyone would do well to keep that in mind, but it doesn't mean we can't still mindfully dislike her.
posted by phearlez at 9:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
but it doesn't mean we can't still mindfully dislike her.
That's fine, but I for one stop viewing the dislike as "mindful" when it approvingly links to Fox News contributors posting op-eds at the Washington Times with an image of his and hers prison jumpsuits at the top. YMMV.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's fine, but I for one stop viewing the dislike as "mindful" when it approvingly links to Fox News contributors posting op-eds at the Washington Times with an image of his and hers prison jumpsuits at the top. YMMV.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've Ctrl-F'd "Vince Foster" in this and the Iowa thread a couple times just to see if we're, y'know, there yet.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:38 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
And now we are. Thanks a lot.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Does anyone here honestly think the superdelegates would vote Hillary over the threshold if she were behind Bernie in actual state delegates? It would destroy the entire party in the general election. It would disaffect Bernie supporters and push general election turnout down. It's not the presidency at that point it's previously safe seats down ticket. That's the nightmare scenario.
The entire purpose of the superdelegate system is to give an illusory lead to the leadership's status quo candidate. Why bother voting/donating/volunteering for Bernie if Hillary has this 300 point lead already?
posted by cmfletcher at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The entire purpose of the superdelegate system is to give an illusory lead to the leadership's status quo candidate. Why bother voting/donating/volunteering for Bernie if Hillary has this 300 point lead already?
posted by cmfletcher at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
but it doesn't mean we can't still mindfully dislike her.
I never suggested otherwise.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016
I never suggested otherwise.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016
This said, what I would like is someone to blacksplain to me why Sanders shouldn't be their choice.
If you mean "Why do black survey respondents so overwhelmingly favor Clinton?" I don't have data but can offer a guess as a white dude but also, well, I do polisci.
The reasonably well-founded part of this is that lots of voters don't vote on issues. Voting on issues is hard; it requires gathering a lot of information and processing that information in ways that aren't familiar -- explaining it to undergraduates I usually say that it involves using mental muscles that most people don't exercise very much. Instead, a lot of voters ask, at least in part, "Do I trust you to exercise power on my behalf? Do you care about people like me?" Stuff like Ford just biting into an unshucked tamale or George McGovern famously asking for a glass of milk with his kosher hot dog matter, at least a little, because they're sharp and clear signals that this person doesn't understand us, which makes it hard to think they actually care very much about us.
And I expect, without data to back this up so I freely admit that it's just bloviating and guesses, that the big gap between Clinton and Sanders among black respondents is because Clinton has been doing stuff for years to signal to black voters that she cares about them. I've no idea what the specifics are, but going to black-people things and publicly talking to and associating with black leaders and otherwise visibly trying to signal an allegiance to black voters, either directly or by appealing to black opinion leaders. And I expect that Sanders hasn't been doing much of that, at least not until last fall when black people became electorally relevant to him for the first time in his political career. That is, presumably if he'd been planning to run in 2013 he'd have started doing it then.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you mean "Why do black survey respondents so overwhelmingly favor Clinton?" I don't have data but can offer a guess as a white dude but also, well, I do polisci.
The reasonably well-founded part of this is that lots of voters don't vote on issues. Voting on issues is hard; it requires gathering a lot of information and processing that information in ways that aren't familiar -- explaining it to undergraduates I usually say that it involves using mental muscles that most people don't exercise very much. Instead, a lot of voters ask, at least in part, "Do I trust you to exercise power on my behalf? Do you care about people like me?" Stuff like Ford just biting into an unshucked tamale or George McGovern famously asking for a glass of milk with his kosher hot dog matter, at least a little, because they're sharp and clear signals that this person doesn't understand us, which makes it hard to think they actually care very much about us.
And I expect, without data to back this up so I freely admit that it's just bloviating and guesses, that the big gap between Clinton and Sanders among black respondents is because Clinton has been doing stuff for years to signal to black voters that she cares about them. I've no idea what the specifics are, but going to black-people things and publicly talking to and associating with black leaders and otherwise visibly trying to signal an allegiance to black voters, either directly or by appealing to black opinion leaders. And I expect that Sanders hasn't been doing much of that, at least not until last fall when black people became electorally relevant to him for the first time in his political career. That is, presumably if he'd been planning to run in 2013 he'd have started doing it then.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:41 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The entire purpose of the superdelegate system is to give an illusory lead to the leadership's status quo candidate. Why bother voting/donating/volunteering for Bernie if Hillary has this 300 point lead already?
I feel like anyone who knows about superdelegates knows enough not to be swayed by them. I think the intent is more to prevent a brokered convention.
posted by Etrigan at 9:44 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like anyone who knows about superdelegates knows enough not to be swayed by them. I think the intent is more to prevent a brokered convention.
posted by Etrigan at 9:44 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The email thing is in no way comparable to Vince Foster. That's ridiculous. This is part of her record at State, and she's under current investigation for it. That should worry anyone who is concerned about the Democratic nominee's electability. If it was Bernie Sanders with an open FBI investigation, I guarantee we'd be hearing quite a bit about his electability, too.
posted by dialetheia at 9:45 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:45 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Do you want your strongest candidate put forward, or do you want a candidate who may or may not have a bunch of skeletons tumble out of their closet once opposition research goes into high gear turning the general election?
I want a candidate who doesn't bully me into voting for them, that's for sure.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reprised her line that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” while introducing Clinton at a rally on Saturday.
I would expect that Hillary and M. Albright, as strong, successful women, would know that most women do not appreciate the "as a woman, you have X limitation" argument. Guilt tripping me, telling me I will go to hell, manipulating me into voting for you because of my gender - this is oppression. It's insane to me that they don't understand the whole point of equality is that we can have the privilege of making political choices based on political preferences alone.
There are many things about Hillary that I admire, but I am disgusted and completely alienated by the "I'm a woman, choose me" argument. She has much more to offer than her XX chromosomes. I would never sink to that level, and I am disappointed that being so hardworking and accomplished, she feels the need to use her gender in a way that is totally contrary to the principles of gender equality.
She certainly has the skills and experience to earn the presidency based on merit alone, and she should respect the political sovereignty of other women instead of being the one democratic candidate who outright tells women what they should or shouldn't do.
posted by Tarumba at 9:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I want a candidate who doesn't bully me into voting for them, that's for sure.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reprised her line that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” while introducing Clinton at a rally on Saturday.
I would expect that Hillary and M. Albright, as strong, successful women, would know that most women do not appreciate the "as a woman, you have X limitation" argument. Guilt tripping me, telling me I will go to hell, manipulating me into voting for you because of my gender - this is oppression. It's insane to me that they don't understand the whole point of equality is that we can have the privilege of making political choices based on political preferences alone.
There are many things about Hillary that I admire, but I am disgusted and completely alienated by the "I'm a woman, choose me" argument. She has much more to offer than her XX chromosomes. I would never sink to that level, and I am disappointed that being so hardworking and accomplished, she feels the need to use her gender in a way that is totally contrary to the principles of gender equality.
She certainly has the skills and experience to earn the presidency based on merit alone, and she should respect the political sovereignty of other women instead of being the one democratic candidate who outright tells women what they should or shouldn't do.
posted by Tarumba at 9:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
If you mean "Why do black survey respondents so overwhelmingly favor Clinton?" I don't have data but can offer a guess as a white dude but also, well, I do polisci.
This analysis assumes a great deal of things, and is exactly what Charles Blow was speaking of in his column linked upthread. I think perhaps it is just not that helpful, on the whole, for people to guess at the motivations of large swathes of the population in this way.
posted by sallybrown at 9:48 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
This analysis assumes a great deal of things, and is exactly what Charles Blow was speaking of in his column linked upthread. I think perhaps it is just not that helpful, on the whole, for people to guess at the motivations of large swathes of the population in this way.
posted by sallybrown at 9:48 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Does anyone here honestly think the superdelegates would vote Hillary over the threshold if she were behind Bernie in actual state delegates?
Who knows? They're 700 individuals who can each make their own decision. That said, the whole reason that they were created was for them to be able to go against the choice of the majority of party voters. There's not much point for them to exist if they're always going to vote with the other delegates.
posted by octothorpe at 9:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who knows? They're 700 individuals who can each make their own decision. That said, the whole reason that they were created was for them to be able to go against the choice of the majority of party voters. There's not much point for them to exist if they're always going to vote with the other delegates.
posted by octothorpe at 9:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
At the same time, to invoke the superdelegates to override the will of the people is to assure ultimate destruction of the support from their own base. I used the nuclear weapon analogy a few times with the superdelegates, I still think it's apt.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's important to remember that some of the super predators superdelegates are also elected officials in their state. For those superdelegates, there is at least some incentive to go along with the will of the public in their jurisdictions.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 11, 2016
Harry Belefonte endorses Bernie [YouTube]
posted by melissasaurus at 9:59 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 9:59 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
ultimate destruction of the support from their own base
That was the point of my previous post. The general election would be a disaster if the superdelegates overruled over 50% of the primary voters. Superdelegates are going to be forced to rally behind the first to 2051 state delegates.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:03 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That was the point of my previous post. The general election would be a disaster if the superdelegates overruled over 50% of the primary voters. Superdelegates are going to be forced to rally behind the first to 2051 state delegates.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:03 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
George McGovern famously asking for a glass of milk with his kosher hot dog matter, at least a little
It's an awful shame that there's no footage of Queens Democratic Party boss Matthew Troy facepalming himself into unconsciousness when McGovern gave that order. :D
posted by zarq at 10:07 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's an awful shame that there's no footage of Queens Democratic Party boss Matthew Troy facepalming himself into unconsciousness when McGovern gave that order. :D
posted by zarq at 10:07 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
A federal judge has ordered the State Department to make four additional releases of Hillary Clinton's emails between Saturday and the end of February.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:13 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:13 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
(what's wrong with asking for a glass of milk?)
posted by andrewcooke at 10:13 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 10:13 AM on February 11, 2016
Is there a good, non-biased, not-super-technical rundown of this whole email thing? Because I don't really understand it (other than a general question on transparency and appearance of impropriety) and I'm generally suspect of anything the right uses as an attack on Clinton. What is the likelihood of an indictment? What would she actually be indicted for?
posted by melissasaurus at 10:14 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:14 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
(what's wrong with asking for a glass of milk?)
On the off chance that you're not joking.
posted by fifthrider at 10:15 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
On the off chance that you're not joking.
posted by fifthrider at 10:15 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
To me, the donations to the Clinton Foundation, seemingly in exchange for arms (and uranium for Russia) while HRC was Secretary of State is a huge problem for her and more clearly shows poor judgement in the past decade than anything else.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:16 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:16 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
(what's wrong with asking for a glass of milk?)
The Presidential candidate will probably then ask for a mirror to make sure he doesn't have a milk mustache....
posted by zarq at 10:17 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Presidential candidate will probably then ask for a mirror to make sure he doesn't have a milk mustache....
posted by zarq at 10:17 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
why would you want milk with a hot dog anyway? what an odd pairing.
posted by sweetkid at 10:18 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 10:18 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
To me, the donations to the Clinton Foundation, seemingly in exchange for arms (and uranium for Russia) while HRC was Secretary of State is a huge problem for her and more clearly shows poor judgement in the past decade than anything else.
Apart from the legality, it reminds me of the Edwards issue in that I'm angry she endangered this extremely important election in this manner by engaging in this completely unnecessary and avoidable garbage that she had to know would appear shady (whether or not it's legal).
posted by sallybrown at 10:21 AM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Apart from the legality, it reminds me of the Edwards issue in that I'm angry she endangered this extremely important election in this manner by engaging in this completely unnecessary and avoidable garbage that she had to know would appear shady (whether or not it's legal).
posted by sallybrown at 10:21 AM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
“I just won’t be photographed eating a hot dog, or any other phallic food”
-President Selina Meyer
posted by FJT at 10:24 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
-President Selina Meyer
posted by FJT at 10:24 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
i wasn't joking. so it's just that if he were a jew it would be wrong? and is it normal for all americans to know about jewish dietary restrictions?
posted by andrewcooke at 10:24 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 10:24 AM on February 11, 2016
I'm not worried about her getting indicted, really - it's much more likely that her most important right-hand aide for over a decade, Huma Abedin, would be the one to see consequences for whatever impropriety might have occurred. By all accounts, she's the target of the investigation so far. The problem is that it looks bad for Clinton whether she's indicted or not. "It wasn't technically illegal" is the worst response we could have. And most people still don't get why she needed a private server in the first place, so it just looks like a huge unforced error at best.
I am more concerned about the clear conflicts of interest in having countries and companies who were currently lobbying State simultaneously donating hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, though. If it was Condi Rice's husband collecting gigantic $10 million donations from groups which were actively lobbying State while also hiding her private email server, liberals would have been up in arms about it. I still don't understand how most people think this is OK.
posted by dialetheia at 10:25 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am more concerned about the clear conflicts of interest in having countries and companies who were currently lobbying State simultaneously donating hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, though. If it was Condi Rice's husband collecting gigantic $10 million donations from groups which were actively lobbying State while also hiding her private email server, liberals would have been up in arms about it. I still don't understand how most people think this is OK.
posted by dialetheia at 10:25 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
and is it normal for all americans to know about jewish dietary restrictions?
I assume most Americans have heard of keeping kosher -- they may not know what that really means.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I assume most Americans have heard of keeping kosher -- they may not know what that really means.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is interesting to note that this is NOT something people tend to do with, say, Jeb Bush (or his brother George W. before him). We say (or hear others saying) "another Bush," but only very rarely "the Bushes" or "back to the Bushes."
Even if this were true, which I don't believe, it is hard to see how it is in any way meaningful, unless you're in a really defensive place WRT any criticism of your candidate.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:27 AM on February 11, 2016
Even if this were true, which I don't believe, it is hard to see how it is in any way meaningful, unless you're in a really defensive place WRT any criticism of your candidate.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:27 AM on February 11, 2016
I had no idea either and would like to register my respect for those who have chosen to not exercise their right to have cheeseburgers because I could not.
posted by Tarumba at 10:28 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Tarumba at 10:28 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
so it's just that if he were a jew it would be wrong?
No:
"Though deriving benefit is a superficially vague term, it was later clarified by writers in the middle-ages to include:
Milk and meat is a pretty famous one.
posted by fifthrider at 10:28 AM on February 11, 2016
No:
"Though deriving benefit is a superficially vague term, it was later clarified by writers in the middle-ages to include:
- Serving mixtures of milk and meat in a restaurant, even if the clientele are non-Jewish, and the restaurant is not intended to comply with kashrut"
Milk and meat is a pretty famous one.
posted by fifthrider at 10:28 AM on February 11, 2016
Not that this is the place for it...but I've always wondered...would it be kosher to have chicken with cheese? Or fish?
posted by ian1977 at 10:28 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 10:28 AM on February 11, 2016
I still don't understand how most people think this is OK.
On what basis do you think "most people" think it's OK? It's very much not OK in my book if CGI was getting donations in exchange for political favors, but we have very little to go on aside from some investigations that are very early in the process. There's a big difference between "this is perfectly acceptable behavior" and "let's wait and see until we know there's a problem."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:29 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
On what basis do you think "most people" think it's OK? It's very much not OK in my book if CGI was getting donations in exchange for political favors, but we have very little to go on aside from some investigations that are very early in the process. There's a big difference between "this is perfectly acceptable behavior" and "let's wait and see until we know there's a problem."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:29 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
damn ian what a dumb question. the answer is famous somewhere.
posted by andrewcooke at 10:30 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 10:30 AM on February 11, 2016
"And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Dont'cha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it." Marge Gunderson
posted by sallybrown at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the conflict of interest is self-evident. I wouldn't have needed proof that there was quid pro quo to be very, very suspicious if Condi Rice was doing the same thing.
posted by dialetheia at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2016
is it normal for all americans to know about jewish dietary restrictions?
No (outside of, say, NYC, or other areas with a big Jewish population), but it is normal for someone trying to court votes from a Jewish constituency, and who is ordering a kosher hot dog, to be aware of these things.
It would be like trying to court Catholics by ordering fish on a Friday during lent, and then asking for chicken soup on the side.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
No (outside of, say, NYC, or other areas with a big Jewish population), but it is normal for someone trying to court votes from a Jewish constituency, and who is ordering a kosher hot dog, to be aware of these things.
It would be like trying to court Catholics by ordering fish on a Friday during lent, and then asking for chicken soup on the side.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:31 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why is it a dumb question?
It isn't. There actually is a lot of debate in the Jewish community as to the exact meaning of the proscription, since it depends on how literally you want to take the bit about "boiling a kid in its mother's milk." That said, it's generally the better part of valor, if you're a presidential candidate, to not dip your toe into that kind of issue - precisely because it isn't a stupid question, but is rather a lightning rod for debate.
posted by fifthrider at 10:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It isn't. There actually is a lot of debate in the Jewish community as to the exact meaning of the proscription, since it depends on how literally you want to take the bit about "boiling a kid in its mother's milk." That said, it's generally the better part of valor, if you're a presidential candidate, to not dip your toe into that kind of issue - precisely because it isn't a stupid question, but is rather a lightning rod for debate.
posted by fifthrider at 10:35 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump vs. Sanders: The First Debate. Forget the rest of the primary campaign. Let’s imagine what next fall's main event might sound like right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:36 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:36 AM on February 11, 2016
Rep. Keith Ellison, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is not happy about the Congressional Black Caucus PAC endorsement:
But the Congressional Black Caucus PAC is not the same thing as the Congressional Black Caucus, which is made up of 48 members of Congress. Indeed, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders supporter, made that point on Twitter:
@KeithEllison: "Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me"
Ellison then said in another tweet that "endorsements should be the product of a fair open process. Didn’t happen."
posted by dialetheia at 10:43 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
But the Congressional Black Caucus PAC is not the same thing as the Congressional Black Caucus, which is made up of 48 members of Congress. Indeed, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders supporter, made that point on Twitter:
@KeithEllison: "Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me"
Ellison then said in another tweet that "endorsements should be the product of a fair open process. Didn’t happen."
posted by dialetheia at 10:43 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Trump vs. Sanders: The First Debate. Forget the rest of the primary campaign. Let’s imagine what next fall's main event might sound like right now.
That sounds way too much like what Trump sounds like now.
posted by sweetkid at 10:45 AM on February 11, 2016
Wyden's support for the TPP is regrettable...
-Why the TPP is Terrible, Part the Millionth
-The TPP If Ratified: Corporations Will Overturn U.S. Laws, Speed up Destruction of the Environment, Outsource Jobs...
posted by kliuless at 10:49 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
-Why the TPP is Terrible, Part the Millionth
-The TPP If Ratified: Corporations Will Overturn U.S. Laws, Speed up Destruction of the Environment, Outsource Jobs...
posted by kliuless at 10:49 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the Congressional Black Caucus PAC is not the same thing as the Congressional Black Caucus, which is made up of 48 members of Congress.
Huh. I didn't know that Elijah Cummings was part of the CBC PAC, and I'm saddened to hear it. At least he abstained from this particular vote.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:53 AM on February 11, 2016
Huh. I didn't know that Elijah Cummings was part of the CBC PAC, and I'm saddened to hear it. At least he abstained from this particular vote.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:53 AM on February 11, 2016
I can't see Oprah running with Trump.
posted by ian1977 at 10:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 10:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
In Memoriam: Campaign 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:54 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
No (outside of, say, NYC, or other areas with a big Jewish population), but it is normal for someone trying to court votes from a Jewish constituency, and who is ordering a kosher hot dog, to be aware of these things.
Yeah, McGovern was making a big push to court Jewish voters at the time. Jews know intellectually that our rules are entirely internal and don't apply to the rest of the world. But it reinforced a "not one of us, doesn't understand us" feeling. Wasn't helped by his staff trying to schedule a policy speech afterward, which they wanted to be given at a synagogue on the Sabbath.
Also, if the meat in question is kosher, some Jews may feel a little weird seeing it eaten with dairy. After a while, the separation taboo becomes ingrained.
posted by zarq at 10:57 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, McGovern was making a big push to court Jewish voters at the time. Jews know intellectually that our rules are entirely internal and don't apply to the rest of the world. But it reinforced a "not one of us, doesn't understand us" feeling. Wasn't helped by his staff trying to schedule a policy speech afterward, which they wanted to be given at a synagogue on the Sabbath.
Also, if the meat in question is kosher, some Jews may feel a little weird seeing it eaten with dairy. After a while, the separation taboo becomes ingrained.
posted by zarq at 10:57 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Holy shit: Sanders/Oprah 2016.
posted by dis_integration at 11:02 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by dis_integration at 11:02 AM on February 11, 2016
You get a free education and YOU get a free education and YOU get a free education!!!!!! B
posted by ian1977 at 11:04 AM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 11:04 AM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
Ted Cruz Welcomes Endorsement Of Mike Bickle, Who Believes Oprah Is A Forerunner To The Antichrist
posted by melissasaurus at 11:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:08 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
ian1977: Not that this is the place for it...but I've always wondered...would it be kosher to have chicken with cheese? Or fish?
Jewish kashrut (kosher) laws treat chicken as meat. So, not kosher to eat with cheese.
Fish is considered "pareve" (pronounced "pahrv") which means it can be eaten with either milk or meat products.
Chicken eggs are also considered pareve.
The injunction stems from a commandment that "thou shalt not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk." (Exodus 23:6). We Jews blew that up into a whole thing. Unsurprisingly. :)
posted by zarq at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jewish kashrut (kosher) laws treat chicken as meat. So, not kosher to eat with cheese.
Fish is considered "pareve" (pronounced "pahrv") which means it can be eaten with either milk or meat products.
Chicken eggs are also considered pareve.
The injunction stems from a commandment that "thou shalt not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk." (Exodus 23:6). We Jews blew that up into a whole thing. Unsurprisingly. :)
posted by zarq at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Michelle Fiore, the right-wing Nevada assemblywoman currently embroiled in the Bundy militia standoff in Oregon, is also a big Ted Cruz booster - she's on his Nevada leadership team.
posted by dialetheia at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2016
I'd like to comment on the sheer weight Bernie is throwing around because I feel like it's been glossed over a little (offhandedly as "enthusiasm.") Bernie can raise millions of dollars at the drop of a hat. I realize this is "nothing new" for politicians with big wallets, maybe nobody cares, but skeptics of Bernie's ability to win the general should provide a counterpoint to all the precedents his campaign has been breaking.
Anyone who's making judgements of Bernie's electability needs to take an honest look at his subreddit and robust socio-digital infrastructure. The grassroots effort is public-facing so you can see for yourself how much energy and coordination is backing Bernie's candidacy. So many thousands of people are carpooling around the country to canvas and phonebank and evangelize because they genuinely believe they are part of something bigger. They're not moochers, they don't hate women, they don't think the buck stops with the general election. Sure Bernie's campaign resembles Obama's... isn't that a good thing?
Confidence in Clinton's ability to run the country is all well and good but it's going to be neigh impossible to rally independents and disillusioned right-leaning supporters during her presidency on a local/congressional level. This is so obvious from outside the umbrella of establishment politics as to be needlessly stated. Under Clinton, the independents and disillusioned republicans look elsewhere for change and they do not go blue.
I meaningfully fear that her election would merely delay an increasingly fascist upheaval as the Republican base radicalization calcifies into something more dangerous while incorporating the growing disaffected millions who cannot in good conscience give support to establishment causes.
A Democratic party that even vaguely seems to represent Wall Street is a head without a body. I think Bernie is the safer long term choice for its survival, if we want that.
posted by an animate objects at 11:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Anyone who's making judgements of Bernie's electability needs to take an honest look at his subreddit and robust socio-digital infrastructure. The grassroots effort is public-facing so you can see for yourself how much energy and coordination is backing Bernie's candidacy. So many thousands of people are carpooling around the country to canvas and phonebank and evangelize because they genuinely believe they are part of something bigger. They're not moochers, they don't hate women, they don't think the buck stops with the general election. Sure Bernie's campaign resembles Obama's... isn't that a good thing?
Confidence in Clinton's ability to run the country is all well and good but it's going to be neigh impossible to rally independents and disillusioned right-leaning supporters during her presidency on a local/congressional level. This is so obvious from outside the umbrella of establishment politics as to be needlessly stated. Under Clinton, the independents and disillusioned republicans look elsewhere for change and they do not go blue.
I meaningfully fear that her election would merely delay an increasingly fascist upheaval as the Republican base radicalization calcifies into something more dangerous while incorporating the growing disaffected millions who cannot in good conscience give support to establishment causes.
A Democratic party that even vaguely seems to represent Wall Street is a head without a body. I think Bernie is the safer long term choice for its survival, if we want that.
posted by an animate objects at 11:12 AM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also, (and after this, I'll stop derailing the thread, I promise) chicken was apparently considered pareve until the 15th century. Just like eggs. Chickens don't produce milk, after all. Somewhere along the way, some schmuck of a rabbi who apparently hated the finer things in life decided to make chicken a meat in the eyes of Judaism, so chicken parmiagiana would be considered taboo. (I'm not bitter.)
posted by zarq at 11:17 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zarq at 11:17 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Chickens don't produce milk
You realize I am now picturing Chicken Milk and ugh
posted by sweetkid at 11:19 AM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
You realize I am now picturing Chicken Milk and ugh
posted by sweetkid at 11:19 AM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wonder if the idea is construed that mother's milk is meant to nourish life, not to hurt it (ie boil meat?)?
posted by ian1977 at 11:19 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 11:19 AM on February 11, 2016
I have nipples Focker, can you milk me?
posted by ian1977 at 11:21 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 11:21 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like as with most religious food beliefs/rules, it came from trying to keep people from getting sick or starving.
posted by sweetkid at 11:21 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 11:21 AM on February 11, 2016
It's considered cruelty. Most kosher laws center around not hurting the animals you're planning on eating, and not ingesting animals like predators or scavengers that kill other animals. Cooking an animal in its own mother's milk would be cruel.
posted by zarq at 11:24 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zarq at 11:24 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
so goat cheese on a hamburger is okay, right?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think we need to poll the candidates to find out where they stand on the all-important Chicken Milk question.
posted by zarq at 11:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zarq at 11:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
so goat cheese on a hamburger is okay, right?
no
I so want to derail more but we shouldn't
posted by sweetkid at 11:27 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm OK with the derail, esoteric things like "chicken milk" are honestly the sort of discussion I was hoping that this would evolve to, and are why I come here.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:29 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:29 AM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I so want to derail more but we shouldn't
I know I know but
Is it because you can't know that the goat and the cow didn't have an interspecies adoptive mother-child relationship?
Oh please let this be the reason
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I know I know but
Is it because you can't know that the goat and the cow didn't have an interspecies adoptive mother-child relationship?
Oh please let this be the reason
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:30 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Looks like that CBC endorsement is somewhat wonky.
posted by Artw at 11:33 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:33 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
To be honest, a discussion about the finer points of religious dietary law is a breath of fresh air at this point in the thread.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think we need to poll the candidates to find out where they stand on the all-important Chicken Milk question.
Fiorina: I saw the chicken on the table, its legs kicking, while someone said "keep it alive to harvest its milk!"
posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Fiorina: I saw the chicken on the table, its legs kicking, while someone said "keep it alive to harvest its milk!"
posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
well, while I totally agree that kosher rules are about reducing cruelty, I think a lot of the reasons those ancient rules came to pass about food were about preservation, safety, etc. For example Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays - one reason I learned about why was that there was only so much meat in winter and things stick better i they are rituals.
Also, these things are tribal markers - we do it this way, they do it that way, which is how certain societies, especially marginalized ones like the Jewish diaspora have been able to survive. To be able to connect with that distinction and that difference, even if you are not from it, is important for candidates if they are going for the human interest angle, to bring this back to the topic.
posted by sweetkid at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, these things are tribal markers - we do it this way, they do it that way, which is how certain societies, especially marginalized ones like the Jewish diaspora have been able to survive. To be able to connect with that distinction and that difference, even if you are not from it, is important for candidates if they are going for the human interest angle, to bring this back to the topic.
posted by sweetkid at 11:34 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump: 100% classy ground Kobe beef flown in on a private jet. Sautéed in a 1998 Krug Clos d’Ambonnay. Bun is a classic brioche made from the selection the wheat berry samples stored in the Norwegian seed vault. Topped with a soft cheese made from Donald's navel.
posted by ian1977 at 11:37 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 11:37 AM on February 11, 2016
Oh...and finished off with a generous spritz of spray tan.
posted by ian1977 at 11:38 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 11:38 AM on February 11, 2016
Huh, I had no idea that the State Department didn't even have a full-time inspector general during Clinton's time as Secretary of State:
"And the high tempo is no accident: Linick is in a literal sense making up for lost time. When he took his post in late 2013, the inspector general position had been vacant for an eye-opening five and a half years, leaving the department without an independent and Senate-confirmed watchdog during a period marred by some of the worst miscues in the State Department’s recent history. The void spanned the entire length of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and was at the time the longest in the history of any federal department.
The absence of a full-time watchdog meant that the post had been filled by an interim inspector general, Harold Geisel, a senior State Department official and former ambassador to Mauritius. Geisel’s independence was called into question by members of Congress, State Department employees, and government oversight groups, many of whom saw his long stay in what was supposed to be an interim position as proof that the Obama administration had little appetite for serious examinations of State’s failings."
posted by dialetheia at 11:40 AM on February 11, 2016
"And the high tempo is no accident: Linick is in a literal sense making up for lost time. When he took his post in late 2013, the inspector general position had been vacant for an eye-opening five and a half years, leaving the department without an independent and Senate-confirmed watchdog during a period marred by some of the worst miscues in the State Department’s recent history. The void spanned the entire length of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and was at the time the longest in the history of any federal department.
The absence of a full-time watchdog meant that the post had been filled by an interim inspector general, Harold Geisel, a senior State Department official and former ambassador to Mauritius. Geisel’s independence was called into question by members of Congress, State Department employees, and government oversight groups, many of whom saw his long stay in what was supposed to be an interim position as proof that the Obama administration had little appetite for serious examinations of State’s failings."
posted by dialetheia at 11:40 AM on February 11, 2016
And served in slider form to accommodate vulgarian digits.
posted by ian1977 at 11:40 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 11:40 AM on February 11, 2016
Mod note: Couple deleted. Maybe at this point let's nudge this back toward the topic.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:42 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:42 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hard to take that seriously when the admonition comes in a comment with brackets that make it look like a hamburger...
posted by phearlez at 11:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 11:46 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
@keithellison:
Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.
posted by Artw at 11:47 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Cong'l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me.
posted by Artw at 11:47 AM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Looks like that CBC endorsement is somewhat wonky.
Yeah, it's not even a CBC endorsement - it's a CBC PAC endorsement. I assume that many people won't make the distinction, even though lobbyists outnumber elected officials on that PAC: "The board includes 11 lobbyists, seven elected officials, and two officials who work for the PAC. Branch confirmed that the lobbyists were involved in the endorsement, but would not go into detail about the process."
posted by dialetheia at 11:48 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, it's not even a CBC endorsement - it's a CBC PAC endorsement. I assume that many people won't make the distinction, even though lobbyists outnumber elected officials on that PAC: "The board includes 11 lobbyists, seven elected officials, and two officials who work for the PAC. Branch confirmed that the lobbyists were involved in the endorsement, but would not go into detail about the process."
posted by dialetheia at 11:48 AM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Speaking this morning on Democracy Now, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., a CBC member, said she has not endorsed in Democratic primary, and reminded viewers that the CBC “has nothing to do with the” CBC PAC, which is a legally distinct entity.What an ironically Clintonian splitting of hairs.
posted by Etrigan at 11:51 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The entire lineup on the right makes either choice on the left look 100% cromulent.
Heidi Cruz says her husband's campaign, and, if elected, presidency, exist "to show this country the face of the God that we serve." Perhaps unaware of the Constitution, she believes Ted Cruz is "uniquely able to deliver" a "combination of the law and religion."
posted by ian1977 at 11:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Heidi Cruz says her husband's campaign, and, if elected, presidency, exist "to show this country the face of the God that we serve." Perhaps unaware of the Constitution, she believes Ted Cruz is "uniquely able to deliver" a "combination of the law and religion."
posted by ian1977 at 11:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
It seems like there are a number of organizations endorsing Clinton via leadership vote rather than membership vote. Which really perfectly mirrors the people vs establishment debate. Was this a common issue in past elections as well?
posted by melissasaurus at 11:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:52 AM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Man I wish I could vote for Barbara Lee for President.
posted by sallybrown at 11:53 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 11:53 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The endorsement turning out to be shady and tainted by lobbyists does seem almost cliche at this point.
posted by Artw at 11:53 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:53 AM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
They were talking about Obama's former press sec saying that Obama wants Clinton to win still today on CNN. Is that official? Has Obama said anything to confirm or deny that?
posted by ian1977 at 11:55 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 11:55 AM on February 11, 2016
POTUS has said he is not endorsing anyone. What Jay Carney says is what he says.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:57 AM on February 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:57 AM on February 11, 2016
It seems odd that Jay Carney would have free reign to just say what he likes without a tap on the shoulder from the president?
posted by ian1977 at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I said it before, but it's best to avoid anything that comes out of Carneys mouth at this point. The likelihood that Obama has confided this in him and ONLY him is nil.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heidi Cruz says her husband's campaign, and, if elected, presidency, exist "to show this country the face of the God that we serve."
The only interpretation I am able to make of this line is that Cruz intends to kill us all.
posted by dis_integration at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [29 favorites]
The only interpretation I am able to make of this line is that Cruz intends to kill us all.
posted by dis_integration at 11:58 AM on February 11, 2016 [29 favorites]
Sometimes I wonder if the Clinton campaign team just forgets that the internet exists, or doesn't understand how much cross-referencing and deep-digging you can do and how quickly things get spread around. I assume it used to be a lot easier to pass some of these claims off before people could instantly fact-check you and pull up your entire record with just a couple of clicks, then send it around social media super quickly.
It's a double-edged sword and cuts both ways, of course - the internet is an amazing tool for spreading misinformation - but I wonder if the old "a lie can travel around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on" truism is slightly less true now than it used to be.
posted by dialetheia at 11:59 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a double-edged sword and cuts both ways, of course - the internet is an amazing tool for spreading misinformation - but I wonder if the old "a lie can travel around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on" truism is slightly less true now than it used to be.
posted by dialetheia at 11:59 AM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Carney has no obligation to say or retract anything under or against Obamas will - There is zero connection there. He is a free agent, and Obama has no authority over him (you know, outside of those that come with the executive office)
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:00 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:00 PM on February 11, 2016
Heidi Cruz says her husband's campaign, and, if elected, presidency, exist "to show this country the face of the God that we serve."
The only interpretation I am able to make of this line is that Cruz intends to kill us all.
Cruz is God. Surprise!
posted by sallybrown at 12:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The only interpretation I am able to make of this line is that Cruz intends to kill us all.
Cruz is God. Surprise!
posted by sallybrown at 12:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ok, but I bet if he said 'Obama wants Ted Cruz to win' someone would say something right?
posted by ian1977 at 12:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 12:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sometimes I wonder if the Clinton campaign team just forgets that the internet exists, or doesn't understand how much cross-referencing and deep-digging you can do and how quickly things get spread around.
I wonder this too. But, then, I remember that these people are generally smart people. And shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report have/had been pulling up old footage of politicians for over a decade. So, I'm not going to assume stupidity or ignorance. But what that leaves as an explanation is that they genuinely don't think that the back-room, lobbyist-filled negotiations are wrong. They think that the political process, as it currently operates, is more or less fine and the way it should be. And that is profoundly disturbing to me.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I wonder this too. But, then, I remember that these people are generally smart people. And shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report have/had been pulling up old footage of politicians for over a decade. So, I'm not going to assume stupidity or ignorance. But what that leaves as an explanation is that they genuinely don't think that the back-room, lobbyist-filled negotiations are wrong. They think that the political process, as it currently operates, is more or less fine and the way it should be. And that is profoundly disturbing to me.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't mean to be insulting to her campaign, by the way - I just see stuff like this and wonder about her internet team.
posted by dialetheia at 12:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe they think the electorate is on par with a horde of slobbering zombies who need to be governed rather than represented. It's okay to lie to a zombie.
posted by ian1977 at 12:09 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 12:09 PM on February 11, 2016
Cruz is God. Surprise!
What does God need with aspaceshipWhite House?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
What does God need with a
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't mean to be insulting to her campaign, by the way - I just see stuff like this and wonder about her internet team.
They're probably thinking "This ad reaches AOL's reported 21,233,859 unique visitors per month."
Outreach needs to happen at every level, to every demographic group, in every campaign. Not just to the ones they need to build support with. That's how a candidate holds onto the support they have.
posted by zarq at 12:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
They're probably thinking "This ad reaches AOL's reported 21,233,859 unique visitors per month."
Outreach needs to happen at every level, to every demographic group, in every campaign. Not just to the ones they need to build support with. That's how a candidate holds onto the support they have.
posted by zarq at 12:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
538: The Facebook Primary. Where 2016 presidential candidates are winning the battle for likes.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:23 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 12:23 PM on February 11, 2016
On the endorsement issues, was there this level of confusion/controversy in 2008? I remember the divisiveness, particularly among supporters, but I don't remember much in the way of "they don't speak for us/didn't ask us" stuff going on.
posted by gofargogo at 12:23 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by gofargogo at 12:23 PM on February 11, 2016
Maybe, but the "what if he said ted cruz" is kind of an absurd argument - Carney has definite strong ties to the DNC that are stronger than any ties he may have remaining directly with Obama. It's completely no surprise that he's saying this, and the DNC isn't going to counter this one because it's in their interests. I certainly don't expect a presidential response -- If Obama personally countered every single erroneous statement from everyone associated with the DNC then he'd be talking well past our lifetimes.
I will say it again - Carney doesn't not work with the administration in ANY capacity. Giving him any weight over any other talking head who is trying to manipulate things is a fools errand. He shouldn't even be given the air time, and the only reason he is getting any voice at all is because of his past experience, where he conveniently has had years of experience in knowing how to craft messages for the media. If you are expecting him to be a credible source in any way, as opposed to yet another media savvy person willing to exploit for his own personal gain, then you are very mistaken. Expecting any official distancing from it from anyone on the campaign or administrative side is a losing proposition, as it just gives him even more of a voice.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I will say it again - Carney doesn't not work with the administration in ANY capacity. Giving him any weight over any other talking head who is trying to manipulate things is a fools errand. He shouldn't even be given the air time, and the only reason he is getting any voice at all is because of his past experience, where he conveniently has had years of experience in knowing how to craft messages for the media. If you are expecting him to be a credible source in any way, as opposed to yet another media savvy person willing to exploit for his own personal gain, then you are very mistaken. Expecting any official distancing from it from anyone on the campaign or administrative side is a losing proposition, as it just gives him even more of a voice.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I assume that if Carney speaks for anyone, it's Amazon.com: "On March 2, 2015, Carney began working for Amazon as the senior vice president of Worldwide Corporate Affairs."
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Jay Carney was responsible for this pile of crap defending their labor practices.
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
That CBC story is another WTF campaign moment. I'm not saying this as a Sanders supporter, but something is just off with the campaign. For example, why does Traveling Press Secretary, Nick Merrill still have a job with the campaign?
posted by Room 641-A at 12:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 12:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
After Cracking Under Pressure, Marco Rubio’s Molar Gets a Campaign Trail Fix
posted by melissasaurus at 12:39 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 12:39 PM on February 11, 2016
538: The Facebook Primary. Where 2016 presidential candidates are winning the battle for likes.
That's really interesting. I wonder how it would look if they removed the bot/clickfarm likes. I'm not sure if it follows for Facebook, but according to this report that used TwitterAudit, 59% of Clinton's twitter follows are from actual users, as opposed to 89% for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 12:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's really interesting. I wonder how it would look if they removed the bot/clickfarm likes. I'm not sure if it follows for Facebook, but according to this report that used TwitterAudit, 59% of Clinton's twitter follows are from actual users, as opposed to 89% for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 12:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also from that piece: "Most interestingly though, is the fact that the ‘real’ proportion of Donald Trump’s 4.43 million followers plummeted from 90 percent to 61 percent in just four months [between June and October]."
posted by dialetheia at 12:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 12:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
For example, why does Traveling Press Secretary, Nick Merrill still have a job with the campaign?
Because he's not an unpaid intern. If he were he'd have been fired by now.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:52 PM on February 11, 2016
Because he's not an unpaid intern. If he were he'd have been fired by now.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:52 PM on February 11, 2016
After Cracking Under Pressure, Marco Rubio’s Molar Gets a Campaign Trail Fix
So, this Wall Street Journal thing is a blogging platform?
posted by cjorgensen at 12:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, this Wall Street Journal thing is a blogging platform?
posted by cjorgensen at 12:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
David Rees, of Get Your War On and Going Deep fame, is writing "word picture" political cartoons for the Baffler and asking users to illustrate them. He's posting submissions on his twitter feed.
posted by dialetheia at 12:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 12:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Marco Rubio’s Campaign Declares War on Math:
Some of these proposals merely describe ambitions to cut spending (“Fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment and force Washington to live within its means without raising taxes … Push for line-item veto authority to cut wasteful spending … Prevent massive, irresponsible spending bills”). Some of them are insignificant costs (“Oppose corporate welfare like the New Deal-era Export-Import Bank” — which costs $2 billion over a decade, a trivial sum). The rest are undefined ambitions without concrete policies Rubio cares to defend, like reducing unspecified federal jobs or cutting future spending on Medicare and Social Security — but (Rubio’s site assures us elsewhere) “Making no changes for those in or near retirement,” which means no savings could be found in these programs in the near future.posted by zombieflanders at 12:57 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
And there’s repealing Obamacare. That would increase the deficit, too. Now, the cost of repealing the tax hikes that help pay for that law is already included in Rubio’s budget, so we can give Rubio some credit here — there are savings to be found by yanking health insurance away from the 19 million people who have gained it through the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, Rubio’s list of budget promises does not mention his plans to jack up defense spending by about a trillion dollars over a decade.
So, in total, Rubio promises an enormous tax cut, higher defense spending, no changes to Medicare or Social Security over the next decade, and a balanced budget. All of those promises are necessary commitments one must make to be the candidate of the Republican Establishment, as Rubio hopes to be. But because these promises are so impossible, he can’t accept the legitimacy of standard budget accounting and must rely on fantasy promises of massive economic growth, even though neither standard economics nor the history of the last 25 years provides much reason to believe debt-financed tax cuts do anything at all to increase economic growth. (Some studies suggest debt-financed tax cuts like those enacted under the Bush administration slightly reduced economic growth, if anything.) Rubio can either follow sane budget accounting principles, or he can make himself acceptable to Republican elites. He’s chosen the latter.
House Democrats Pick Top Republican Targets
posted by sweetkid at 12:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 12:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This isn't Carney specific, ultimately. Anytime someone says "I think that Obama believes X" regarding any campaigning on the Democratic side (and indeed many non-campaigning issues), and when he's trying to retain a position of neutrality, then there's really nothing to be gained by refuting it or even acknowledging it.
Scenario A: "Jay Carney does not speak for the current Administration"
Willfull Interpretation: "Ooooh, he's not endorsing Hillary after all"
Scenario B: "The White House remains in a neutral position, and is not endorsing any candidate at present"
Willful Interpretation: "Look, he isn't denying it!"
It's too easy for confirmation bias to kick in here- Any acknowledgement whatsoever can have a negative effect. That is, for anyone outside of the new outlets, who manipulate headlines and soundbites to their own gain. Right now, if you search Google News for Carney, the top two headlines are "Obama supports Hillary Clinton" and "Obama wants Clinton to win" - These are incredibly misleading. What they do, however, is generate a ton of shares and views. The interpretations I have above are relatively charitable compared to what how the headlines would read in light of an official statement.
There's no winning answer here for anyone other than Jay Carney and the media outlets who are getting ad impressions by publishing this rubbish.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Scenario A: "Jay Carney does not speak for the current Administration"
Willfull Interpretation: "Ooooh, he's not endorsing Hillary after all"
Scenario B: "The White House remains in a neutral position, and is not endorsing any candidate at present"
Willful Interpretation: "Look, he isn't denying it!"
It's too easy for confirmation bias to kick in here- Any acknowledgement whatsoever can have a negative effect. That is, for anyone outside of the new outlets, who manipulate headlines and soundbites to their own gain. Right now, if you search Google News for Carney, the top two headlines are "Obama supports Hillary Clinton" and "Obama wants Clinton to win" - These are incredibly misleading. What they do, however, is generate a ton of shares and views. The interpretations I have above are relatively charitable compared to what how the headlines would read in light of an official statement.
There's no winning answer here for anyone other than Jay Carney and the media outlets who are getting ad impressions by publishing this rubbish.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Push for line-item veto authority
So, a constitutional amendment then? Because I'm pretty sure SCOTUS decided that one in 1998.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, a constitutional amendment then? Because I'm pretty sure SCOTUS decided that one in 1998.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ok then barring a public denial, it's hard to believe that he would imply speaking for the president without some level of collusion? If I was former press sec I think I'd be a little nervous to run my mouth like that professionally speaking. I'm sure I'm wrong cuz I normally am but still. Just seems odd.
posted by ian1977 at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2016
tbh i imagine ted cruz screaming "I WILL SHOW YOU THE FACE OF GOD" as the last thing he utters as he grabs the launch codes briefcase and detonates all the bombs
posted by indubitable at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
On the 1994 Crime Bill: "To talk about its efficacy is besides the point..."
posted by rhizome at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by rhizome at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2016
also, isn't jay carney that shitsack who doxxed a bunch of former Amazon employees for having the temerity to complain about the working conditions there? why are we still seriously discussing him?
posted by indubitable at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
'His Holy fire shall cleanse us!'
posted by ian1977 at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 1:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cruz's latest anti-Trump ad does feature children smashing a dollhouse and shouting "Eminent domain!", if that's close enough.
posted by clawsoon at 1:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
After Cracking Under Pressure, Marco Rubio’s Molar Gets a Campaign Trail Fix
How in the hell do you crack your tooth on a Twix bar?
Payday? Sure. Snickers? Conceivable. But Twix?? A Twix bar is very yielding. How can we expect Rubio to stand up to foreign leaders like Putin if he can't even bite through a Twix bar?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
How in the hell do you crack your tooth on a Twix bar?
Payday? Sure. Snickers? Conceivable. But Twix?? A Twix bar is very yielding. How can we expect Rubio to stand up to foreign leaders like Putin if he can't even bite through a Twix bar?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
John Lewis on Sanders civil rights work: 'Never saw him'
posted by futz at 1:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 1:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
the psychic trauma from Christie's cruel and pointless debate beatdown is such that his very corporeal form is dissolving before our eyes.
posted by indubitable at 1:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
How can we expect Rubio to stand up to foreign leaders like Putin if he can't even bite through a Twix bar?
Trump says this in 48 hours or less. Or I eat...a Twix bar (win/win).
posted by sallybrown at 1:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump says this in 48 hours or less. Or I eat...a Twix bar (win/win).
posted by sallybrown at 1:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is What Happens When a Woman Supports Bernie Sanders Online
posted by cjorgensen at 1:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I skimmed the "This is What Happens When a Woman Supports Bernie Sanders Online" piece and saw zero evidence that anything happened to the author that wouldn't have happened had she supported Clinton, or Rubio or Trump for that matter.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's exactly the point, I think. The point is that women get harassed for expressing opinions, not that women necessarily get uniquely harassed for expressing pro-Clinton opinions.
posted by dialetheia at 2:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I agree with both the last two statements.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 2:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The point is that women get harassed for expressing opinions, not that women necessarily get uniquely harassed for expressing pro-Clinton opinions.
I did not understand that to be the point at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:12 PM on February 11, 2016
I did not understand that to be the point at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:12 PM on February 11, 2016
I cannot Medium today. I guess it's just my browser.
posted by sweetkid at 2:12 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 2:12 PM on February 11, 2016
John Lewis on Sanders civil rights work: 'Never saw him'
Well, here he is with Bernie and Jane Sanders on the Pettus Bridge at a civil rights march... I believe that was from 2015 though, maybe he was referring to the 1960s marches that Sanders participated in. I mean, it wouldn't exactly surprise me if they never ran into each other or he didn't remember Sanders, either - it was a long time ago. John Lewis is still a great leader but yeah, I'm not sure what that statement is intended to convey.
I did not understand that to be the point at all.
What did you understand it to be, then? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
posted by dialetheia at 2:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, here he is with Bernie and Jane Sanders on the Pettus Bridge at a civil rights march... I believe that was from 2015 though, maybe he was referring to the 1960s marches that Sanders participated in. I mean, it wouldn't exactly surprise me if they never ran into each other or he didn't remember Sanders, either - it was a long time ago. John Lewis is still a great leader but yeah, I'm not sure what that statement is intended to convey.
I did not understand that to be the point at all.
What did you understand it to be, then? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
posted by dialetheia at 2:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
What did you understand it to be, then? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
I thought it specifically had to do with someone who was perceived to be a model/airhead liking Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on February 11, 2016
I thought it specifically had to do with someone who was perceived to be a model/airhead liking Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on February 11, 2016
Harry Reid says contested Democratic convention possible [warning CNN autoplay video]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:24 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 2:24 PM on February 11, 2016
If John Lewis meant that he met Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton in the 1963-66 era as ardent civil rights supporters, is there a historical record that supports that? Or does he mean some other time frame?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 2:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 2:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised we're debating what that Medium article was supposed to mean, when the author makes a very clear and-this-is-why-Clinton-supporters'-complaints-about-"Bernie Bros"-ring-hollow thesis at the end.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
If John Lewis meant that he met Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton in the 1963-66 era as ardent civil rights supporters, is there a historical record that supports that? Or does he mean some other time frame?
Maybe BIll was marching with the SDS, but Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.
posted by dis_integration at 2:28 PM on February 11, 2016
Maybe BIll was marching with the SDS, but Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.
posted by dis_integration at 2:28 PM on February 11, 2016
Lewis's framing appears to be incredibility disingenuous at best.
posted by futz at 2:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 2:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's extremely unlikely for there to be a contested convention with only two candidates. Reid knows this.
posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on February 11, 2016
it's hard to believe that he would imply speaking for the president without some level of collusion
Only if you don't know anything about Jay Carney. He has nothing to lose by doing this - He's completely capitalizing on the fact that people might take him seriously because of his prior position. It's certainly not going to have any implications on his position as a SVP of Amazon, and it's not like it has any effect in his ability to be press secretary again - which is precisely zero. It can only have a positive effect on his future as a "freelance political analyst", if he decided to go that road.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Only if you don't know anything about Jay Carney. He has nothing to lose by doing this - He's completely capitalizing on the fact that people might take him seriously because of his prior position. It's certainly not going to have any implications on his position as a SVP of Amazon, and it's not like it has any effect in his ability to be press secretary again - which is precisely zero. It can only have a positive effect on his future as a "freelance political analyst", if he decided to go that road.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Erica Garner’s Commercial Endorsing Bernie Sanders for President
posted by melissasaurus at 2:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [26 favorites]
Wow, what a powerful video! "He's not scared" - that's one of the most appealing things about Sanders, she hits the nail on the head. I also love that he gave Erica Garner creative control:
"Last week we made a commercial to express to the world exactly why I am endorsing Bernie Sanders for President. The Sanders team allowed me and my team full creative control of this video so this message is 100% my message and my views! They had a totally different idea of what should be done, but true to form with Senator Sanders, he listened to me, didn’t tell me he knew better and I was not practical and this is what we produced."
posted by dialetheia at 3:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [21 favorites]
"Last week we made a commercial to express to the world exactly why I am endorsing Bernie Sanders for President. The Sanders team allowed me and my team full creative control of this video so this message is 100% my message and my views! They had a totally different idea of what should be done, but true to form with Senator Sanders, he listened to me, didn’t tell me he knew better and I was not practical and this is what we produced."
posted by dialetheia at 3:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [21 favorites]
Yeah, that video with Erica Garner, really moving stuff. Bernie's media team is really good.
posted by wintermind at 3:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by wintermind at 3:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Since questions are apparently being raised at this point, here's a brief account of Bernie Sanders' involvement in the civil rights movement in the early 60s, with primary sources.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Erica Garner's video is astounding.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
wow
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:32 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:32 PM on February 11, 2016
That Erica Garner video nails it. He's not scared. She's not scared. I'm not scared. This whole country seems completely dominated by fear all the time anymore. Fear of terrorism. Fear of immigrants. Fear of losing power. Fear of everything. We can't let our lives be ruled by our fears or else we're constantly reacting instead of acting.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [25 favorites]
"Bernie Sanders was the only white guy who showed up": investigative reporter Greg Palast tells Thom Hartmann a story about an emergency Congressional Black Caucus meeting in 2004 held to talk about new racist voter suppression strategies. Sanders was the only white person who came, even though all of Congress was invited. Some interesting (and infuriating) detail on the racist voter suppression strategies used in Florida in the 2000 election, too.
posted by dialetheia at 4:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [26 favorites]
Re endorsements, I think a lot of national organizations really jumped the gun endorsing Clinton in their "FINISH HIM!!" haste, and are not likely pleased that what they thought was a done deal has become a highly contentious and spirited contest. I was particularly disappointed to see Planned Parenthood jump into the primary to give its first ever presidential endorsement; this seems like a real potential misstep for them now that the young women who make up a, if not the, key bloc of their supporters and patients are just as likely to support Sanders as Clinton.
posted by threeants at 4:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by threeants at 4:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
This CBC PAC vs CBC thing seems to be the party trying to work the clickbait, super transparent and weak.
Next up: "We should make a viral video."
posted by rhizome at 4:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Next up: "We should make a viral video."
posted by rhizome at 4:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Personally I think it's incumbent upon any organization that cares for patients to tread REALLY CAREFULLY when it comes to electoral endorsements. It's murky enough territory that it should be reserved as a weapon against politicians who pose an existential threat to their ability to provide medical care (like most Republicans), not for making gratuitous endorsements in a primary between multiple pro-choice candidates.
posted by threeants at 4:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by threeants at 4:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
gratuitous endorsements in a primary between multiple pro-choice candidates.
The gratuity of the endorsement where both candidates are so resoundingly pro-women is precisely why the criticism from the Clinton camp of Sanders' "establishment" comment towards PP was so absurd on its face, and especially plays into the ongoing story that Clinton's fiddling with secret organizational dials all over the place to manipulate her way into the white house. Even if she isn't exerting such forces on the political process, her inability to curtail the impression is damning given the nature of the role she is attempting to fill.
posted by an animate objects at 4:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
The gratuity of the endorsement where both candidates are so resoundingly pro-women is precisely why the criticism from the Clinton camp of Sanders' "establishment" comment towards PP was so absurd on its face, and especially plays into the ongoing story that Clinton's fiddling with secret organizational dials all over the place to manipulate her way into the white house. Even if she isn't exerting such forces on the political process, her inability to curtail the impression is damning given the nature of the role she is attempting to fill.
posted by an animate objects at 4:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I was furious about the Planned Parenthood endorsement. They have never endorsed in a presidential primary before in history, and both candidates had 100% voting ratings. Clinton is personal friends with PP president Cecile Richards, and her daughter Lily Adams was press secretary of Clinton's Iowa campaign (not sure what her role is now, but she is still working for the campaign). Those ties are fine, of course, in fact I might have viewed it as a net benefit for her in other circumstances! It's the unprecedented endorsement that makes me angry as a PP patient and donor.
posted by dialetheia at 4:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [23 favorites]
In fact, I would go one step further - the endorsement felt like an attempt to shame feminists out of supporting Sanders' campaign, much like the Steinem and Albright comments.
posted by dialetheia at 4:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
the endorsement felt like an attempt to shame feminists out of supporting Sanders' campaign, much like the Steinem and Albright comments.
Good luck with that, since there's this wonderful side-effect of universal coverage/single payer where employers are cut out of healthcare decisions completely, and that pretty much ends the fight for contraceptive coverage completely.
Bernie 2016 Because fuck this shit.
posted by mikelieman at 4:54 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Good luck with that, since there's this wonderful side-effect of universal coverage/single payer where employers are cut out of healthcare decisions completely, and that pretty much ends the fight for contraceptive coverage completely.
Bernie 2016 Because fuck this shit.
posted by mikelieman at 4:54 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
In fact, I would go one step further - the endorsement felt like an attempt to shame feminists out of supporting Sanders' campaign, much like the Steinem and Albright comments
ok, but that's your opinion...
posted by sweetkid at 5:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
ok, but that's your opinion...
posted by sweetkid at 5:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not an opinion that PP gives both candidates the same score, and PP has never endorsed a candidate before.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
ok, but that's your opinion...
I feel like you're insinuating that she meant it as anything more than her opinion but I don't think that's a fair characterization.
posted by an animate objects at 5:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I feel like you're insinuating that she meant it as anything more than her opinion but I don't think that's a fair characterization.
posted by an animate objects at 5:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Thought experiment: how would you react if they gave an unprecedented endorsement to Sanders?
posted by defenestration at 5:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by defenestration at 5:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm just making sure. It's a pretty startling accusation, and then the next comment is like, taking it as truth.
posted by sweetkid at 5:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 5:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
and PP has never endorsed a candidate before.
And why is that a big deal?
posted by FJT at 5:10 PM on February 11, 2016
And why is that a big deal?
posted by FJT at 5:10 PM on February 11, 2016
I think anyone who believes the PP endorsement would have been made without Clinton's friendship with Richards is not really playing ball here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Thought experiment: how would you react if they gave an unprecedented endorsement to Sanders?
I don't see it happening without the personal friendship that Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards share. And the "appearance of impropriety" that their relationship creates typifies the "Big Money Politics" which Bernie Sanders is campaigning against.
I mean....
Dear Clinton Advisors,
Stop doing things that directly support and reinforce Bernie Sanders' narrative.
(Not that I care, but seriously... Wow... )
posted by mikelieman at 5:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't see it happening without the personal friendship that Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards share. And the "appearance of impropriety" that their relationship creates typifies the "Big Money Politics" which Bernie Sanders is campaigning against.
I mean....
Dear Clinton Advisors,
Stop doing things that directly support and reinforce Bernie Sanders' narrative.
(Not that I care, but seriously... Wow... )
posted by mikelieman at 5:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Like so far in this thread people not only don't trust Clinton, but also Obama because he was somehow not neutral enough on Clinton, and we also don't trust Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood of all people shames women, not to mention Steinem is ruined forever...
I mean, are those progressive values? Maybe I'm just old or something.
posted by sweetkid at 5:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, are those progressive values? Maybe I'm just old or something.
posted by sweetkid at 5:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Don't forget John Lewis.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also Kiese Laymon is wrong.
posted by sweetkid at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah we're seriously getting into this-is-good-news-for-John-McCain territory with the insular zeal here. There is so much spin here where everything that's bad optics for Sanders can be explained away and anything favorable to Clinton is the result of some nefarious conspiracy.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
In fact, I would go one step further - the endorsement felt like an attempt to shame feminists out of supporting Sanders' campaign, much like the Steinem and Albright comments.
Is there, in your opinion, a way for any feminist group to support Clinton that isn't an attempt to shame feminists out of supporting Sanders' campaign?
Like, I don't know if League of Women voters endorses presidential candidates, or if they already have. But say they haven't yet and want to endorse Clinton. Is there a way for them to do that that's just an expression of their position and not some kind of attack on female Sanders supporters specifically?
posted by pocketfullofrye at 5:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there, in your opinion, a way for any feminist group to support Clinton that isn't an attempt to shame feminists out of supporting Sanders' campaign?
Like, I don't know if League of Women voters endorses presidential candidates, or if they already have. But say they haven't yet and want to endorse Clinton. Is there a way for them to do that that's just an expression of their position and not some kind of attack on female Sanders supporters specifically?
posted by pocketfullofrye at 5:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
As a patient and donor to PP, I don't appreciate their making an endorsement at all at this stage of the race. They never have before - why now, when both candidates equally support their mission? It's the unprecedented nature of the endorsement and the premature entry that bothers me. I echo what threeants said: "It's murky enough territory that it should be reserved as a weapon against politicians who pose an existential threat to their ability to provide medical care (like most Republicans), not for making gratuitous endorsements in a primary between multiple pro-choice candidates." If you feel differently, that's fine, but I don't appreciate the uncharitable rephrasing. I was very clear I was speaking for myself, and yes, in fact, I had people try to shame me about supporting Sanders based on the PP endorsement, as if by supporting him I was somehow less than pro-choice.
posted by dialetheia at 5:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 5:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
Fellow, MeFites...
Shall we declare a debate thread?
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shall we declare a debate thread?
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd say there's a non zero chance of Clinton adopting some kind of stance that's conciliatory towards pro-lifers during the campaign as well, so that could be pretty embarrassing.
posted by Artw at 5:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
They never have before - why now, when both candidates equally support their mission?
I was looking at it from another angle: 60+ years of not endorsing candidates has not protected them. Maybe it's time to try something different?
posted by FJT at 5:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I was looking at it from another angle: 60+ years of not endorsing candidates has not protected them. Maybe it's time to try something different?
posted by FJT at 5:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd say there's a non zero chance of Clinton adopting some kind of stance that's conciliatory towards pro-lifers during the campaign as well, so that could be pretty embarrassing.
From whence blow yonder winds of suspicion?
posted by an animate objects at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2016
From whence blow yonder winds of suspicion?
posted by an animate objects at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2016
But what Democratic primary challenger has ever presented a threat to Planned Parenthood? Certainly not Bernie Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2016
Mod note: Couple comments deleted. Please keep the metadiscussion out of this. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:34 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:34 PM on February 11, 2016
I'd say there's a non zero chance of Clinton adopting some kind of stance that's conciliatory towards pro-lifers during the campaign as well, so that could be pretty embarrassing.
YOW. I don't think this will ever happen. HRC might not have the most steadfast rudder but she does have a rudder.
posted by dis_integration at 5:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
YOW. I don't think this will ever happen. HRC might not have the most steadfast rudder but she does have a rudder.
posted by dis_integration at 5:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton campaign looking for backup on social media: The email asks supporters to join a group that will get updates from Clinton's campaign headquarters about what to post on social media.
posted by futz at 5:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 5:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd say there's a non zero chance of Clinton adopting some kind of stance that's conciliatory towards pro-lifers during the campaign as well, so that could be pretty embarrassing.
Do you think this is more or less likely than Sanders adopting a stance that is conciliatory towards the NRA?
posted by Justinian at 5:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Do you think this is more or less likely than Sanders adopting a stance that is conciliatory towards the NRA?
posted by Justinian at 5:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The only reason PP would choose to endorse during primary season is to discourage women from voting in the primary for someone else. Either that or the endorsement is totally moot.
posted by an animate objects at 5:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 5:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
The debate tonight is streaming on Youtube for those of you without access to PBS.
I guess I better figure out what channel is PBS.
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 11, 2016
I guess I better figure out what channel is PBS.
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 11, 2016
Debate livestream also publicly available here: pbs.org/newshour
(Same as youtube I realize.)
posted by an animate objects at 5:39 PM on February 11, 2016
(Same as youtube I realize.)
posted by an animate objects at 5:39 PM on February 11, 2016
From whence blow yonder winds of suspicion?
She's an instinctive triangulator with a rightward drift. If her opponent is hitting her hard on that issue then she'll drift towards his or her position.
posted by Artw at 5:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's an instinctive triangulator with a rightward drift. If her opponent is hitting her hard on that issue then she'll drift towards his or her position.
posted by Artw at 5:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
In any event, I didn't mean to start such a controversy. I linked to some facts about their organization and their ties to Clinton's campaign and stated my opinion. I wasn't the only woman who felt this way. Everyone is more than free to disagree with my interpretation, as always.
posted by dialetheia at 5:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 5:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The question would be what's the point? What's the point of the endorsement? Why now?
The answer I come up with is: these people know each other. They go to the same parties, the same receptions, they're both rich. They're the movers and shakers. So, I use my power to do you a favour and down the road... maybe I need a job, maybe I'm angling for some honour or award, or a friend is....
Forget it Jake, it's K street.
posted by Trochanter at 5:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The answer I come up with is: these people know each other. They go to the same parties, the same receptions, they're both rich. They're the movers and shakers. So, I use my power to do you a favour and down the road... maybe I need a job, maybe I'm angling for some honour or award, or a friend is....
Forget it Jake, it's K street.
posted by Trochanter at 5:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
She's an instinctive triangulator with a rightward drift. If her opponent is hitting her hard on that issue then she'll drift towards his or her position.
which I think is not a trait Bernie shares, which is why I would wager "more likely" regarding:
Do you think this is more or less likely than Sanders adopting a stance that is conciliatory towards the NRA?
posted by an animate objects at 5:42 PM on February 11, 2016
which I think is not a trait Bernie shares, which is why I would wager "more likely" regarding:
Do you think this is more or less likely than Sanders adopting a stance that is conciliatory towards the NRA?
posted by an animate objects at 5:42 PM on February 11, 2016
#DemDebate preshow: I am from Wisconsin and we are all like this.
(happy)
((it's the cheese))
posted by an animate objects at 5:45 PM on February 11, 2016
(happy)
((it's the cheese))
posted by an animate objects at 5:45 PM on February 11, 2016
But Sanders doesn't have to drift to take a more pro-gun stance than most of us would be comfortable with. He's always been that way.
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie isn't good on guns and isn't likely to change on that, I would certainly accept that point. Not really likely to get worse on guns though.
posted by Artw at 5:48 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Artw at 5:48 PM on February 11, 2016
IMHO, the reason that Clinton's PP endorsement doesn't mean anything is exactly the reason most of her other support doesn't mean anything to me. She's an opportunist who will very often say or do what it takes to be president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:50 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:50 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
So is this the debate thread or?
posted by an animate objects at 5:52 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by an animate objects at 5:52 PM on February 11, 2016
##### DEBATE THREAD DECLARED #####
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
So is this the debate thread or?
In more ways than one, it would appear.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
In more ways than one, it would appear.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie isn't good on guns and isn't likely to change on that
What does it really mean to say he's "not good on guns"? Honestly, as a liberal his stances on guns seem 100% reasonable to me.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:54 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
What does it really mean to say he's "not good on guns"? Honestly, as a liberal his stances on guns seem 100% reasonable to me.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:54 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I have a feeling this debate is going to be significantly less cordial. I kinda hope not, but.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on February 11, 2016
Honestly -- and I speak as a Sen. Sanders supporter -- I hope Sec. Clinton goes after him on foreign policy. I know he hasn't focused on that, and that is okay for a representative or a senator; but after decades in Congress he should have some philosophy on foreign policy (beside I VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR) that he can articulate to us. If not, that's a red flag. Not a deal-breaker, but definitely a red flag.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:59 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:59 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I know it's too late to play the Pokemon game, but dammit, I only just now got caught up with this thread.
Sanders is Daniel Bryan
Clinton is Roman Reigns
Trump is Vince McMahon
Cruz is Bray Wyatt
Rubio is Bo Dallas
Okay, carry on.
posted by brianrobot at 6:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders is Daniel Bryan
Clinton is Roman Reigns
Trump is Vince McMahon
Cruz is Bray Wyatt
Rubio is Bo Dallas
Okay, carry on.
posted by brianrobot at 6:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not a deal-breaker, but definitely a red flag.
I'd also like to make sure he's really as quick a learner as we've all been led to believe.
posted by an animate objects at 6:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd also like to make sure he's really as quick a learner as we've all been led to believe.
posted by an animate objects at 6:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I, too, have concerns about what kind of debate that Senator Sanders and Former Secretary Clinton are about to wage. I have many concerns about Mrs. Clinton... rightly earned over the course of the past twenty or so years. I feel far better about the audacious scope of the Sanders platform.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
What does it really mean to say he's "not good on guns"? Honestly, as a liberal his stances on guns seem 100% reasonable to me.
For example he voted repeatedly against the Brady Bill and variants.
What he says on guns now sounds great. It's almost as if he is tailoring his message to his audience. But surely that's only a Clinton trait!
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
For example he voted repeatedly against the Brady Bill and variants.
What he says on guns now sounds great. It's almost as if he is tailoring his message to his audience. But surely that's only a Clinton trait!
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're sneaking in late Pokemon entries, Jeb is 100% Bidoof.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:02 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by jason_steakums at 6:02 PM on February 11, 2016
It's almost as if he is tailoring his message to his audience. But surely that's only a Clinton trait!
Sigh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sigh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
What he says on guns now sounds great. It's almost as if he is tailoring his message to his audience. But surely that's only a Clinton trait!
It's also possible he's actually representing his rural constituents...
posted by an animate objects at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's also possible he's actually representing his rural constituents...
posted by an animate objects at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I hope she goes after him on foreign policy
I agree. It's his biggest weakness by far, although "America is not the world's policeman" is still more coherent than any foreign policy philosophy anyone on the Republican side has given.
Foreign policy is one place where I think that not having the support of the party might be making it more difficult to find good advisors. This article has a good rundown of Clinton's foreign policy advisors: Inside Hillary Clinton's massive foreign policy brain trust.
posted by dialetheia at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2016
I agree. It's his biggest weakness by far, although "America is not the world's policeman" is still more coherent than any foreign policy philosophy anyone on the Republican side has given.
Foreign policy is one place where I think that not having the support of the party might be making it more difficult to find good advisors. This article has a good rundown of Clinton's foreign policy advisors: Inside Hillary Clinton's massive foreign policy brain trust.
posted by dialetheia at 6:03 PM on February 11, 2016
Well, Sanders won that coin toss..
posted by dis_integration at 6:04 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 6:04 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders opening on his momentum. Smart.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:05 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:05 PM on February 11, 2016
It's also possible he's actually representing his rural constituents...
Wall Street is in New York, but I don't think people would be all that fond of "I was just representing my constituents" for Clinton being too close to Wall Street?
posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wall Street is in New York, but I don't think people would be all that fond of "I was just representing my constituents" for Clinton being too close to Wall Street?
posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders should just link this piece by Matt Taibbi on his website.
posted by homunculus at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
PBS...why you gotta do me like that? Cutting off the debate mo'!
(Also those giant pillars are kind of intense.)
posted by sallybrown at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2016
(Also those giant pillars are kind of intense.)
posted by sallybrown at 6:09 PM on February 11, 2016
Holy crap, a commercial already. This is awful.
posted by Justinian at 6:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
PBS is running commercials right at the start of the debate? Feh.
posted by homunculus at 6:11 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:11 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I was just representing my constituents" for Clinton being too close to Wall Street?
But that's just the thing. Clinton does see Wall Street, a financial sector, as her constituents. It's absurd.
posted by an animate objects at 6:11 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
But that's just the thing. Clinton does see Wall Street, a financial sector, as her constituents. It's absurd.
posted by an animate objects at 6:11 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I only saw the PBS part and was confused as to why they were breaking at all. PBS doesn't do commercials. Then I saw the CNN part. Don't do that, PBS. You lie down with Wolf Blitzer and you wake up with fleas.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:12 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:12 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
hahaha. Cuz he's a Wolf.
posted by sweetkid at 6:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ouch. Sanders avoids the question, Clinton goes for the throat.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:14 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:14 PM on February 11, 2016
PBS should've cut to commercial with "The GOP congress cut our budget, so we need to go to commercial." Then we wouldn't be complaining.
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton again with the "Hillarycare" myth.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is my major frustration with Sanders - I hear you on WHAT you want to do and WHY, but I want to hear HOW. And he just ducked that question again.
posted by sallybrown at 6:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
he is not saying anything of substance here, sorry.
posted by sweetkid at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
She says it's about people's lives, not math, right after talking about math? I can't watch this.
posted by wintermind at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm watching this at home in Houston and my wife just got canvas called by a Sanders supporter!
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2016
Giving up on the chance of single payer is so frustrating to me.
posted by Arbac at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Arbac at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
She says it's about people's lives, not math, right after talking about math? I can't watch this.
Man, you should see the Republican debates!
posted by Justinian at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Man, you should see the Republican debates!
posted by Justinian at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
What about Hillarycare is a myth?
posted by defenestration at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I turned it off. I don't need to be lectured. Now I'm listening to Hamilton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:19 PM on February 11, 2016
It's a striking thing, the contrast between 'we can and we must do these things' aspirational talk from Sanders and the 'well, we should but we probably can't' pragmatism from Clinton. It's no wonder young people are flocking to Bernie.
I'm not sure who's more correct, although I do know who I want to be right.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm not sure who's more correct, although I do know who I want to be right.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
Both these questions and these answers are bad so far, all around. "Should people who are scared of the government be scared of you?" Wtf.
posted by sallybrown at 6:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we blended the two we would have a great candidate.
posted by sweetkid at 6:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 6:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"You're not in the White House yet" from Bernie was kind of weird.
posted by SarahElizaP at 6:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by SarahElizaP at 6:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't get the lectured thing, this is a debate. They are debating.
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"You're not in the White House yet" from Bernie was kind of weird.
they didn't like that in the crowd.
posted by sweetkid at 6:22 PM on February 11, 2016
Our government spent $1.1 trillion bailing out Wall Street. The money to cover a basic human right like health care is there.
posted by dialetheia at 6:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Kind of douchey and rude, actually, and really awkwardly said and placed. Not like him at all. If someone told him to say that, he should tell that person to scram, fast.
posted by sallybrown at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the "you're not there yet" thing was kinda rude.
Off the top of my head, Bernie is definitely right about the prices we pay per capita vs the prices other countries pay per capita. We definitely subsidize healthcare for the rest of the world, which is kind of ludicrous.
posted by zug at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Off the top of my head, Bernie is definitely right about the prices we pay per capita vs the prices other countries pay per capita. We definitely subsidize healthcare for the rest of the world, which is kind of ludicrous.
posted by zug at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is Clinton calling for new taxes, like an increase in the top tax bracket? Or something else? She said "raising taxes on the wealthy" to pay for her healthcare plan.
posted by skewed at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by skewed at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016
"You're not in the White House yet" from Bernie was kind of weird.
posted by SarahElizaP at 6:21 PM on February 11 [1 favorite +] [!]
And then he just oddly paused after it. They're both dancing around attacking each other so much that it's just getting awkward.
posted by Arbac at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by SarahElizaP at 6:21 PM on February 11 [1 favorite +] [!]
And then he just oddly paused after it. They're both dancing around attacking each other so much that it's just getting awkward.
posted by Arbac at 6:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I turned it off. I don't need to be lectured. Now I'm listening to Hamilton
No lectures but you stick with conflict over banking, good way to taper off
posted by phearlez at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
No lectures but you stick with conflict over banking, good way to taper off
posted by phearlez at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hah. Sanders starts his "very brief response" with "150 years ago...".
I understand what he's saying but that's funny.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I understand what he's saying but that's funny.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, the "you're not there yet" thing was kinda rude.
Eh, swing and a miss. It could have been funny if he'd got the delivery right, but I think the mutual admiration society is rapidly chilling up there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, swing and a miss. It could have been funny if he'd got the delivery right, but I think the mutual admiration society is rapidly chilling up there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a big Bernie fan, but just saying "all college is free now" doesn't sound like a good idea. It only addresses one small part of a huge host of problems with higher ed.
posted by skewed at 6:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by skewed at 6:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
If we blended the two we would have a great candidate.
Phillipe for America!
posted by Pink Frost at 6:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Phillipe for America!
posted by Pink Frost at 6:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think it's undeniable that they're liking her in Milwaukee.
posted by sweetkid at 6:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 6:26 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary needed to say, "No, I do not agree." And then go on and explain. That was a miss.
posted by sallybrown at 6:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nicely done with the majority of women on the stage thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
the thwarting of "history" was a shitty question to Sanders.
posted by sweetkid at 6:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Considering he'd be the first non-Christian President it doesn't even make any sense.
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it's undeniable that they're liking her in Milwaukee.
I think she's doing very well in terms of polish and delivery at the very least, better than Sanders at the moment. But I'm not sure polish as opposed to passion is a winning way to be going. We shall see, I guess.
the thwarting of "history" was a shitty question to Sanders.
A little, but still fair game, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016
I think she's doing very well in terms of polish and delivery at the very least, better than Sanders at the moment. But I'm not sure polish as opposed to passion is a winning way to be going. We shall see, I guess.
the thwarting of "history" was a shitty question to Sanders.
A little, but still fair game, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016
Speaking of historical firsts: Sanders is first Jewish American to win a presidential primary: Sanders made history with his New Hampshire primary win on Tuesday night, also becoming the first non-Christian to win a state in a presidential primary
posted by homunculus at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, it's like, "Bernie Sanders, how do you feel about RUINING EVERYTHING?"
posted by sweetkid at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think he handled that one well.
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
But how many of them are superpredators?
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I hope Clinton says she wants to end the mass incarceration that her husband helped usher in!
(Sanders did vote for the omnibus crime bill though.)
posted by Justinian at 6:34 PM on February 11, 2016
(Sanders did vote for the omnibus crime bill though.)
posted by Justinian at 6:34 PM on February 11, 2016
I feel like they both need a vacation, they sound exhausted.
posted by sweetkid at 6:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
in a box at the bottom of the screen:
"conversation on facebook now / sanders 61% clinton 39%"
what does that even mean?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
"conversation on facebook now / sanders 61% clinton 39%"
what does that even mean?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I loved seeing him frame reproductive rights in terms of hypocrisy.
posted by dialetheia at 6:36 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 6:36 PM on February 11, 2016
My sense is that Bernie is speaking much more forthrightly, but you may not agree with what he's saying. Hillary offers more platitudes, and sounds less objectionable overall. In terms of authenticity, I think Bernie has it, but you may not like what you hear.
YMMV. All of which is respectfully submitted.
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
YMMV. All of which is respectfully submitted.
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I feel like they both need a vacation, they sound exhausted.
My mom is 72, basically midway in age between these two. I literally cannot imagine her being able to keep up the kind of energy expenditure they must be going through these days. It's a little amazing to me they can actually put together coherent sentences. Or stand up, for that matter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
My mom is 72, basically midway in age between these two. I literally cannot imagine her being able to keep up the kind of energy expenditure they must be going through these days. It's a little amazing to me they can actually put together coherent sentences. Or stand up, for that matter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
How is he gonna get those people out of jail? Sanders/Winfrey 2016: You get a pardon! You get a pardon, everybody gets a pardon!
posted by dis_integration at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dis_integration at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uh. I agree with Sanders but I'm not sure his pledge about jails was a smart thing to say. Can't you see the Republican attack ads already? "Sanders has said he will let dangerous criminals back onto the street!"
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love that we're talking about all these topics on a national stage in primetime. Finally not on a Saturday or night before a holiday. I mean I know it's very Pollyanna but these are great times and two people with great values in my opinion.
posted by sweetkid at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Agreed, sweetkid. It's awesome to hear the right things being talked about for once.
posted by aka burlap at 6:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aka burlap at 6:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want both of them to detail their physical regimens.
posted by grobstein at 6:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 6:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I know, I'm imagining them with dumbells and rowing machines.
posted by sweetkid at 6:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:39 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are Presidential candidates tested for performance-enhancing drugs? ;-P
posted by sallybrown at 6:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
My sense is that Bernie is speaking much more forthrightly, but you may not agree with what he's saying. Hillary offers more platitudes, and sounds less objectionable overall.
Definitely -- but that's very much to the point, I think. Passion vs polish, insurgency vs pragmatism... it's a clear choice, really, and neither option is entirely a bad or indefensible one.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Definitely -- but that's very much to the point, I think. Passion vs polish, insurgency vs pragmatism... it's a clear choice, really, and neither option is entirely a bad or indefensible one.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
At this point they probably catch as many zzzzzzzzzz's as they can.
posted by futz at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by futz at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016
I watched Bernie Sanders work his magic 35 years ago. Nobody should underestimate him now
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Alan Abbey, then a young reporter, recalls accompanying Sanders as he campaigned on the snow-covered streets of Burlington. When Bernie launched into his shpiel, almost everybody was won over
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
(Sanders did vote for the omnibus crime bill though.)
Just reading up on it lately, that bill covered too much stuff. I think all bills should be single issue. And no more of these codicil things where they tack on completely unrelated things that pass without debate.
posted by Trochanter at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just reading up on it lately, that bill covered too much stuff. I think all bills should be single issue. And no more of these codicil things where they tack on completely unrelated things that pass without debate.
posted by Trochanter at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Imagine how the current crop of Republicans would be answering this question.
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016
I hope Clinton says she wants to end the mass incarceration that her husband helped usher in!
Both Bill and Hillary have repeatedly renounced the 1994 crime bill.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Both Bill and Hillary have repeatedly renounced the 1994 crime bill.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I heard the predebate talking heads on CNN saying that Clinton should distance herself from Obama to seem less "establishment" which seems crazybananas to me so i'm glad she's not doing it.
posted by sweetkid at 6:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I want to talk to you about white people." *shrugs*
Heh - I love Gwen Ifill.
posted by sallybrown at 6:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Heh - I love Gwen Ifill.
posted by sallybrown at 6:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Uh. I agree with Sanders but I'm not sure his pledge about jails was a smart thing to say. Can't you see the Republican attack ads already? "Sanders has said he will let dangerous criminals back onto the street!"
He could frame it in terms of how much we're paying to keep everyone there. I think most Americans who aren't already voting for Trump are aware that we have a prison problem.
posted by dialetheia at 6:43 PM on February 11, 2016
He could frame it in terms of how much we're paying to keep everyone there. I think most Americans who aren't already voting for Trump are aware that we have a prison problem.
posted by dialetheia at 6:43 PM on February 11, 2016
That was the first time "won't someone think of the white people" seemed appropriate.
posted by sweetkid at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016
Acknowledgement of the institutionally racist structure of American society is now a basic litmus test for the Democratic Party.
That is a direct victory for the #BlackLivesMatter movement.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [52 favorites]
That is a direct victory for the #BlackLivesMatter movement.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [52 favorites]
My sense is that Bernie is speaking much more forthrightly, but you may not agree with what he's saying. Hillary offers more platitudes, and sounds less objectionable overall.
I don't think that's it, it's that Hillary is an incrementalist. Her pitch is, what can we actually accomplish, and look what progress we have to lose. Bernie is talking values, but much lighter on implementation. The latter is more 'compelling' in a debate, but I have much more faith in the former to actually produce change.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't think that's it, it's that Hillary is an incrementalist. Her pitch is, what can we actually accomplish, and look what progress we have to lose. Bernie is talking values, but much lighter on implementation. The latter is more 'compelling' in a debate, but I have much more faith in the former to actually produce change.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree completely that what he was saying could have been framed in a positive way, but what he pledged was simply that he would empty the jails. The attack ad soudbite was almost pre-packaged.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on February 11, 2016
"institutional racism" "systemic racism" - thank you Sanders for using those words.
posted by sweetkid at 6:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 6:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think that's it, it's that Hillary is an incrementalist. Her pitch is, what can we actually accomplish, and look what progress we have to lose. Bernie is talking values, but much lighter on implementation.
Good point. I think that's true, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Good point. I think that's true, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
As someone who supports the $15 minimum wage for fast food workers in New York, I didn't like the whole "What are you, working at McDonald's?" thing.
posted by defenestration at 6:48 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by defenestration at 6:48 PM on February 11, 2016
'We should be deporting criminals'?
SEND THEM TO AUSTRALIA!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:50 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
SEND THEM TO AUSTRALIA!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:50 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I didn't get the sense Bernie was trying to say that people who work at McDonalds is bad, I think he's trying to say it's low paying shitwork... which it is. It deserves to be less low paying, but it's still not exactly a dream job.
posted by zug at 6:51 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by zug at 6:51 PM on February 11, 2016
I'm not an incrementalist but I am a pragmatist. If there was any chance we could get single payer I'd be all for going to the mat. But there isn't. There is literally (not figuratively!) a 0% we can get single payer while the Republicans control the house. Pledging to push for it in the next 4 years is no different than pledging to push for, I dunno, magical telepathic unicorns in every household.
That's my problem with Sanders, mostly. It's not that neither Clinton nor Sanders will have cooperation in Congress, it's that Sanders is calling for things he must know are impossible to get votes.
posted by Justinian at 6:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's my problem with Sanders, mostly. It's not that neither Clinton nor Sanders will have cooperation in Congress, it's that Sanders is calling for things he must know are impossible to get votes.
posted by Justinian at 6:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bernie's "If my memory is correct" is equivalent to Columbo's "Just one more thing".
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
Er, to be clear, I know Sanders believes the things he is saying. I just mean he must know they are impossible.
posted by Justinian at 6:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I see political change differently. I think one of the most important roles of the President is to create the space for political change. To do that, you need to push the envelope by advocating full-throatedly for your policies. Do the Republicans worry about what's "politically possible"? No, and yet they've essentially gotten their way anyway since 1980.
The Democratic party has been pulled farther leftward in the last 3 months of Sanders campaigning than it has been since 1992. The reason I believe he should be president is that I believe he could lead the party to make these things politically possible.
posted by dialetheia at 6:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [36 favorites]
The Democratic party has been pulled farther leftward in the last 3 months of Sanders campaigning than it has been since 1992. The reason I believe he should be president is that I believe he could lead the party to make these things politically possible.
posted by dialetheia at 6:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [36 favorites]
We should be able to take in 30 million refugees. We have the space and resources.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is literally (not figuratively!) a 0% we can get single payer while the Republicans control the house.
I feel like whenever Clinton or Sanders local campaigners come round, people should ask them if they know who the area Representatives and Senators are.
posted by sweetkid at 6:53 PM on February 11, 2016
I feel like whenever Clinton or Sanders local campaigners come round, people should ask them if they know who the area Representatives and Senators are.
posted by sweetkid at 6:53 PM on February 11, 2016
Yeah, I think he would do well not to suggest in every other question that his memory may be off.
posted by skewed at 6:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by skewed at 6:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
As someone who has seen a lot of criticism of the $15 fast food minimum wage, presented by people with the point of view that it's crap work that doesn't deserve it, statements like that are disconcerting to me. I think it's great that, through a union, they were able to negotiate that. People need to cook the hamburgers that everyone eats, and clean the bathrooms, and all the other work. They should demand fair pay.
posted by defenestration at 6:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 6:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Pledging to push for it in the next 4 years is no different than pledging to push for, I dunno, magical telepathic unicorns in every household.
It's far from impossible to push for them. To use the pulpit. To move the zeitgeist. Then maybe it's not ridiculous in six years. And in twelve it's inevitable.
posted by Trochanter at 6:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's far from impossible to push for them. To use the pulpit. To move the zeitgeist. Then maybe it's not ridiculous in six years. And in twelve it's inevitable.
posted by Trochanter at 6:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING:
When it comes to Jewish ties, no GOP candidate trumps Trump
Come on America. Three (almost sorta) Jews on the ballot. You can do this.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
When it comes to Jewish ties, no GOP candidate trumps Trump
Among the expansive field of 2016 Republican presidential candidates on display in the party’s first debates, Donald Trump may be the most closely connected to the Jewish people.Now I'm rooting for Trump vs Sanders, with Bloomberg as an third-party independent.
Trump is from New York, works in professions saturated with Jews and long has been a vocal supporter of Israel. His daughter and two grandchildren are Jewish, the executive vice president of his organization is Jewish — and Trump certainly has chutzpah.
Come on America. Three (almost sorta) Jews on the ballot. You can do this.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah. If we wait to push for things until they have a path through Congress, we get nothing ever.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Everyone who complained about a minute 3 commercial has to apologize since they haven't run another one since and I need to pee.
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
As someone who has seen a lot of criticism of the $15 fast food minimum wage, presented by people with the point of view that it's crap work that doesn't deserve it, statements like that are disconcerting to me.
I wasn't aware that was part of the pushback narrative. That... sucks. It's shitty work so you don't deserve to be able to afford an apartment? That's terrible logic.
posted by zug at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wasn't aware that was part of the pushback narrative. That... sucks. It's shitty work so you don't deserve to be able to afford an apartment? That's terrible logic.
posted by zug at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But that's how we got Obamacare rather than another failed attempt at single payer?
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Those most at risk are the currently homeless!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016
If you only shoot for the possible...after you face the obstructionists you end up with crap.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 6:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think he still should have voted for the '07 Comprehensive Immigration Bill. It would have given 11 million people a path to citizenship. And afterwards, you could still submit bills or have better enforcement to help the rights of guest workers (which for the bill said would 200K for 5 years.)
posted by FJT at 6:59 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by FJT at 6:59 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I always wonder how they actually see each other. They have to to stake out differences and snipe at each other, but I wonder how they privately feel about each other.
posted by aka burlap at 7:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aka burlap at 7:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't wonder. Hillary in profile seethes with contempt, and Bernie can barely stand to look at her.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:04 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:04 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Obama standing up to the banks reminds me of when I'd half-stand during that portion of Mass as a young Catholic because I knew the establishment would make me kneel again in short order.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Love how Hillary tries to pretend she's somehow part of the fact that huge numbers are donating to Sanders.
Clinton 2016: Take credit where credit is due.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton 2016: Take credit where credit is due.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
No bank is too big to take a big check from.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
That was a very savvy answer by Clinton to the campaign finance question (invoking Obama), but then a perfect follow-up by Sanders: if the money doesn't matter, why do they spend it?
posted by sallybrown at 7:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Bernie, COME ON, it's PEE BREAK
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016
Bernie got off to a shaky start, but seems to have warmed up after those first few questions. I was surprised to see him so animated about immigration -- reminding Clinton that the wave of Central American children were people fleeing violence, not tools for sending a message, was a powerful response.
posted by indubitable at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm starting to get annoyed that Clinton often invokes Obama on her thorniest issues, as if undecideds (like me) will just say 'oh well I do like Obama' and not think about the meat of the issue.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, Clinton managed the money question pretty well, lumping herself in with Sanders. But he has way more authenticity on that question.
posted by aka burlap at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aka burlap at 7:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really strong debate from Clinton tonight.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton 2016: If that's appropriate
posted by an animate objects at 7:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 7:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
That was a very savvy answer by Clinton to the campaign finance question (invoking Obama)
Interesting, I had the opposite reaction. I felt like she took a huge gamble with that and missed the mark, unintentionally besmirching Obama a lot more than she presumably thought she was, yet not effectively answering for herself either.
posted by threeants at 7:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Interesting, I had the opposite reaction. I felt like she took a huge gamble with that and missed the mark, unintentionally besmirching Obama a lot more than she presumably thought she was, yet not effectively answering for herself either.
posted by threeants at 7:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Time to pee!
posted by homunculus at 7:11 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by homunculus at 7:11 PM on February 11, 2016
Beyond any other issue with the campaign donations and speaking fees, my biggest concern about nominating a candidate who has this many corporate and Wall Street donations is that we will lose our moral high ground on the Republicans. We look just as bought as they are. That is an especially huge liability if we have to run against self-funded Trump.
posted by dialetheia at 7:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Although I have to admit I did find it fascinating that Clinton doubled down with "well actually Wall Street contributions are the shit!!" instead of dissimulating.
posted by threeants at 7:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by threeants at 7:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Side note - I am finding it really satisfying that the two moderators and 3 out of the 4 analysts PBS just aired are all women.
posted by aka burlap at 7:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by aka burlap at 7:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
AUDIT THE DoD
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Side note - I am finding it really satisfying that the two moderators and 3 out of the 3 analysts PBS just aired are all women.
Yeah, but as my wife said: Checkout alternate reality Rachel Maddows!
posted by dis_integration at 7:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, but as my wife said: Checkout alternate reality Rachel Maddows!
posted by dis_integration at 7:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, i did a double-take!
posted by aka burlap at 7:18 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by aka burlap at 7:18 PM on February 11, 2016
I'm pretty stunned that he would go there with the DoD. Then again, maybe it resonates with people, thinking about $500 toilet seats or whatever.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"We need to protect Muslim Americans so we can get the deets on their terrorist family members"
posted by threeants at 7:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by threeants at 7:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Obama Wall Street money thing is kind of a lie, iirc. Obama didn't sew up the Wall Street money until he had sewn up the nomination and they couldn't give it to HRC anymore.
posted by notyou at 7:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by notyou at 7:21 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think Clinton keeps invoking Obama as a way to sort of dare Sanders into criticizing the sitting Democratic president. And it may be tempting, there is a lot about it to criticize from the perspective of someone hammering on Wall Street's corrosive influence on politics. But the optics of it would be... not good, at least from an establishment Party perspective.
posted by indubitable at 7:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 7:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Didn't expect a Mosaddegh call out.
posted by Arbac at 7:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Arbac at 7:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I never thought I'd hear a presidential candidate talk about Mosaddegh.
posted by homunculus at 7:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
"I convinced Obama he was wrong about Iraq"
posted by an animate objects at 7:25 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by an animate objects at 7:25 PM on February 11, 2016
What she's trying to do is bait him into saying something against Obama that can be used against him in the African-American community. It's kind of gross.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:25 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oooh guys, Sanders has been reading this thread and listened to the Kissinger complaints.
posted by sallybrown at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
That's a pretty harsh interpretation of what seems like a pretty innocuous line of argument.
posted by Justinian at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Punched her right in the Kissinger.
posted by peeedro at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 7:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Kissinger at home like, "what, you stick with Albright but throw me under the bus?"
posted by sallybrown at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mosaddegh parley into Kissinger.
That pays out 278394929:1 on a $2 bet.
Trifecta still pending.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
That pays out 278394929:1 on a $2 bet.
Trifecta still pending.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'd like to mention National Security Study Memorandum 200, one of the most execrable documents (reduce the fertility rate of the population) to come out of Kissinger's maw.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016
Really strong debate from Clinton tonight.
It's almost like two copies of Bernie Sanders showed up. At some point she's gonna need to pay him royalties for running on his platform.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's almost like two copies of Bernie Sanders showed up. At some point she's gonna need to pay him royalties for running on his platform.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
"I dunno, but it ain't him."
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillz backpedalling. Bernie vascillating between anger and glee.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem
Why on Earth Is 'Progressive' Hillary Clinton Touting This Endorsement?
posted by homunculus at 7:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why on Earth Is 'Progressive' Hillary Clinton Touting This Endorsement?
posted by homunculus at 7:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
That's a pretty harsh interpretation of what seems like a pretty innocuous line of argument.
My most honest attempt at remembering her exact language is "Muslim Americans know best what's going on with their family and friends." I think that's pretty insulting framing.
posted by threeants at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
My most honest attempt at remembering her exact language is "Muslim Americans know best what's going on with their family and friends." I think that's pretty insulting framing.
posted by threeants at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
God I love homunculus.
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
He's giving a whole history lesson on our failures in messing with other countries' regimes, right here. Pretty great. Can you imagine this happening in a Republican debate this cycle?
posted by sallybrown at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:30 PM on February 11, 2016 [21 favorites]
That would require the Republicans to be able to name other countries, Sallybrown.
posted by Justinian at 7:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Did he really just say "this aggression will not stand, man!"?
posted by skewed at 7:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by skewed at 7:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
God, I would dearly love to see Bernie mop the floor with Trump. I would give a month's wages.
posted by dialetheia at 7:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:33 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
God I love homunculus.
posted by Lyme Drop
*Blush*
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Lyme Drop
*Blush*
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's giving a whole history lesson on our failures in messing with other countries' regimes, right here. Pretty great. Can you imagine this happening in a Republican debate this cycle?
The Republican candidates will probably all be vocally defending Kissinger tomorrow.
posted by homunculus at 7:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Republican candidates will probably all be vocally defending Kissinger tomorrow.
posted by homunculus at 7:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It really feels like Clinton has been consistently misrepresenting Sanders' record tonight. She wants to improve her trustworthiness doesn't she? What is she thinking??
posted by an animate objects at 7:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 7:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem
To be fair, everyone has a Henry Kissenger problem.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
To be fair, everyone has a Henry Kissenger problem.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
He's giving a whole history lesson on our failures in messing with other countries' regimes, right here. Pretty great. Can you imagine this happening in a Republican debate this cycle?
It's an important lesson too, it explains why there's so much warfare in this area, not because people hate America or humanity is mean to each other or crap like that.
posted by sweetkid at 7:43 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's an important lesson too, it explains why there's so much warfare in this area, not because people hate America or humanity is mean to each other or crap like that.
posted by sweetkid at 7:43 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
FDR, dudes! OLD SKOOL PROGRESSIVES!
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:43 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:43 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Fabulous FDR answer from Bernie.
posted by sallybrown at 7:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
FDR, dudes! OLD SKOOL PROGRESSIVES!
It's times like this I realize my TV is on a slight delay and real life can be somehow spoiled for me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's times like this I realize my TV is on a slight delay and real life can be somehow spoiled for me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie has already moved on to fighting Trump, hasn't he? He's gone beyond Hillz.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Uh oh, here it comes.
posted by SarahElizaP at 7:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by SarahElizaP at 7:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who was Hillary's local hero? She said Mandela and then went negative against Bernie. Was it Obama?
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016
Man, that was a fun question that I really wish Hillary had answered. This would have been an excellent time to spotlight women leaders in a much less crappy way than the Albright question.
posted by sallybrown at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yup
posted by futz at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Madam Secretary that is a low blow."
Agree.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Agree.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:46 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Wow Hillary basically passed on that question that was really a tough, on the spot question for Sanders, then pivoted to the 'try to get Bernie to attack Obama' line.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Fuck, Hillz, you're gonna give a fat pitch to Bern like that?
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Does Clinton really love Obama this much? They seemed to kinda hate each other still when Obama won in 2008. I can't imagine they're best pals now. At least not enough to warrant this.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:47 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Another debate with no questions on Planned Parenthood & Abortion rights. Bummer.
posted by SarahElizaP at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by SarahElizaP at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie has already moved on to fighting Trump, hasn't he? He's gone beyond Hillz.
Yeah, I guess people see what they want to see. I don't think he's doing that great here.
posted by sweetkid at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wow, he returned that serve like Agassi!
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
BURN
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016
Dammit, the streams closed captioning is not working for me. I'm having to resort to lipreading.
posted by daq at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by daq at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016
Holy shit.
"... I was not that candidate."
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"... I was not that candidate."
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does Clinton really love Obama this much? They seemed to kinda hate each other still when Obama won in 2008. I can't imagine they're best pals now. At least not enough to warrant this.
It's been 8 years and she was Secretary of State.
Honestly I don't think that any of these people hate each other, except that everyone hates Trump.
posted by sweetkid at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
She's trying to show she's not part of the establishment.
Hillary 2016: Mo' Obama.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary 2016: Mo' Obama.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:49 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I caught a few bits of the debate over the last couple hours. Sanders' coughing kind of stood out in a not-great way; wonder if his age is going to get played up in the primary (mad court skills nonwithstanding).
posted by curious nu at 7:50 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by curious nu at 7:50 PM on February 11, 2016
Y'all, I definitely have my opinions about this debate, and which candidate I prefer, but let's just stress this:
THIS DEBATE WAS LIGHT YEARS BEYOND ANYTHING ANY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IS CAPABLE OF HAVING.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [32 favorites]
THIS DEBATE WAS LIGHT YEARS BEYOND ANYTHING ANY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IS CAPABLE OF HAVING.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [32 favorites]
it's that Sanders is calling for things he must know are impossible to get votes.
"The pessimists have already lost. It's optimists who get things done." -- George Takei
posted by JackFlash at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
"The pessimists have already lost. It's optimists who get things done." -- George Takei
posted by JackFlash at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Honestly I don't think that any of these people hate each other, except that everyone
Ted Cruz is one of the most detested people in Washington. Possibly the most detested.
posted by Justinian at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ted Cruz is one of the most detested people in Washington. Possibly the most detested.
posted by Justinian at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
God, I would dearly love to see Bernie mop the floor with Trump. I would give a month's wages.
Nobody has bothered to mop the floor with Bernie yet, and if and when they do, it will be far harsher than this, and six months long.
posted by Brian B. at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016
Nobody has bothered to mop the floor with Bernie yet, and if and when they do, it will be far harsher than this, and six months long.
posted by Brian B. at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016
Honestly I don't think that any of these people hate each other, except that everyone hates Trump.
Except that everyone likes to party with Trump. (Well, everyone who likes to party.)
posted by sallybrown at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016
Except that everyone likes to party with Trump. (Well, everyone who likes to party.)
posted by sallybrown at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016
We found the Rubio supporter!
posted by cjorgensen at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:51 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Bernie has a bad cold tonight.
posted by futz at 7:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This "single-issue candidate" talk is nonsense. There's one cause for our economic ills, and dozens of issues that relate to it. He's more a 'root cause' candidate.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Where was Passion Hillz over the last two hours?
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:53 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:53 PM on February 11, 2016
I've been thinking this for a long time: She's all tactics and she's just not that good at it. She should be passionate. She's smart.
posted by Trochanter at 7:54 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 7:54 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I read a thing about that. Apparently her father was one of those people for whom outward displays of emotion were the greatest weakness you could display. And that's what she grew up with apparently. I'll see if I can find a source.
posted by Justinian at 7:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:55 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
She was authentic for the first time tonight. It suits her.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nobody has bothered to mop the floor with Bernie yet, and if and when they do, it will be far harsher than this, and six months long.
Is that the entirety of the oppo research that's out there on him? Really?
posted by dialetheia at 7:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is that the entirety of the oppo research that's out there on him? Really?
posted by dialetheia at 7:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would love to see Hillary talk passionately more often. That's interesting that there might be some personal reason she doesn't. I also think a lifetime of being held to harsh double standards and being attacked no matter what she does hampers her ability to be really passionate and less measured.
posted by aka burlap at 7:57 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by aka burlap at 7:57 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's stunningly accomplished, and you can hear it in this debate. She's like "I was Senator, I was Secretary of State." Also First Lady, etc. She deserves some "I" statements, that's like three people's lifetimes.
posted by sweetkid at 7:57 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 7:57 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
President Obama doesn't get the credit he deserves. His accomplishments shouldn't be up for debate at a #DemDebate.
Who kept bringing Obama up? Also, someone upthread called this line of attack.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Who kept bringing Obama up? Also, someone upthread called this line of attack.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I agree sweetkid but Bernie's "we" is pretty appealing to a lot of people too.
posted by futz at 8:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by futz at 8:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
This "single-issue candidate" talk is nonsense.
If your opponent talks about one thing, he's too focused. If your opponent talks about everything, he's not focused enough.
posted by Etrigan at 8:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If your opponent talks about one thing, he's too focused. If your opponent talks about everything, he's not focused enough.
posted by Etrigan at 8:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying the "we" isn't effective also, just hearing her talk about her experience, especially as a woman, is just stunning.
posted by sweetkid at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Three (almost sorta) Jews on the ballot. You can do this.
What? No! Please don't claim Trump as a MoT.The very idea is killing your mother. Who was in labor with you for 821 hours....
posted by zarq at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
What? No! Please don't claim Trump as a MoT.The very idea is killing your mother. Who was in labor with you for 821 hours....
posted by zarq at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Either the crowd was packed with Clinton supporters, or Bernie didn't do a great job. I'm incredibly biased towards Bernie, so I'm not sure what to think.
posted by teponaztli at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by teponaztli at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nobody has bothered to mop the floor with Bernie yet, and if and when they do, it will be far harsher than this, and six months long.
Oh gasp, titling a photo of him "BERNIE BUTT UGLY FREAK". I don't know how he would ever survive something like that.
posted by XMLicious at 8:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
My...my god
Say "yuge" backwards
It's been right in front of us the whole time
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Say "yuge" backwards
It's been right in front of us the whole time
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Straight from a Presidential debate into British Antiques Roadshow. Who cares about a spin room when you can talk about "scrumptous buttons"?
posted by sallybrown at 8:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:03 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is that the entirety of the oppo research that's out there on him? Really?
"Bernie Sanders’ father was a high school drop-out"
posted by Room 641-A at 8:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Bernie Sanders’ father was a high school drop-out"
posted by Room 641-A at 8:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Bernie Sanders’ father was a high school drop-out"
So was my grandfather on my dad's side. He also worked at the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria and built the casing for Fat Man and Little Boy.
He also was able to put his son through college without having reached the 10th grade.
A piece of paper does not make the man.
posted by daq at 8:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
So was my grandfather on my dad's side. He also worked at the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria and built the casing for Fat Man and Little Boy.
He also was able to put his son through college without having reached the 10th grade.
A piece of paper does not make the man.
posted by daq at 8:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Honestly, I'd be positively gleeful if that was all they had on him. None of the Republicans currently running could land those attacks on him very convincingly. Like Trump would have any room to criticize that sort of youthful indiscretion or hippie past. They're not exactly the world's most skilled politicians. Is anyone really going to be surprised Sanders was involved in some college hippie shenanigans? It's not 1992 anymore, we're not still giggling about how "I never inhaled." Look at the right wing attacks they flung at Obama - the most ludicrous stuff in the world - and none of it really worked. I think Bernie can survive that oppo folder if that's the best they have.
posted by dialetheia at 8:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:08 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
You don't need a lot of oppo research when someone will stand up and proudly proclaim themselves a democratic socialist. That's cool (or even a plus) with us and a lot of people, but there's large swaths of the country for whom that's all she wrote.
posted by Justinian at 8:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also: secular Jew.
posted by sweetkid at 8:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 8:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Now, I'm biased for Bernie, but even so, I have to say that he pulled off a fine balancing act, of knowing his shit without coming across as a brainiac, which America hates. Hillz knows her shit, too, but hides it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
but there's large swaths of the country for whom that's all she wrote.
That swath is smaller than at anytime since before WWII, and it's getting smaller.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
That swath is smaller than at anytime since before WWII, and it's getting smaller.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sure, but those are knowns, is all. If that is the sum total of the unknowns, I'm thrilled.
posted by dialetheia at 8:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 8:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought they both came off as braniacs, referring to Kissinger, Dodd Frank, FDR...the Republicans can only talk about Reagan and God and #babykillers.
posted by sweetkid at 8:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That swath is smaller than at anytime since before WWII, and it's getting smaller.
I agree. It used to be 90%. Is it less than 50% now? I don't know.
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree. It used to be 90%. Is it less than 50% now? I don't know.
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not like being straight, white, male and center-left helped John Kerry or Al Gore.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:17 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought they both came off as braniacs, referring to Kissinger, Dodd Frank, FDR...the Republicans can only talk about Reagan and God and #babykillers.
plus now we can all assure our co-workers tomorrow that we were into Mossadeq before he was cool.
posted by indubitable at 8:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
plus now we can all assure our co-workers tomorrow that we were into Mossadeq before he was cool.
posted by indubitable at 8:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I agree. It used to be 90%. Is it less than 50% now? I don't know.
A self-described socialist won a primary in a white, rural state with 60% of the vote. I think the party, at least its voters, is fine with a socialist. The republican base already thinks every democrat is a socialist, anyway, so why not come out and be a socialist?
posted by dis_integration at 8:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
A self-described socialist won a primary in a white, rural state with 60% of the vote. I think the party, at least its voters, is fine with a socialist. The republican base already thinks every democrat is a socialist, anyway, so why not come out and be a socialist?
posted by dis_integration at 8:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Of course you're right, it's a concern. They called FDR a socialist, too - Bernie's just being honest. But if enough people agree with his criticisms of our economic and political systems, I think he has a fighting chance. People are so fed up they're willing to vote for Trump! How could a democratic socialist be any worse?
posted by dialetheia at 8:21 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 8:21 PM on February 11, 2016
Trump's success is as good a reason to vote for Bernie as any there is. Trump is *proof* that there is a massive groundswell of people from all backgrounds who will not vote for an establishment candidate.
Hillary Clinton is adopting most of Bernie's platform but she cannot shake her identity and it will cost the Democrats the election if we run her against Trump.
posted by an animate objects at 8:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Hillary Clinton is adopting most of Bernie's platform but she cannot shake her identity and it will cost the Democrats the election if we run her against Trump.
posted by an animate objects at 8:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'd actually bet on the secular Jew against the orange guy who is basically mocking the Christian religion. (By a hair.) There was an SC focus group on MSNBC today, all Rs, all Cruz supporters (who think Trump will actually win) and they didn't buy his religious claims one bit. And these are people who listen to Glenn Beck; if you can't convince them of something don't even try.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought they both came off as braniacs, referring to Kissinger
... who hardly anyone under the age of 50 even remembers. It's disappointing to have two candidates that are so old they are fighting the battles of a generation or two ago.
posted by JackFlash at 8:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
... who hardly anyone under the age of 50 even remembers. It's disappointing to have two candidates that are so old they are fighting the battles of a generation or two ago.
posted by JackFlash at 8:27 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
it will cost the Democrats the election if we run her against Trump.
It's weird that there are so many people here who think this nomination is a foregone conclusion for Sanders.
Personally I think it's really early but Trump/Sanders in the general is really unlikely.
I mean I get that people on both sides of Trump/Sanders are excited, but I'm not so sure they're right.
posted by sweetkid at 8:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's weird that there are so many people here who think this nomination is a foregone conclusion for Sanders.
Personally I think it's really early but Trump/Sanders in the general is really unlikely.
I mean I get that people on both sides of Trump/Sanders are excited, but I'm not so sure they're right.
posted by sweetkid at 8:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nobody has bothered to mop the floor with Bernie yet, and if and when they do, it will be far harsher than this, and six months long.
No reason to go after Bernie on those things, when there are plenty of other things available. Though I'm sure we can find ways to write all of these off because reasons, while continuing to attack Hillary over bog-standard campaign fundraising emails.
I say this a person who LIKES Bernie. I never thought I'd feel the need to speak out for Hillary so vociferously, yet here we are.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
No reason to go after Bernie on those things, when there are plenty of other things available. Though I'm sure we can find ways to write all of these off because reasons, while continuing to attack Hillary over bog-standard campaign fundraising emails.
I say this a person who LIKES Bernie. I never thought I'd feel the need to speak out for Hillary so vociferously, yet here we are.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I thought they both came off as braniacs, referring to Kissinger
... who hardly anyone under the age of 50 even remembers.
well, people should learn history. I mean they also talked about FDR.
posted by sweetkid at 8:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Trump is *proof* that there is a massive groundswell of people from all backgrounds who will not vote for an establishment candidate.
Well, a lot of people did not vote for Trump as well.
And if it turns into a contest to see who's the least "establishment-est", it possibly might be Trump. Because Sanders is going to be part of the party that's currently in power in the White House. And he's probably going to spend almost as much time defending Obama's record as he is touting what he will do when he gains the presidency.
posted by FJT at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, a lot of people did not vote for Trump as well.
And if it turns into a contest to see who's the least "establishment-est", it possibly might be Trump. Because Sanders is going to be part of the party that's currently in power in the White House. And he's probably going to spend almost as much time defending Obama's record as he is touting what he will do when he gains the presidency.
posted by FJT at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This link quotes an essay by John Lewis in which he said he heard of Bill Clinton in the 1970s and ran into him after Clinton became involved with the DLC. The essay, contained in Conversations: William Jefferson Clinton : from Hope to Harlem, has this line:
But it was one of his aides, Rodney Slater, who actually introduced us in 1991.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
But it was one of his aides, Rodney Slater, who actually introduced us in 1991.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I say this a person who LIKES Bernie. I never thought I'd feel the need to speak out for Hillary so vociferously, yet here we are.
I was talking to an acquaintance over the weekend who worked on something with him in the Senate and said he was the most disorganized Senator she had ever worked with, never showed up to anything, etc. I mean that's not like LET'S TELL EVERYONE but it's hardly something I want happening with a POTUS.
posted by sweetkid at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was talking to an acquaintance over the weekend who worked on something with him in the Senate and said he was the most disorganized Senator she had ever worked with, never showed up to anything, etc. I mean that's not like LET'S TELL EVERYONE but it's hardly something I want happening with a POTUS.
posted by sweetkid at 8:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
when there are plenty of other things available
What things would those be? Because the few "problems" mentioned in the article have already been addressed and debunked right here in this thread.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
What things would those be? Because the few "problems" mentioned in the article have already been addressed and debunked right here in this thread.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
From the Sanders smear piece:
Bernie’s past, including a brief stint living in a kibbutz in Israel is cloaked in secrecy.
There are even whispers he might have been involved with... fig orchard irrigation.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Bernie’s past, including a brief stint living in a kibbutz in Israel is cloaked in secrecy.
There are even whispers he might have been involved with... fig orchard irrigation.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's weird that there are so many people here who think this nomination is a foregone conclusion for Sanders.
I am almost positive that Clinton will wipe the floor with him in the next set of states and he'll drop out when it's clear he can't win.
But I am also super bad at predicting things. So I'm only almost positive.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am almost positive that Clinton will wipe the floor with him in the next set of states and he'll drop out when it's clear he can't win.
But I am also super bad at predicting things. So I'm only almost positive.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:35 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie was a kibbutz volunteer? Oy vey! I'm veklempt! Next thing you know he'll be participating in Birthright. But I'm sure he won't take any money from the billionaires at Seagrams.
posted by dis_integration at 8:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's weird that there are so many people here who think this nomination is a foregone conclusion for Sanders.
I don't get that impression at all.
posted by rhizome at 8:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
I don't get that impression at all.
posted by rhizome at 8:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Joel Benenson: Kissinger remarks "showed a real weakness for Bernie Sanders on foreign policy."
posted by rhizome at 8:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 8:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought they both came off as braniacs, referring to Kissinger, Dodd Frank, FDR...
I'm a brainiac! Oh no, just of a certain age. He was such a huge figure, it's odd to think people don't know who he is.
I haven't been watching the debates, but am amused the past couple times to see the huge Hillary admiration in my twitter feed, then come here...
posted by NorthernLite at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a brainiac! Oh no, just of a certain age. He was such a huge figure, it's odd to think people don't know who he is.
I haven't been watching the debates, but am amused the past couple times to see the huge Hillary admiration in my twitter feed, then come here...
posted by NorthernLite at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
attack Hillary over bog-standard campaign fundraising emails.
When was that? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that silly meme that was going around for a couple of hours? That wasn't the campaign, that was social media stuff.
No reason to go after Bernie on those things, when there are plenty of other things available.
Are they seriously trying to stick him with Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill, which Hillary Clinton campaigned for by calling children super predators? His record isn't squeaky clean there but I'm surprised they want to draw attention to it.
As for the guns, maybe it's unpopular but I appreciate that he's semi-moderate on guns. It would help him a lot in swing Mountain West states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (I guess we'll find out when some Nevada polling finally comes out again). I canvas here in Montana and talk to a lot of people who are single-issue voters on guns - it's one of the first questions they ask. He still has a D- from the NRA but people aren't afraid they'll take their guns away. Many of those people agree that our government is bought and that the system is rigged against them. I honestly believe his relative moderation on that issue could give him a much better shot at winning Mountain West voters that could make a big difference in those swing states. Gun culture here is probably pretty similar to what it is in Vermont, and people here appreciate that about him.
Finally, as for foreign policy, I don't expect or want him to be a perfect dove - of course he'd get killed in the election if he was as progressive as that article's standards demand. But I loved his answer tonight. He wants to take a longer view of history and try to avoid unintended consequences. That's a more coherent foreign policy than I've heard since the neocons.
posted by dialetheia at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
When was that? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that silly meme that was going around for a couple of hours? That wasn't the campaign, that was social media stuff.
No reason to go after Bernie on those things, when there are plenty of other things available.
Are they seriously trying to stick him with Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill, which Hillary Clinton campaigned for by calling children super predators? His record isn't squeaky clean there but I'm surprised they want to draw attention to it.
As for the guns, maybe it's unpopular but I appreciate that he's semi-moderate on guns. It would help him a lot in swing Mountain West states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (I guess we'll find out when some Nevada polling finally comes out again). I canvas here in Montana and talk to a lot of people who are single-issue voters on guns - it's one of the first questions they ask. He still has a D- from the NRA but people aren't afraid they'll take their guns away. Many of those people agree that our government is bought and that the system is rigged against them. I honestly believe his relative moderation on that issue could give him a much better shot at winning Mountain West voters that could make a big difference in those swing states. Gun culture here is probably pretty similar to what it is in Vermont, and people here appreciate that about him.
Finally, as for foreign policy, I don't expect or want him to be a perfect dove - of course he'd get killed in the election if he was as progressive as that article's standards demand. But I loved his answer tonight. He wants to take a longer view of history and try to avoid unintended consequences. That's a more coherent foreign policy than I've heard since the neocons.
posted by dialetheia at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
As long as I'm talking about swing states, New Hampshire is a swing state too.
posted by dialetheia at 8:48 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 8:48 PM on February 11, 2016
Are they seriously trying to stick him with Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill
The talking heads on CNN were talking about this - they specifically said "no one's hands were clean," anyone in politics at that time. A lot of people were supporting it, even black leaders. They didn't give Bernie a pass either because he was agreeing for nobler reasons.
posted by sweetkid at 8:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's weird that there are so many people here who think this nomination is a foregone conclusion for Sanders.
Maybe I missed this? I'm a Sanders supporter and have been for a while now. I didn't think he would make it this far into the primary, and I still think it's very unlikely (maybe 15 or 20%) that he wins the Democratic nomination.
What I think has changed for me recently is that I have moved from thinking that the entire point of Sanders' campaign is to move Clinton to the left to thinking that maybe, if Sanders has a very good campaign and things break just the right way, then he actually wins the nomination. Three weeks ago, I would have said that his winning was practically impossible. Now, I'm not so sure, and I sort of expect now (which is a bit shocking!) that he is in it until Super Tuesday, at least.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
Maybe I missed this? I'm a Sanders supporter and have been for a while now. I didn't think he would make it this far into the primary, and I still think it's very unlikely (maybe 15 or 20%) that he wins the Democratic nomination.
What I think has changed for me recently is that I have moved from thinking that the entire point of Sanders' campaign is to move Clinton to the left to thinking that maybe, if Sanders has a very good campaign and things break just the right way, then he actually wins the nomination. Three weeks ago, I would have said that his winning was practically impossible. Now, I'm not so sure, and I sort of expect now (which is a bit shocking!) that he is in it until Super Tuesday, at least.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:52 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'd like Bernie to work with Nike on shoes like Jordan, but instead of basketball sneakers it's a line of sensible loafers.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we can quantitatively ease to save the bankers, we sure as hell can QE our way to a society that provides shelter, food, housing, education, health care, and then on to great things. I want President Hubbard of the Trick Top Hat, not Furbish Lousewart V of the Universe Next Door. HEAD Revolution, not the Revolution of Lowered Expectations.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:53 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not convinced that he'll win the nomination, but I think he's really pressed Clinton to move to the left, and I'm happy about that. As long as he stays in the race, he continues to do that.
posted by teponaztli at 8:54 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 8:54 PM on February 11, 2016
I'm not going to defend his record on guns, but I will point out that he has gotten five Fs, four or five D-minuses and one C-, his highest vote, the year he voted on the big bill. His current rating is D-minus. It's not like the NRA likes him.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jonathan Livengood, I think that's a reasonable view. I was specifically commenting on things like this "it will cost the Democrats the election if we run her against Trump" and people who saw that debate as Sanders just ignoring Clinton and running against Trump at this point.
posted by sweetkid at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2016
The talking heads on CNN were talking about this - they specifically said they specifically said "no one's hands were clean"
Luckily, people can look at their records and judge for themselves. Here's Hillary Clinton lobbying for the 1994 crime bill by saying that super predator children should be "brought to heel." I wish there was a longer clip of that address - if anyone can find it, I'd love a link. Here's Bernie Sanders speaking about the bill saying that we should fund schools and alleviate oppression and childhood poverty instead of locking people up. I am so thankful that we have video records of these things available to us.
posted by dialetheia at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Luckily, people can look at their records and judge for themselves. Here's Hillary Clinton lobbying for the 1994 crime bill by saying that super predator children should be "brought to heel." I wish there was a longer clip of that address - if anyone can find it, I'd love a link. Here's Bernie Sanders speaking about the bill saying that we should fund schools and alleviate oppression and childhood poverty instead of locking people up. I am so thankful that we have video records of these things available to us.
posted by dialetheia at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm not convinced that he'll win the nomination, but I think he's really pressed Clinton to move to the left
I know this is wishful thinking, but I also wish his surge would pull the Republicans toward the center. I won't ever likely vote Republican but I'm pissed that we have a two party system where one party is completely terrifying.
posted by sweetkid at 8:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Now, I'm not so sure, and I sort of expect now (which is a bit shocking!) that he is in it until Super Tuesday, at least.
I see this race playing out in one of three ways: Sanders and Clinton come out neck and neck on March 1, and it goes to the convention. Sanders dominates on March 1 and .... ? Clinton dominates on March 1 and Sanders concedes.
The ... there are important. Clinton has the superdelegates, and she has the establishment behind her. If Sanders sweeps Super Tuesday like he did New Hampshire, the panic will set in. What happens then?
posted by dis_integration at 8:58 PM on February 11, 2016
I see this race playing out in one of three ways: Sanders and Clinton come out neck and neck on March 1, and it goes to the convention. Sanders dominates on March 1 and .... ? Clinton dominates on March 1 and Sanders concedes.
The ... there are important. Clinton has the superdelegates, and she has the establishment behind her. If Sanders sweeps Super Tuesday like he did New Hampshire, the panic will set in. What happens then?
posted by dis_integration at 8:58 PM on February 11, 2016
I honestly believe his relative moderation on that issue could give him a much better shot at winning Mountain West voters that could make a big difference in those swing states.
I'm not going to count on those votes until they've been cast in November. It's been said before on MeFi, it's not a question of "if" but "when" something bad happens with firearms.
He can point to his D-, but I don't think telling people "not to fear guns" will be enough when that happens.
posted by FJT at 8:59 PM on February 11, 2016
I'm not going to count on those votes until they've been cast in November. It's been said before on MeFi, it's not a question of "if" but "when" something bad happens with firearms.
He can point to his D-, but I don't think telling people "not to fear guns" will be enough when that happens.
posted by FJT at 8:59 PM on February 11, 2016
dialetheia, you were like "are they seriously??" and I think talking about something on CNN before a debate is yea people taking something somewhat seriously. Yes, people are going to take opposition to your favorite candidate seriously, even if you blow all of it off because reasons.
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also wish I had recorded that, because the guy was like, seriously, call your black caucus leader, everyone was for that insane bill. It was pretty interesting.
posted by sweetkid at 9:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 9:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was specifically commenting on things like this "it will cost the Democrats the election if we run her against Trump" and people who saw that debate as Sanders just ignoring Clinton and running against Trump at this point.
Oh, I see now. I agree that that's a bit ... far fetched. It's way, way too early to be seriously speculating about the head-to-head match-ups. (I think this cuts both ways. People saying that Sanders can't win head-to-head against Trump or anybody else are also speculating beyond what the evidence supports.) We don't even know who the nominees are going to be on either side! How can we be anything but unsure about how the D and R candidates would match up when we don't even have a very clear sense of how the primaries are going to sort themselves out?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, I see now. I agree that that's a bit ... far fetched. It's way, way too early to be seriously speculating about the head-to-head match-ups. (I think this cuts both ways. People saying that Sanders can't win head-to-head against Trump or anybody else are also speculating beyond what the evidence supports.) We don't even know who the nominees are going to be on either side! How can we be anything but unsure about how the D and R candidates would match up when we don't even have a very clear sense of how the primaries are going to sort themselves out?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:05 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
blow all of it off because reasons.
I mean, I'd characterize my objection to "super predator children" as slightly more justified than "reasons" - but fair enough.
posted by dialetheia at 9:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, I'd characterize my objection to "super predator children" as slightly more justified than "reasons" - but fair enough.
posted by dialetheia at 9:06 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
one party is completely terrifying.
If you're poor, both parties are terrifying right now. They are both run by monied interest. Neither one seems interested in putting forth a meaningful agenda to combat wealth inequality. Neither one seems interested in fighting to fix our broken trade agreements. And in fact it is only the Democratic party which is unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system. Things have been growing increasingly dire for the bottom 50% and neither party's leadership is doing a good job of pretending to care.
Which is why two insurgent candidates are getting so much of the attention. (Trump gets all the TV coverage, Bernie practically owns Facebook and Twitter.)
posted by an animate objects at 9:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
If you're poor, both parties are terrifying right now. They are both run by monied interest. Neither one seems interested in putting forth a meaningful agenda to combat wealth inequality. Neither one seems interested in fighting to fix our broken trade agreements. And in fact it is only the Democratic party which is unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system. Things have been growing increasingly dire for the bottom 50% and neither party's leadership is doing a good job of pretending to care.
Which is why two insurgent candidates are getting so much of the attention. (Trump gets all the TV coverage, Bernie practically owns Facebook and Twitter.)
posted by an animate objects at 9:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yes, people are going to take opposition to your favorite candidate seriously, even if you blow all of it off because reasons.
With respect, you don't need — and don't really want — to be patronizing. It really doesn't help people come over and support your favorite candidate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
With respect, you don't need — and don't really want — to be patronizing. It really doesn't help people come over and support your favorite candidate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:09 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"it will cost the Democrats the election if we run her against Trump"
That's an electability argument. It's based on the idea that if he is self-funded, he can hit her all day on those corporate and Wall Street contributions. It makes him look authentic, his greatest strength and appeal, while playing to her biggest electoral weakness, which is that people don't trust her (as borne out by the exit polls in New Hampshire). It's making an argument about who is our better matchup against this guy, not some talking-head gut-level prediction.
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's an electability argument. It's based on the idea that if he is self-funded, he can hit her all day on those corporate and Wall Street contributions. It makes him look authentic, his greatest strength and appeal, while playing to her biggest electoral weakness, which is that people don't trust her (as borne out by the exit polls in New Hampshire). It's making an argument about who is our better matchup against this guy, not some talking-head gut-level prediction.
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm just saying that people are going to criticize a Presidential candidate, and yes seriously. I don't know what the super predator thing had to do with it.
posted by sweetkid at 9:10 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 9:10 PM on February 11, 2016
It really doesn't help people come over and support your favorite candidate.
I'm not trying to get anyone to support anyone, but apologize if I'm being patronizing.
posted by sweetkid at 9:12 PM on February 11, 2016
I'm not trying to get anyone to support anyone, but apologize if I'm being patronizing.
posted by sweetkid at 9:12 PM on February 11, 2016
I don't know what the super predator thing had to do with it.
I don't mean to keep arguing so I'll drop it after this, but the point is that when faced with a decision about the 1994 crime bill, Clinton acquiesced to right-wing racist framing and demonized children, while Sanders spoke out against oppression and childhood poverty. I know which person I'd want on my side, is all.
posted by dialetheia at 9:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I don't mean to keep arguing so I'll drop it after this, but the point is that when faced with a decision about the 1994 crime bill, Clinton acquiesced to right-wing racist framing and demonized children, while Sanders spoke out against oppression and childhood poverty. I know which person I'd want on my side, is all.
posted by dialetheia at 9:13 PM on February 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I can see a little bit where Bernie's coming from on some of the gun stuff. The part about being able to sue the gun shops and even the manufacturers -- I can see that as a bit of an overshot. (oy.) Like, you're suing them for something legal.
He's unclear (from what I've read) as to what he thinks about a waiting period. I would disagree with him there regardless of how rural his constituents are. No responsible hunter needs a gun that afternoon. They can think ahead. And if they can't there's next season. But again I can't see if he actually disagrees with a waiting period, although I'm pretty sure that was a main facet of the Brady style bills.
And, he's kind of got a point about how different different states are, too.
Anyway, that stance sure doesn't hurt him in the general.
Bernie doesn't seem to pose. It's so fricking refreshing.
posted by Trochanter at 9:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
He's unclear (from what I've read) as to what he thinks about a waiting period. I would disagree with him there regardless of how rural his constituents are. No responsible hunter needs a gun that afternoon. They can think ahead. And if they can't there's next season. But again I can't see if he actually disagrees with a waiting period, although I'm pretty sure that was a main facet of the Brady style bills.
And, he's kind of got a point about how different different states are, too.
Anyway, that stance sure doesn't hurt him in the general.
Bernie doesn't seem to pose. It's so fricking refreshing.
posted by Trochanter at 9:20 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I also wish I had recorded that, because the guy was like, seriously, call your black caucus leader, everyone was for that insane bill.
Not everyone. Not Ron Dellums, John Lewis, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Russ Feingold, Paul Simon, and a bunch of other Congresspeople I'm not as familiar with. There were some people who actually did vote against it.
posted by sallybrown at 9:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not everyone. Not Ron Dellums, John Lewis, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Russ Feingold, Paul Simon, and a bunch of other Congresspeople I'm not as familiar with. There were some people who actually did vote against it.
posted by sallybrown at 9:22 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't mean to keep arguing so I'll drop it after this, but the point is that when faced with a decision about the 1994 crime bill, Clinton acquiesced to right-wing racist framing and demonized children, while Sanders spoke out against oppression and childhood poverty.
Yeah, and then he voted for the bill.
posted by sallybrown at 9:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, and then he voted for the bill.
posted by sallybrown at 9:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, I could try to argue my point, but I think it would be fruitless. Because the little criticism that has been applied to Bernie in this thread seems to have been treated with an extremely soft touch with his justifications being VERY readily accepted, and Hillary just has not gotten the same treatment, to say the least. When Bernie issues a mea culpa, he is forgiven. If Hillary does, people either flat out ignore it or rush to explain why it's not valid. When Bernie gets asked hard questions, people are satisfied with the answers he gives. When Hillary answers questions, people call her a liar. This despite that fact that Politifact has HIllary with a lower percentage of untrue statements (ones rated as mostly false/false/pants on fire) at 28% than Bernie at 32%. I just don't think that people are applying the same standard to HIllary at all although there's obviously no way to prove this so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
Like I said, I like Bernie. But I've been pretty appalled by the level of vitriol I've seen directed at Hillary. I don't think she is above reproach AT ALL. But there's been just a really ugly feeling behind the criticism she has been getting, which seems to go above and beyond just legitimate policy criticism.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Like I said, I like Bernie. But I've been pretty appalled by the level of vitriol I've seen directed at Hillary. I don't think she is above reproach AT ALL. But there's been just a really ugly feeling behind the criticism she has been getting, which seems to go above and beyond just legitimate policy criticism.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:24 PM on February 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Sure, and like I said, I wish he hadn't and I agree with you. But we're choosing between these two candidates. Besides, all I said originally was that I was surprised she wanted to bring attention to that bill because it would bring attention to her own statements on it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 PM on February 11, 2016
I also wish I had recorded that, because the guy was like, seriously, call your black caucus leader, everyone was for that insane bill.
Not everyone. Not Ron Dellums, John Lewis, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Russ Feingold, Paul Simon, and a bunch of other Congresspeople I'm not as familiar with. There were some people who actually did vote against it.
I know, that's why the topic was intriguing. I didn't know much about it. I remember the fear of gangs as vague background noise in my 90s childhood.
posted by sweetkid at 9:25 PM on February 11, 2016
I mean, I could try to argue my point, but I think it would be fruitless. Because the little criticism that has been applied to Bernie in this thread seems to have been treated with an extremely soft touch with his justifications being VERY readily accepted, and Hillary just has not gotten the same treatment, to say the least. When Bernie issues a mea culpa, he is forgiven. If Hillary does, people either flat out ignore it or rush to explain why it's not valid.
That's why I don't think (hope) this thread is a valid depiction of current sentiment. It's mostly like the Sanders reddit.
posted by sweetkid at 9:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
In other news: Ted Cruz Campaign Pulls Ad After Learning Actress Was a Porn Star
posted by homunculus at 9:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 9:29 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I remember reading predictions about "superpredators" from (allegedly) serious scholars when I was in high school in the early '90s. Like the guy who wrote my AP Gov textbook. People really thought we were only so many years away from The Warriors or some shit. Mind you, those articles never actually said anything about ethnicity. That's dog whistle stuff, at least for academics.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:32 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I just remember TV from that time period (through to now) that had black people riding around in cars/SUVS with loud music playing, and then there would be a drive by shooting like immediately. When I moved to NYC, where black people ride around in SUVs playing loud music because it's a fun normal noncriminal thing to do, I had to like deliberately get over my media driven fear that bullets were coming. Because duh, why would they be, but it was some subliminal shit.
posted by sweetkid at 9:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 9:37 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The '60s and early 70's were a sad, unfortunate lesson that didn't have to be learned, but that was learned by all too many people, over and over again, too many damn times... the lesson is this:
That it's too dangerous to hope, because if you do, you run the risk of having your hope taken away from you.
Thank you, markkraft, for my favorite line from that comment: If only we could dare to feel the kind of hope and optimism for the future in America, that we would willingly embrace overseas...
I never want to lose hope.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:41 PM on February 11, 2016
That it's too dangerous to hope, because if you do, you run the risk of having your hope taken away from you.
Thank you, markkraft, for my favorite line from that comment: If only we could dare to feel the kind of hope and optimism for the future in America, that we would willingly embrace overseas...
I never want to lose hope.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:41 PM on February 11, 2016
Because the little criticism that has been applied to Bernie in this thread seems to have been treated with an extremely soft touch with his justifications being VERY readily accepted, and Hillary just has not gotten the same treatment, to say the least
Do we need to make a spread sheet or some type of visual aid so that it is easier to visualize the difference between these two. What are the criticisms of Sanders that we have seen? 1) he voted for the 1994 crime bill 2) he doesn't want to ban all guns 3) he's a socialist 4) he isn't as strong as Clinton on foreign policy. Those seem pretty insignificant, insofar as character is concerned, when compared to Clinton's many problems. Do I really have to go through all of them again?
Obviously Sanders isn't the second coming of christ, but you have to at least understand why some of us are ecstatic at the chance to vote for someone who reflects our values and hopes for the future direction of this country. Not some progressive lite candidate who is going to sell us out the moment they get into office and then proceed to bomb several third world countries killing even more innocent children. Do I think Bernie is perfect as far as foreign policy is concerned? Frankly, no. He's going to have atrocities built into his office from day one, but I truly believe he is less of an interventionist than Clinton and will therefore not repeat mistakes similar to Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Do we need to make a spread sheet or some type of visual aid so that it is easier to visualize the difference between these two. What are the criticisms of Sanders that we have seen? 1) he voted for the 1994 crime bill 2) he doesn't want to ban all guns 3) he's a socialist 4) he isn't as strong as Clinton on foreign policy. Those seem pretty insignificant, insofar as character is concerned, when compared to Clinton's many problems. Do I really have to go through all of them again?
Obviously Sanders isn't the second coming of christ, but you have to at least understand why some of us are ecstatic at the chance to vote for someone who reflects our values and hopes for the future direction of this country. Not some progressive lite candidate who is going to sell us out the moment they get into office and then proceed to bomb several third world countries killing even more innocent children. Do I think Bernie is perfect as far as foreign policy is concerned? Frankly, no. He's going to have atrocities built into his office from day one, but I truly believe he is less of an interventionist than Clinton and will therefore not repeat mistakes similar to Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:41 PM on February 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
I saw the CNN bit that sweet kid is talking about and it was as serious as most of these quick back and forth segments usually are...not very. You have two or more talking heads espousing their sound bite of the day/week/whatever.
In this case you have the Hillary supporter saying that Bernie voted for the crime bill too so now the point is moot, let's move on, Bernie is just as complicit.
There is no time for anyone to respond in a thoughtful manner as to why Bernie voted for the bill...why he basically held his nose and voted for it.
This goes both ways. These guests on these shows have to get out their quick talking point before the next commercial break. It sucks. There is no cute fox on these shows that actually gets to romp through the snow...it is always just the damn metaphorical bedsheet.
posted by futz at 9:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
In this case you have the Hillary supporter saying that Bernie voted for the crime bill too so now the point is moot, let's move on, Bernie is just as complicit.
There is no time for anyone to respond in a thoughtful manner as to why Bernie voted for the bill...why he basically held his nose and voted for it.
This goes both ways. These guests on these shows have to get out their quick talking point before the next commercial break. It sucks. There is no cute fox on these shows that actually gets to romp through the snow...it is always just the damn metaphorical bedsheet.
posted by futz at 9:44 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
...why he basically held his nose and voted for it.
I know I mean how is ever going to get things done with a Republican congress? Oh wait, what? He can get things done with Republicans and has been doing so over his whole career?
It's funny how "the perfect is the enemy of the good" spiel we always hear about in these parts suddenly goes away when a socialist is running for the White House.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I know I mean how is ever going to get things done with a Republican congress? Oh wait, what? He can get things done with Republicans and has been doing so over his whole career?
It's funny how "the perfect is the enemy of the good" spiel we always hear about in these parts suddenly goes away when a socialist is running for the White House.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:48 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
That's why I don't think (hope) this thread is a valid depiction of current sentiment. It's mostly like the Sanders reddit.
Why do you hope this? What is so important to you about marginalizing Sanders' campaign (and the movement it represents?) Because it doesn't feel fair?
posted by an animate objects at 9:50 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why do you hope this? What is so important to you about marginalizing Sanders' campaign (and the movement it represents?) Because it doesn't feel fair?
posted by an animate objects at 9:50 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
You guys are totally ignoring the Vermin Supreme surge. Could he be the savior of the Democratic party?
Well, someone is clearly afraid that he is a real threat: Some vermin is trying to doxx Vermin Supreme
posted by homunculus at 9:51 PM on February 11, 2016
Well, someone is clearly afraid that he is a real threat: Some vermin is trying to doxx Vermin Supreme
posted by homunculus at 9:51 PM on February 11, 2016
Vermin Supreme could surprise us!
posted by rhizome at 10:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 10:00 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
that's why I don't think (hope) this thread is a valid depiction of current sentiment. It's mostly like the Sanders reddit.
Why do you hope this? What is so important to you about marginalizing Sanders' campaign and the movement it represents?
Those are words in my mouth, not what I said at all. This thread is not Bernies campaign or movement.
Im not sure what you were trying to achieve with that disingenuous question.
posted by sweetkid at 10:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why do you hope this? What is so important to you about marginalizing Sanders' campaign and the movement it represents?
Those are words in my mouth, not what I said at all. This thread is not Bernies campaign or movement.
Im not sure what you were trying to achieve with that disingenuous question.
posted by sweetkid at 10:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is not nearly as progressive as you think he is
It's funny that basicly the most horrible thing anybody can think of to say about Bernie Sanders is that sometimes he agrees with the Clintons.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [27 favorites]
It's funny that basicly the most horrible thing anybody can think of to say about Bernie Sanders is that sometimes he agrees with the Clintons.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [27 favorites]
Do we need to make a spread sheet or some type of visual aid so that it is easier to visualize the difference between these two.
Actually, no. Because believe it or not, I have thought this through on my own quite a bit. But you talking to me like I'm too dumb to understand is a really good illustration of the point I'm trying to make.
posted by triggerfinger at 10:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Actually, no. Because believe it or not, I have thought this through on my own quite a bit. But you talking to me like I'm too dumb to understand is a really good illustration of the point I'm trying to make.
posted by triggerfinger at 10:07 PM on February 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
But you talking to me like I'm too dumb to understand is a really good illustration of the point I'm trying to make.
What point is that? That Sanders isn't really a progressive? Because, although I quoted you, I wasn't really responding to you directly, but rather the stream of insinuations that Sanders is just as bad as Clinton when it comes to progressive issues.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:14 PM on February 11, 2016
What point is that? That Sanders isn't really a progressive? Because, although I quoted you, I wasn't really responding to you directly, but rather the stream of insinuations that Sanders is just as bad as Clinton when it comes to progressive issues.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:14 PM on February 11, 2016
I am actually super jazzed about Bernies campaign and the movement it represents, to answer the question I wasn't asked. I hope it moves the party to the left, I would not like Bernie to win the nomination though, and would have voted Biden or Warren over Hillary if they were available. Sorry to disappoint about my aims at marginalization.
posted by sweetkid at 10:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 10:14 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would not like Bernie to win the nomination though
Why not? Sorry to interrogate you personally, and if you don't want to answer that's cool, but I think this is kinda key to the whole conversation here. I.e., why on earth would any progressive not want Bernie to win the nomination? Because you think he's un-electable? That's a perfectly good conclusion, but one which I think is a bit premature at this point. Either way, what is it specifically about Sanders that you find to be incompatible with the office of the presidency?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why not? Sorry to interrogate you personally, and if you don't want to answer that's cool, but I think this is kinda key to the whole conversation here. I.e., why on earth would any progressive not want Bernie to win the nomination? Because you think he's un-electable? That's a perfectly good conclusion, but one which I think is a bit premature at this point. Either way, what is it specifically about Sanders that you find to be incompatible with the office of the presidency?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:23 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Sanders or his affiliates aren't under investigation by 2 or 3? different government entities. Can you imagine if that were so?
posted by futz at 10:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 10:34 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
this kind of aggressive jumping-on-everything is really alienating
It's alienating to ask for arguments against Sanders being the nominee? O.k., forget I asked. I would argue though that it is much less alienating than the vote shaming that has gone on in this thread and the Iowa one before it-specifically in the context of those of us who will not be supporting a Clinton campaign in the general.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's alienating to ask for arguments against Sanders being the nominee? O.k., forget I asked. I would argue though that it is much less alienating than the vote shaming that has gone on in this thread and the Iowa one before it-specifically in the context of those of us who will not be supporting a Clinton campaign in the general.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:36 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hey AelfWine I might send you a me mail tomorrow on my views. They'll just get picked apart here in a shabby way, which is what I think others are referring to.
posted by sweetkid at 10:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 10:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
The vote shaming was not cool, I agree with that.
posted by sweetkid at 10:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 10:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie Sanders won 2095 votes in the New Hampshire Republican primary, WaPo: "The write-in totals for the primary, released by New Hampshire's secretary of state Thursday, find that well more than half of Republican write-in votes were cast for Sanders, and 540 more were cast for former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. No other candidate, or "candidate" came close; Kanye West, the rapper and producer who has threatened to run for president in 2020, earned just one write-in vote. None of this surprised the Sanders campaign."
posted by dialetheia at 10:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I'm probably a bigger Sanders supporter than most, and I'm really not OK with super aggressive attacks on everything that has the slightest whiff of Clinton. It's really frustrating and I wish it would stop so we can move on from this super-defensive fight amongst people who largely agree on a whole lot of issues.
posted by teponaztli at 10:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 10:45 PM on February 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hillary has a lot of negatives (I'm talking about what the pollsters call negatives) and I think that's reflected here. She just does.
posted by Trochanter at 10:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 10:58 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
And I think a lot of us (dare I say) are sick of the neo-liberal horse shit we've been force fed since Hillary's husband was in.
posted by Trochanter at 11:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 11:02 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bernie Sanders Is More Serious on Foreign Policy Than You Think, Politico
posted by dialetheia at 11:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:10 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not a Clinton supporter and never have been. That said, I don't think her politics are actually that bad, and I think a lot of the attacks on her have played into the way successful women are treated on the whole. I mean, that's been the case for 30 years. She gets a lot of shit, and I don't think we need to buy into that to justify our support for Sanders.
There's two really major differences between the campaigns for me. One is the funding. Clinton is very much the establishment candidate, both to her credit and to her detriment. She's capable and very experienced, but she's also getting tons of money from establishment sources like banks and PACs. That's off-putting to me. The other is politics. I get why people are looking for specifics from Sanders, and that can be really frustrating as a supporter. But I do know where his politics are. A political misstep from him doesn't go that far in dissuading me because I know what his campaign is like, and I know for a fact that his politics are very similar to my own. It's not cultish true belief, I mean, it's just that his politics are really great. Clinton's voting record has more red flags as far as I'm concerned, even though they've voted together like 90% of the time anyway.
That all ads up to me being a Bernie supporter, but it doesn't make me want to drag Clinton through the mud. It's not that I'm sad at the thought of a Clinton win, it's that I'm sad at the thought of a Sanders loss in the primary. Maybe that's inevitable, I don't know. But the effect he's had on Clinton's campaign is undeniable, and that's really valuable.
posted by teponaztli at 11:11 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's two really major differences between the campaigns for me. One is the funding. Clinton is very much the establishment candidate, both to her credit and to her detriment. She's capable and very experienced, but she's also getting tons of money from establishment sources like banks and PACs. That's off-putting to me. The other is politics. I get why people are looking for specifics from Sanders, and that can be really frustrating as a supporter. But I do know where his politics are. A political misstep from him doesn't go that far in dissuading me because I know what his campaign is like, and I know for a fact that his politics are very similar to my own. It's not cultish true belief, I mean, it's just that his politics are really great. Clinton's voting record has more red flags as far as I'm concerned, even though they've voted together like 90% of the time anyway.
That all ads up to me being a Bernie supporter, but it doesn't make me want to drag Clinton through the mud. It's not that I'm sad at the thought of a Clinton win, it's that I'm sad at the thought of a Sanders loss in the primary. Maybe that's inevitable, I don't know. But the effect he's had on Clinton's campaign is undeniable, and that's really valuable.
posted by teponaztli at 11:11 PM on February 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
And for real, the only thing I've seen from Clinton supporters that has put me off is the whole "if you vote for Bernie Sanders it's obviously because you're willing to gamble with the lives of disadvantaged people who will be screwed under President Cruz, who would obviously win because everyone knows Bernie Sanders could never win" thing. I didn't see it here, but it's definitely A Thing. I'm not a fan of her campaign staffers, but I really, really don't think it's necessary for things to have gotten as fighty in this thread as they did.
posted by teponaztli at 11:12 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 11:12 PM on February 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
the only thing I've seen from Clinton supporters that has put me off
The whole "you aren't a real feminist if you support Sanders" message from Steinem and from Clinton's rally with Albright raised the temperature some, I think.
posted by dialetheia at 11:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
The whole "you aren't a real feminist if you support Sanders" message from Steinem and from Clinton's rally with Albright raised the temperature some, I think.
posted by dialetheia at 11:15 PM on February 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Bernie Sanders won 2095 votes in the New Hampshire Republican primary
This supports my hypothesis that Republicans who care about issues, get past their comfort zones, and actually read Sanders' positions on the issues they care about, find themselves agreeing with them.
I think 1/2 the votes that Trump is getting is people who are just not going to vote for the status-quo establishment, but aren't ready to cross the aisle yet. ( The other half are the "wacky vote" as Stern called it ) The article mentions that in the Senate race he got 20% of the republican vote.
posted by mikelieman at 11:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This supports my hypothesis that Republicans who care about issues, get past their comfort zones, and actually read Sanders' positions on the issues they care about, find themselves agreeing with them.
I think 1/2 the votes that Trump is getting is people who are just not going to vote for the status-quo establishment, but aren't ready to cross the aisle yet. ( The other half are the "wacky vote" as Stern called it ) The article mentions that in the Senate race he got 20% of the republican vote.
posted by mikelieman at 11:16 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do keep hearing, "everyone knows Bernie Sanders could never win"
everyone knows man could never go to the moon, too.
As it turned out, what "everyone knows" is a load of fucking horseshit.
posted by mikelieman at 11:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
everyone knows man could never go to the moon, too.
As it turned out, what "everyone knows" is a load of fucking horseshit.
posted by mikelieman at 11:18 PM on February 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
The whole "you aren't a real feminist if you support Sanders" message from Steinem and from Clinton's rally with Albright raised the temperature some, I think.
Actually, I feel really bad for Steinem. I think she completely fucked up, but I feel really bad for her. I mean, if I make a mistake, it might have awful repercussions in my life, but not "I am now alienated from the people involved in the social and political movement I was instrumental in at one time."
Albright has been saying that line for years, and anyway, I don't really place too much weight on the opinion of someone responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
posted by teponaztli at 11:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Actually, I feel really bad for Steinem. I think she completely fucked up, but I feel really bad for her. I mean, if I make a mistake, it might have awful repercussions in my life, but not "I am now alienated from the people involved in the social and political movement I was instrumental in at one time."
Albright has been saying that line for years, and anyway, I don't really place too much weight on the opinion of someone responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
posted by teponaztli at 11:19 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Albright has been saying that line for years, and anyway, I don't really place too much weight on the opinion of someone responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
What should we weigh the opinion of someone who voted to go back and get more children killed, though, I wonder.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
What should we weigh the opinion of someone who voted to go back and get more children killed, though, I wonder.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:28 PM on February 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"everyone knows man could never go to the moon" (imgur)
posted by mikelieman at 11:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 11:31 PM on February 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ehh, in fairness, I still think what Albright did was worse than Clinton's vote for the war.
posted by teponaztli at 11:31 PM on February 11, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 11:31 PM on February 11, 2016
I.e., why on earth would any progressive not want Bernie to win the nomination?
I can think of many reasons. He's very likely too old for a second term and will meet so much resistance as a president that his age will reinforce his ineffectiveness. He may end up with Jimmy Carter's record-low approval ratings, but with an extra 20 years on him. Before that ever happens, though, with his "tell it all up front" approach, he hasn't gone very deep beyond a few angry platitudes, and if he told it all, he has no play for the middle. Also, Bernie still casually talks about a health care revolution that was actually voted down when Democrats controlled the house, to keep their jobs mainly. This is not because they don't like the idea, but because state-level elections have a conservative advantage, because conservatives actually vote, and they vote against socialism. I note that Bernie isn't even a Democrat, and has no party supporting him anywhere. Moving on: Clinton sees wealthy people within a capitalist framework as someone to tax (instead of everyone else) and has said so recently. But she runs afoul of Bernie supporters if she doesn't hate them as economic villains. Bernie, on the other hand, panders to those who have only disdain for the wealthy, and will immediately risk alienating the wealthy for a dream. This will trigger a well-funded backlash, and possibly endanger anyone on the left trying to get elected down ticket.
posted by Brian B. at 11:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I can think of many reasons. He's very likely too old for a second term and will meet so much resistance as a president that his age will reinforce his ineffectiveness. He may end up with Jimmy Carter's record-low approval ratings, but with an extra 20 years on him. Before that ever happens, though, with his "tell it all up front" approach, he hasn't gone very deep beyond a few angry platitudes, and if he told it all, he has no play for the middle. Also, Bernie still casually talks about a health care revolution that was actually voted down when Democrats controlled the house, to keep their jobs mainly. This is not because they don't like the idea, but because state-level elections have a conservative advantage, because conservatives actually vote, and they vote against socialism. I note that Bernie isn't even a Democrat, and has no party supporting him anywhere. Moving on: Clinton sees wealthy people within a capitalist framework as someone to tax (instead of everyone else) and has said so recently. But she runs afoul of Bernie supporters if she doesn't hate them as economic villains. Bernie, on the other hand, panders to those who have only disdain for the wealthy, and will immediately risk alienating the wealthy for a dream. This will trigger a well-funded backlash, and possibly endanger anyone on the left trying to get elected down ticket.
posted by Brian B. at 11:38 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I cut everyone a lot of slack on what they do during election cycles sincerely trying to help a friend. Of course, the fact that in Hillary Clinton's case, since she's the epitome of The Establishment, all of her Establishment Friends are really just doing what they can, when asked to help. It just plays into Bernie Sander's narrative.
Her campaign managers really dropped the ball. I understand it, in a way. It had seemed pre-ordained.
But, then a lot of people had a second think, and me, I think we've had enough political dynasties for my lifetime...
posted by mikelieman at 11:39 PM on February 11, 2016
Her campaign managers really dropped the ball. I understand it, in a way. It had seemed pre-ordained.
But, then a lot of people had a second think, and me, I think we've had enough political dynasties for my lifetime...
posted by mikelieman at 11:39 PM on February 11, 2016
He may end up with Jimmy Carter's record-low approval ratings,
"History's Greatest Monster!"
posted by mikelieman at 11:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
"History's Greatest Monster!"
posted by mikelieman at 11:40 PM on February 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I note that Bernie isn't even a Democrat, and has no party supporting him anywhere.
Wait, I thought you were trying to make a case against him...
. Bernie, on the other hand, panders to those who have only disdain for the wealthy, and will immediately risk alienating the wealthy for a dream. This will trigger a well-funded backlash, and possibly endanger anyone on the left trying to get elected down ticket.
vote Hillary or the rich won't like us anymore :(
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [23 favorites]
Wait, I thought you were trying to make a case against him...
. Bernie, on the other hand, panders to those who have only disdain for the wealthy, and will immediately risk alienating the wealthy for a dream. This will trigger a well-funded backlash, and possibly endanger anyone on the left trying to get elected down ticket.
vote Hillary or the rich won't like us anymore :(
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 PM on February 11, 2016 [23 favorites]
Ehh, in fairness, I still think what Albright did was worse than Clinton's vote for the war.
I agree completely, but she isn't running for the job.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:42 PM on February 11, 2016
I agree completely, but she isn't running for the job.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:42 PM on February 11, 2016
Everyone says Albright has been saying this for years but I can't find a history of her saying this. The Google results are only pulling up the most recent incident. Is this a common phrase of Albright's?
And if it is why was it OK that she said it all those previous times in regards to women? Or is it that she just uses "there is a special place in hell" as a phrase often in her speeches on many different topics? Genuinely asking.
posted by futz at 11:46 PM on February 11, 2016
And if it is why was it OK that she said it all those previous times in regards to women? Or is it that she just uses "there is a special place in hell" as a phrase often in her speeches on many different topics? Genuinely asking.
posted by futz at 11:46 PM on February 11, 2016
I note that Bernie isn't even a Democrat, and has no party supporting him anywhere.
Cite?
posted by futz at 11:52 PM on February 11, 2016
Cite?
posted by futz at 11:52 PM on February 11, 2016
I was showing that "Why the Country is Moving Left" article to a friend and it occurred to me that these two paragraphs go a long way toward explaining why so many of us want to build on the progress we've made under the Obama era, not just settle for defending it. The rest of the piece makes a very strong case that this country has shifted substantially leftward during the Obama administration. If you're still feeling terrified about rerunning the 2000 election, it's a reassuring read with a lot of good evidence.
I strongly believe that have to continue to act with the confidence of a party that is in power, even if gerrymandering limits our legislative ability, so that we can improve on the progress we made during the Obama administration and not just defend them from imaginary right-wing attacks that would have happened during the 1990s or early 2000s. It's been 22 years since that crime bill passed on right-wing framing accepted by New Democrats - things have changed a lot. We should be more confident.
posted by dialetheia at 12:14 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
That’s what happened when Dwight Eisenhower followed Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Ike moderated the growth in government expansion that had begun in the 1930s, but he didn’t return American politics to the 1920s, when the GOP opposed any federal welfare state at all. He in essence ratified the New Deal. It’s also what happened when Bill Clinton followed Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. By passing punitive anticrime laws, repealing restrictions on banks, signing NAFTA, cutting government spending to balance the budget, reforming welfare, and declaring that the “era of big government is over,” Clinton acknowledged that even a Democratic president could not revive the full-throated liberalism of the 1960s and ’70s. He ratified Reaganism.It's not in the article, but further evidence to me that even the Republican party is moving leftward on economic issues is the fact that Trump not only mentioned protecting Social Security and not letting uninsured homeless people die in the street without health care in the last debate, but most incredibly, none of the Republicans onstage even attacked him for it. Can you even imagine that happening in 2000, when privatizing Social Security was the Republican wet dream and everyone was in lockstep about everything? They are feeling pressure to provide more social safety nets for struggling people on their side, too. They know they aren't as strong as a party right now. The Republicans are acting like an opposition party. Their appeals are limited to overt racism and empty carpet-bombing threats - which are still convincing to many Americans, sure, but less so if the Democrats have a fair economic agenda to offer them. They know that their primary economic argument, that if we just lowered taxes and globalized and deregulated the economy everything would be fine, has been discredited with many of their voters. It might have been true in 1980, or even 1992, but it isn't true now. And working-class people don't really believe it anymore - or if they do, they tend to think that the system is so bought that it isn't working right anyway. That's why so many of those voters are voting for Trump.
Barack Obama sought the presidency hoping to be the Democrats’ Reagan: a president who changed America’s ideological trajectory. And he has changed it. He has pushed the political agenda as dramatically to the left as Reagan pushed it to the right, and, as under Reagan, the public has acquiesced more than it has rebelled. Reagan’s final victory came when Democrats adapted to the new political world he had made, and there is reason to believe that the next Republican president will find it necessary to make similar concessions to political reality."
I strongly believe that have to continue to act with the confidence of a party that is in power, even if gerrymandering limits our legislative ability, so that we can improve on the progress we made during the Obama administration and not just defend them from imaginary right-wing attacks that would have happened during the 1990s or early 2000s. It's been 22 years since that crime bill passed on right-wing framing accepted by New Democrats - things have changed a lot. We should be more confident.
posted by dialetheia at 12:14 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I note that Bernie isn't even a Democrat, and has no party supporting him anywhere.
Cite?
He is an Independent who has always caucused with the Democrats, that is true. If party loyalty is a factor in your voting decision, there is zero doubt Hillary is more of a loyal Democrat. I don't blame any of the superdelegate type of people for being on her side, that is totally rational.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:01 AM on February 12, 2016
Cite?
He is an Independent who has always caucused with the Democrats, that is true. If party loyalty is a factor in your voting decision, there is zero doubt Hillary is more of a loyal Democrat. I don't blame any of the superdelegate type of people for being on her side, that is totally rational.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:01 AM on February 12, 2016
But she runs afoul of Bernie supporters if she doesn't hate them as economic villains.
Well, irresponsible financiers did cause massive damage and none were put in jail. If you're running for office and you're going to demonize anyone, better to demonize them than young female progressives, super predators, or Muslims.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:16 AM on February 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Well, irresponsible financiers did cause massive damage and none were put in jail. If you're running for office and you're going to demonize anyone, better to demonize them than young female progressives, super predators, or Muslims.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:16 AM on February 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Bernie, on the other hand, panders to those who have only disdain for the wealthy, and will immediately risk alienating the wealthy for a dream.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. This is no better than Romney's 47% quip. It's gross and needs to stop. Personally, I don't have "disdain for the wealthy." What I do have, and what I suspect many millions of Americans have, is no more patience for bankers committing criminal acts and getting no jail time or criminal record. There's a difference between someone like Bill Gates and Jamie Dimond. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:29 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sorry, but this is bullshit. This is no better than Romney's 47% quip. It's gross and needs to stop. Personally, I don't have "disdain for the wealthy." What I do have, and what I suspect many millions of Americans have, is no more patience for bankers committing criminal acts and getting no jail time or criminal record. There's a difference between someone like Bill Gates and Jamie Dimond. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:29 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
The vote shaming was not cool, I agree with that.
posted by sweetkid
Thanks.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:37 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by sweetkid
Thanks.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:37 AM on February 12, 2016
What I do have, and what I suspect many millions of Americans have, is no more patience for bankers committing criminal acts and getting no jail time or criminal record.
Also it would be nice if the super wealthy and corporations would pay their fucking share of taxes.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:32 AM on February 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Also it would be nice if the super wealthy and corporations would pay their fucking share of taxes.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:32 AM on February 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Update at the bottom of homunculus' link about the ad with the former adult film actress:
UPDATE (9:53 PM ET): Buzzfeed interviewed the actress in question, who confirmed she was the same Amy Lindsay in the porno flicks. Lindsay told Buzzfeed she considers herself a conservative and a Christian, who will support either Cruz or Donald Trump. She emphasized that she has never done any hardcore pornography, but neglected or refused to comment on her work on Star Trek: Voyager.
That is the sickest Trek-specific nerd burn I have ever personally witnessed and I am now this woman's #1 fan in all spheres not encompassing politics.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:50 AM on February 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
UPDATE (9:53 PM ET): Buzzfeed interviewed the actress in question, who confirmed she was the same Amy Lindsay in the porno flicks. Lindsay told Buzzfeed she considers herself a conservative and a Christian, who will support either Cruz or Donald Trump. She emphasized that she has never done any hardcore pornography, but neglected or refused to comment on her work on Star Trek: Voyager.
That is the sickest Trek-specific nerd burn I have ever personally witnessed and I am now this woman's #1 fan in all spheres not encompassing politics.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:50 AM on February 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Mod note: This is not the place for metadiscussion. We've asked folks to keep this in mind only a short distance upthread, and I don't want to sound like a broken record. Let's move away from it, thanks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 6:34 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 6:34 AM on February 12, 2016
I thought this was an interesting commentary on the Albright and Steinem remarks.
Guest Editorial: Young Women Don't Owe Clinton
posted by Fleebnork at 6:38 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Guest Editorial: Young Women Don't Owe Clinton
posted by Fleebnork at 6:38 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
And in fact it is only the Democratic party which is unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system
The Republican candidates' plans for healthcare all repeal the ACA, and turn healthcare (including Medicaid) over to individual states. Which is great if you live in a state like... no wait, that's a terrible idea. At least 20 million people would lose coverage. States would have to try to fund healthcare exchanges themselves.
The plans also deregulate private insurance markets. Because what the system really needs is competition. Competition has always kept healthcare prices exceptionally low and affordable for everyone after all. *eyeroll*
Say goodbye to affordable premiums. Say hello to more drastic annual and lifetime spending caps unless you're able to pay top dollar. Say hello to skyrocketing medical costs and further financial shenanigans like hospitals billing insurance companies 5K to take an x-ray and charging 1.5K to uninsured consumers for same. Bankrupting patients is what the market can afford, apparently.
Etc., etc.
Until 2013, the GOP had no alternative to the ACA except "if you don't have insurance, pray you die soon before you go bankrupt." Now they all the candidates have plans: They're going to repeal the ACA and still screw over everyone. Good job.
The Democrats covered between 18 and 20 million people under the ACA. Not enough. But it's a start. But to say that they're "unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system" is about as wrong as wrong can be.
posted by zarq at 7:02 AM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
The Republican candidates' plans for healthcare all repeal the ACA, and turn healthcare (including Medicaid) over to individual states. Which is great if you live in a state like... no wait, that's a terrible idea. At least 20 million people would lose coverage. States would have to try to fund healthcare exchanges themselves.
The plans also deregulate private insurance markets. Because what the system really needs is competition. Competition has always kept healthcare prices exceptionally low and affordable for everyone after all. *eyeroll*
Say goodbye to affordable premiums. Say hello to more drastic annual and lifetime spending caps unless you're able to pay top dollar. Say hello to skyrocketing medical costs and further financial shenanigans like hospitals billing insurance companies 5K to take an x-ray and charging 1.5K to uninsured consumers for same. Bankrupting patients is what the market can afford, apparently.
Etc., etc.
Until 2013, the GOP had no alternative to the ACA except "if you don't have insurance, pray you die soon before you go bankrupt." Now they all the candidates have plans: They're going to repeal the ACA and still screw over everyone. Good job.
The Democrats covered between 18 and 20 million people under the ACA. Not enough. But it's a start. But to say that they're "unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system" is about as wrong as wrong can be.
posted by zarq at 7:02 AM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Regarding the Sanders as inevitable nominee narrative:
Personally, I don't view this as inevitable. I view it as unlikely. Even a month ago people were referring to Clinton's eventual coronation. The DNC was acting like Sanders was an upstart that needed shut out. He was behind in the nationals, not expected to win pretty much anywhere, the Dem. debates were going to be few and hidden, and none of the Clinton scandals looked like they were going to have legs. People pointed out that Sanders was starting several hundred delegate votes behind, and Clinton was a much more public figure than Sanders.
A lot has changed, but there's still a long way to go. If I were a betting man I would still push my chips in on Clinton. When it starts to look like a reality that Sanders could actually win people will start to think whether they want the devil they know or the unknown devil and I think they will break Hillary's way. She has a bigger organization than he does, and she has a lot of entrenched establishment support. She really feels like she deserves this and if not now it's probably never. She's going to fight hard. And, again, I predict win.
Regarding the narrative of Sanders pulling Clinton left:
FFS. For how long? Once she has the nomination she'll run right so fast she'll make Jindal look like he was running a progressive campaign. It's all fine and dandy to get a candidate to make lefty promises, but she will abandon them once she gets in, just like Obama abandoned his promises of transparency and civil protections.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Personally, I don't view this as inevitable. I view it as unlikely. Even a month ago people were referring to Clinton's eventual coronation. The DNC was acting like Sanders was an upstart that needed shut out. He was behind in the nationals, not expected to win pretty much anywhere, the Dem. debates were going to be few and hidden, and none of the Clinton scandals looked like they were going to have legs. People pointed out that Sanders was starting several hundred delegate votes behind, and Clinton was a much more public figure than Sanders.
A lot has changed, but there's still a long way to go. If I were a betting man I would still push my chips in on Clinton. When it starts to look like a reality that Sanders could actually win people will start to think whether they want the devil they know or the unknown devil and I think they will break Hillary's way. She has a bigger organization than he does, and she has a lot of entrenched establishment support. She really feels like she deserves this and if not now it's probably never. She's going to fight hard. And, again, I predict win.
Regarding the narrative of Sanders pulling Clinton left:
FFS. For how long? Once she has the nomination she'll run right so fast she'll make Jindal look like he was running a progressive campaign. It's all fine and dandy to get a candidate to make lefty promises, but she will abandon them once she gets in, just like Obama abandoned his promises of transparency and civil protections.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
>Bernie Sanders won 2095 votes in the New Hampshire Republican primary
This supports my hypothesis that Republicans who care about issues, get past their comfort zones, and actually read Sanders' positions on the issues they care about, find themselves agreeing with them.
Oh I think it's far more likely that it just reflects the fact that people have party affiliations that they consider part of their personal identity. They're registered republican and can't bring themselves to request a change because they grew up R and that's who they are. They may pull the lever for Ds often or most of the time but they'll be R on that card for life.
Some states seem to be worse for this than others. I see it a lot in Maryland, a theoretically very D state but you'd never know it over on the Eastern Shore. My mother-in-law will be registered D till she dies but she calls HRC "That Woman" and there's a lot of Fox News in their house. It's possible she'd be an R on her card if she hadn't grown up outside Baltimore but being a registered democrat is part of her identity.
In NH this can also be because you can be undeclared and have to request one ballot or the other, and these folks weren't willing to ask the poll workers they know for a D ballot.
And of course there's always the sloppy/stupid factor. Having worked the polls for years (when I was with a job that provided paid leave for volunteering; a great perk) there were always some folks who felt like they should just be able to do what was convenient and the election workers will work it out somehow. "Can't I just vote here and you send it over" was a big one. I would wager a non-zero percentage of those people figured they could just write in on an R ballot and it would get sorted even if they hadn't officially changed their registration.
posted by phearlez at 7:18 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
This supports my hypothesis that Republicans who care about issues, get past their comfort zones, and actually read Sanders' positions on the issues they care about, find themselves agreeing with them.
Oh I think it's far more likely that it just reflects the fact that people have party affiliations that they consider part of their personal identity. They're registered republican and can't bring themselves to request a change because they grew up R and that's who they are. They may pull the lever for Ds often or most of the time but they'll be R on that card for life.
Some states seem to be worse for this than others. I see it a lot in Maryland, a theoretically very D state but you'd never know it over on the Eastern Shore. My mother-in-law will be registered D till she dies but she calls HRC "That Woman" and there's a lot of Fox News in their house. It's possible she'd be an R on her card if she hadn't grown up outside Baltimore but being a registered democrat is part of her identity.
In NH this can also be because you can be undeclared and have to request one ballot or the other, and these folks weren't willing to ask the poll workers they know for a D ballot.
And of course there's always the sloppy/stupid factor. Having worked the polls for years (when I was with a job that provided paid leave for volunteering; a great perk) there were always some folks who felt like they should just be able to do what was convenient and the election workers will work it out somehow. "Can't I just vote here and you send it over" was a big one. I would wager a non-zero percentage of those people figured they could just write in on an R ballot and it would get sorted even if they hadn't officially changed their registration.
posted by phearlez at 7:18 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillarys actions does make one pause and think.
posted by asra at 7:18 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by asra at 7:18 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But to say that they're "unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system" is about as wrong as wrong can be.
I'm not the best qualified to reply but this is why I said that: Clinton's only answer in the debate (after about-facing on her "We will never have universal healthcare!" shout) was "Let's keep tweaking until no one's uninsured." plus some mention of increased regulation. She's barely even talking about how incredibly expensive care still is if you have insurance while she touts all the miracle strengths of the ACA.
Let's say this is just selfish for me. I'm being asked as a young healthy person to spend SO MUCH MONEY on health care and I can't do it. I'm between a rock and a hard place. But for many others, they're in even worse straights with their plans. They can't afford care even while they pay so much for insurance. It's insulting to defend the current state of affairs as "Better than ever, we just need to tweak it."
Perhaps Clinton's specific plans will make some improvements to what's already been done. But people can't wait for incremental change to toss pennies at them. They need someone fighting for them to wrest the script away from all the juicy medical supplier contracts and greedy insurers. Whom Hillary promises to negotiate with.
This to all say nothing of how valuable it would be to women if their employers no longer dictated contraceptive choices to them...
posted by an animate objects at 7:19 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm not the best qualified to reply but this is why I said that: Clinton's only answer in the debate (after about-facing on her "We will never have universal healthcare!" shout) was "Let's keep tweaking until no one's uninsured." plus some mention of increased regulation. She's barely even talking about how incredibly expensive care still is if you have insurance while she touts all the miracle strengths of the ACA.
Let's say this is just selfish for me. I'm being asked as a young healthy person to spend SO MUCH MONEY on health care and I can't do it. I'm between a rock and a hard place. But for many others, they're in even worse straights with their plans. They can't afford care even while they pay so much for insurance. It's insulting to defend the current state of affairs as "Better than ever, we just need to tweak it."
Perhaps Clinton's specific plans will make some improvements to what's already been done. But people can't wait for incremental change to toss pennies at them. They need someone fighting for them to wrest the script away from all the juicy medical supplier contracts and greedy insurers. Whom Hillary promises to negotiate with.
This to all say nothing of how valuable it would be to women if their employers no longer dictated contraceptive choices to them...
posted by an animate objects at 7:19 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Fleebnork: Guest Editorial: Young Women Don't Owe Clinton
Time: Bernie Sanders Volunteers Develop Canvassing App
posted by Room 641-A at 7:24 AM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
"Our generation laughed. We passed around memes about kids who can't look away from their phones while those kids reinvented media, advertising, and journalism"I thought this was a fantastic piece and frankly, from now until November I might just link to that every time I think I have something interesting to say on the subject. But the quote I pulled out also is a great segue into the following that I was just about to post:
Time: Bernie Sanders Volunteers Develop Canvassing App
Now Sanders volunteers have developed a a smartphone app that allows canvassers to collect voter data door-to-door without any help from campaign staff.To those who keep saying young people don't come out and vote, this is who you are talking about.
[...]
“Our generation is not going to be handed another FDR,” said Josh Smith, one of the lead developers on the app. “We’re not going to just be given the large-scale infrastructure change we need. We have to build it ourselves.” The campaign has often lagged behind its own activists’ enthusiasm, struggling to catch up and build an infrastructure in states where volunteers are active. There are now 400,000 active volunteers working for the Sanders campaign, and many report to other volunteers rather than to staffers.
[ ... ]
The volunteers that wrote the app’s code belong to groups including Coders for Sanders, Code Corps and FeelTheBern.org. The app is open source, meaning that any campaign with a coding team could create its own version of it and distribute to volunteers.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:24 AM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's all fine and dandy to get a candidate to make lefty promises, but she will abandon them once she gets in, just like Obama abandoned his promises of transparency and civil protections.
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:27 AM on February 12, 2016
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:27 AM on February 12, 2016
I'm not going to quote a number until I have something official to link to, but I will say that in the six weeks or so since the article came out the number of active volunteers has grown from the 400K mentioned in the article.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:27 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 7:27 AM on February 12, 2016
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
Unlike Obama, he's been saying and doing exactly the same things for over 30 years.
posted by an animate objects at 7:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [19 favorites]
Unlike Obama, he's been saying and doing exactly the same things for over 30 years.
posted by an animate objects at 7:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [19 favorites]
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, an animate objects.
But that still doesn't make the Democrats the only party "unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system." Even Clinton's plan (I'm still trying to wrap my head around the stunning awfulness of her reversal) is (as you yourself point out,) an attempt to insure everyone under the current system. Which is in and of itself an improvement.
posted by zarq at 7:30 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But that still doesn't make the Democrats the only party "unwilling to acknowledge the extraordinarily grave conditions of our health care system." Even Clinton's plan (I'm still trying to wrap my head around the stunning awfulness of her reversal) is (as you yourself point out,) an attempt to insure everyone under the current system. Which is in and of itself an improvement.
posted by zarq at 7:30 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh I think it's far more likely that it just reflects the fact that people have party affiliations that they consider part of their personal identity. They're registered republican and can't bring themselves to request a change because they grew up R and that's who they are. They may pull the lever for Ds often or most of the time but they'll be R on that card for life.
I can't say the details of why this is the case, but I have more than a casual belief that this is, in fact, often true.
posted by mikelieman at 7:31 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I can't say the details of why this is the case, but I have more than a casual belief that this is, in fact, often true.
posted by mikelieman at 7:31 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
His voting record. His consistency of message. He doesn't seem to change his views based on polling numbers.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:35 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
His voting record. His consistency of message. He doesn't seem to change his views based on polling numbers.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:35 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
I would love to know if Bernie cares about or expects to win a second term. He could be very different if he's the C-4 that blasts down the door. I could absolutely see him picking a woman to run with and then bowing out after his first term. I know that sounds stupidly idealistic and unrealistic when we talk about the highest levels of power in the world, but he is breaking all the rules.
She has a bigger organization than he does
It's true, she does have an enormous machine, but the downside is it is very hard to slow that machine down and change course. Bernie doesn't have the machine, but his message is so unwavering and unbeholden to outside interests that he doesn't need that kind of machine. Maybe that kind of machine is the equivalent of the Edsel, because Trump doesn't need one, either, which means its working for both the billionaire and the Socialist.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:36 AM on February 12, 2016
I would love to know if Bernie cares about or expects to win a second term. He could be very different if he's the C-4 that blasts down the door. I could absolutely see him picking a woman to run with and then bowing out after his first term. I know that sounds stupidly idealistic and unrealistic when we talk about the highest levels of power in the world, but he is breaking all the rules.
She has a bigger organization than he does
It's true, she does have an enormous machine, but the downside is it is very hard to slow that machine down and change course. Bernie doesn't have the machine, but his message is so unwavering and unbeholden to outside interests that he doesn't need that kind of machine. Maybe that kind of machine is the equivalent of the Edsel, because Trump doesn't need one, either, which means its working for both the billionaire and the Socialist.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:36 AM on February 12, 2016
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
There are no guarantees in life, but between Clinton and Sanders he seems more honest and more likely to keep his word. This is based off nothing more than my impressions watching youtube videos, debates, and exploring his voting records in the Senate and House. Also the fact that he refuses to take money from the people (big industry) who donated massive amounts of cash to Obama and now Clinton.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:37 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are no guarantees in life, but between Clinton and Sanders he seems more honest and more likely to keep his word. This is based off nothing more than my impressions watching youtube videos, debates, and exploring his voting records in the Senate and House. Also the fact that he refuses to take money from the people (big industry) who donated massive amounts of cash to Obama and now Clinton.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:37 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
To my mind if you like what Sanders has to say, he's your candidate. If you don't, he's not going to change to make you happy.
If you like what Clinton has to say you can't be guaranteed she'll continue to stay consistent. She'll say whatever she has to to get your vote.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 AM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
If you like what Clinton has to say you can't be guaranteed she'll continue to stay consistent. She'll say whatever she has to to get your vote.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 AM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
What makes you think Bernie would be any different? Honest question.
small money donations?
posted by kliuless at 7:42 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
small money donations?
posted by kliuless at 7:42 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh I think it's far more likely that it just reflects the fact that people have party affiliations that they consider part of their personal identity.
I've done quite a bit of research on voting stats, looking for where some of the larger gaps were in my region in terms of democratic votes. One of my largest pitfalls is that I assumed that people are generally registered to the party that reflects their idealogical beliefs. It's something I still fall victim to, unfortunately, because it's such a tempting correlation. I think there's much more truth in that people tend to register for other identity reasons - for example, how their parents felt, or what is typical for the region they live in. Having used registration statistics as a source many, many times, there are things that simply don't make sense if you assume that people are registered to the party that reflects their beliefs. If you throw out the assumption that the party of choice reflects the belief and also potentially the vote, then things make more sense, but that's such a giant variable within voting stats that it makes them considerably less useful once you have done so.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:44 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've done quite a bit of research on voting stats, looking for where some of the larger gaps were in my region in terms of democratic votes. One of my largest pitfalls is that I assumed that people are generally registered to the party that reflects their idealogical beliefs. It's something I still fall victim to, unfortunately, because it's such a tempting correlation. I think there's much more truth in that people tend to register for other identity reasons - for example, how their parents felt, or what is typical for the region they live in. Having used registration statistics as a source many, many times, there are things that simply don't make sense if you assume that people are registered to the party that reflects their beliefs. If you throw out the assumption that the party of choice reflects the belief and also potentially the vote, then things make more sense, but that's such a giant variable within voting stats that it makes them considerably less useful once you have done so.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:44 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would be really, really funny if Trump's whole campaign was supposed to just be a big old "Fuck You" to Jeb!. I mean, less funny if he gets elected, obviously, but still, you gotta step back and admire that amount of spite. That is like the Pro Bowl of spite right there, if your average road rager is about Pop Warner level.
It occurs to me that if this is true, then the next-level spite-spectacular moment would be for a nomination-clinching Trump to tap Jeb for VP. Bush either says no, in which case he's abandoning the GOP in its hour of need (they'll desperately need someone to help keep sane Republican voters from fleeing the party for Hilary or Bloomberg), in which case Jeb's political career is basically finished - or he says yes, in which case he's forced to spend the rest of the election and possibly the next four years after that gritting his teeth and sucking up to The Donald. If Trump really started the whole campaign just to piss off Jeb, that'd truly be the ultimate fuck you, right there.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:49 AM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
It occurs to me that if this is true, then the next-level spite-spectacular moment would be for a nomination-clinching Trump to tap Jeb for VP. Bush either says no, in which case he's abandoning the GOP in its hour of need (they'll desperately need someone to help keep sane Republican voters from fleeing the party for Hilary or Bloomberg), in which case Jeb's political career is basically finished - or he says yes, in which case he's forced to spend the rest of the election and possibly the next four years after that gritting his teeth and sucking up to The Donald. If Trump really started the whole campaign just to piss off Jeb, that'd truly be the ultimate fuck you, right there.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:49 AM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Extra spiteful if he then says "What, did you think I was serious? Who do you think I am?" after Jeb! accepts, and brings on someone else.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:51 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:51 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
This just because someone asked upthread in a way that seemed sincere. I'm not going to start a conversation about any of them; someone asked, I said, and I'm done.
why on earth would any progressive not want Bernie to win the nomination?
I like them both fine but in different ways and don't actually know what I would do if New York's primary is relevant. I suppose if I still don't have strong feelings at that point I'll just look at polls and do whatever middle-aged black women are doing, if I can find that crosstab. The points where I like Sanders better are the obvious ones where I expect he'd be dramatically more aggressive about, well, economic combat.
Non-substantively I get that young people look at Sanders and see something new and fresh and exciting, but I look at him and see a UK Labour candidate from the early 70s. This is certainly not something rational or a big deal, but my gestalt picture of him is just different than a lot of young folks'.
The two issue areas where I like Clinton better are:
(1) The large scale environment, especially since I "received" a niece and nephew who have good odds of seeing 2100. Irrespective of whatever he's saying now, he's been in with unions so long that it's very hard to imagine him signing his name on policies that would put lots of hard-working people in the United Mine Workers out of jobs. I'm sure he's saying the right things now but talk is cheap and doesn't impoverish people he's clearly cared about for decades, and I want coal dead.
(2) Large-scale foreign policy, where I worry that his not-the-world's-cop ideas might inadvertently lead to widespread rearmament and nuclearization because lots of countries would have to be grade-A morons not to want their own nuclear and conventional deterrents if the US looks shaky.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:56 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
why on earth would any progressive not want Bernie to win the nomination?
I like them both fine but in different ways and don't actually know what I would do if New York's primary is relevant. I suppose if I still don't have strong feelings at that point I'll just look at polls and do whatever middle-aged black women are doing, if I can find that crosstab. The points where I like Sanders better are the obvious ones where I expect he'd be dramatically more aggressive about, well, economic combat.
Non-substantively I get that young people look at Sanders and see something new and fresh and exciting, but I look at him and see a UK Labour candidate from the early 70s. This is certainly not something rational or a big deal, but my gestalt picture of him is just different than a lot of young folks'.
The two issue areas where I like Clinton better are:
(1) The large scale environment, especially since I "received" a niece and nephew who have good odds of seeing 2100. Irrespective of whatever he's saying now, he's been in with unions so long that it's very hard to imagine him signing his name on policies that would put lots of hard-working people in the United Mine Workers out of jobs. I'm sure he's saying the right things now but talk is cheap and doesn't impoverish people he's clearly cared about for decades, and I want coal dead.
(2) Large-scale foreign policy, where I worry that his not-the-world's-cop ideas might inadvertently lead to widespread rearmament and nuclearization because lots of countries would have to be grade-A morons not to want their own nuclear and conventional deterrents if the US looks shaky.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:56 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
"...gritting his teeth and sucking up to The Donald."
"Good morning, Jeb. You're probably wondering what I've called you here for. We're in the lobby of the fabulous Trump Tower -- isn't this fabulous? I have a task for you, which -- if you succeed -- could see you staying around the Oval Office a week longer. Carolyn here will give you all the details, and as for me, I have to go to the heliport to take my personal helicopter to Atlantic City, where we're holding a huge celebrity poker tournament at the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino -- it's gonna be fabulous! We're gonna play some poker and wrap up some international trade deals. We're gonna screw China, Jeb, CHINA! Good luck, and here's Carolyn."
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Good morning, Jeb. You're probably wondering what I've called you here for. We're in the lobby of the fabulous Trump Tower -- isn't this fabulous? I have a task for you, which -- if you succeed -- could see you staying around the Oval Office a week longer. Carolyn here will give you all the details, and as for me, I have to go to the heliport to take my personal helicopter to Atlantic City, where we're holding a huge celebrity poker tournament at the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino -- it's gonna be fabulous! We're gonna play some poker and wrap up some international trade deals. We're gonna screw China, Jeb, CHINA! Good luck, and here's Carolyn."
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
in which case he's forced to spend the rest of the election and possibly the next four years after that gritting his teeth and sucking up to The Donald.
I don't know whether it's in Bush's psyche to do it, but I'd kinda love to see him realize that he's the one person in the entire Executive Branch that the President cannot get rid of, and just have him go rogue for four years. Diamond Jeb.
posted by Etrigan at 8:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know whether it's in Bush's psyche to do it, but I'd kinda love to see him realize that he's the one person in the entire Executive Branch that the President cannot get rid of, and just have him go rogue for four years. Diamond Jeb.
posted by Etrigan at 8:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The DNC overturned Obama's ban on lobbyist and PAC contributions.
When Obama instituted the ban, he proclaimed, "we are going to change how Washington works". I've been sitting on a survey from the DNC; this is certainly going to influence how I respond.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:05 AM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
When Obama instituted the ban, he proclaimed, "we are going to change how Washington works". I've been sitting on a survey from the DNC; this is certainly going to influence how I respond.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:05 AM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
he's been in with unions so long that it's very hard to imagine him signing his name on policies that would put lots of hard-working people in the United Mine Workers out of jobs.
That's absurd. He's from Vermont, not West Virginia or Kentucky, and by your logic, he wouldn't be trustworthy on police reform for fear of upsetting police unions. Support for labor solidarity means support for the broad strokes of the labor movement, not the individual demands of every union in the movement, which are often at odds with each other on a wide variety of issues.
because lots of countries would have to be grade-A morons not to want their own nuclear and conventional deterrents if the US looks shaky
They're grade-A morons if they don't want their own nukes no matter what the US is doing, and with a nuclear arsenal this big, we could probably spend half of our military budget disarming for the entirety of two Presidential terms and still be orders of magnitude higher than any non-nuclear country that would be thinking about acquiring weapons now. Saying you trust Clinton to be more aggressive militarily is fine, but pointing to nuclear weapons as the reason seems very questionable.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
That's absurd. He's from Vermont, not West Virginia or Kentucky, and by your logic, he wouldn't be trustworthy on police reform for fear of upsetting police unions. Support for labor solidarity means support for the broad strokes of the labor movement, not the individual demands of every union in the movement, which are often at odds with each other on a wide variety of issues.
because lots of countries would have to be grade-A morons not to want their own nuclear and conventional deterrents if the US looks shaky
They're grade-A morons if they don't want their own nukes no matter what the US is doing, and with a nuclear arsenal this big, we could probably spend half of our military budget disarming for the entirety of two Presidential terms and still be orders of magnitude higher than any non-nuclear country that would be thinking about acquiring weapons now. Saying you trust Clinton to be more aggressive militarily is fine, but pointing to nuclear weapons as the reason seems very questionable.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
One area of war that I haven't heard any candidate talk about is the arms race in space, which seems like it's going to be increasingly important, if invisible.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:12 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:12 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
First Nevada poll that I'm aware of: Clinton and Sanders tied.
"Clinton narrowly edges Sanders among those who have completely made up their mind. But undecided caucusgoers and those who might change their mind say recent scandals involving Clinton make them significantly less likely to support her."
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Clinton narrowly edges Sanders among those who have completely made up their mind. But undecided caucusgoers and those who might change their mind say recent scandals involving Clinton make them significantly less likely to support her."
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Democrats have been trying to pander with the "coal" base for years - It's seen in KY as a very, very transparent attempt to court voters on an issue that they hold important, but also as an issue that is only important to Democratic candidates while they are campaigning, and not at all afterwards. Nobody who is part of that base is going to believe them on anything at this point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:16 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:16 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is because I don't think Sanders' victory is inevitable that I'm going to canvas for the campaign the next couple Sundays and attend my caucus on March 1st.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:20 AM on February 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:20 AM on February 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
If you're wanting coal dead I would suggest Clinton isn't going to go up against the fossil fuel industry any time soon.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:27 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 8:27 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
During the debates when they asked Hillary if white people had cause to be resentful she blew that one hard. Sander's message of "the poor have it hard" resonates and his qualifier that "it sucks even more if you also don't happen to be white" while being poor sucks more seems spot on. Hillary's some white people have a right to be upset was laughable. Fixing income inequality will go a lot further toward fixing this ill than trying to legitimize the complaints along racial lines. In short, yes, white folk do have legitimate complaints, but not because they are white. While PoC do have complaints based entirely on the color of their skin.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:32 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 8:32 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
First Nevada poll that I'm aware of: Clinton and Sanders tied.
Ehh, it's an untrustworthy Republican push poll, not included in 538 or the Huffington Pollster. It has questions like:
While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation received millions in foreign donations and did not disclose them, despite her promising President Obama that she would do so. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
I bet things are tightening in Nevada but I wouldn't trust this as evidence.
posted by crazy with stars at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ehh, it's an untrustworthy Republican push poll, not included in 538 or the Huffington Pollster. It has questions like:
While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation received millions in foreign donations and did not disclose them, despite her promising President Obama that she would do so. Does this make you more or less likely to support her?
I bet things are tightening in Nevada but I wouldn't trust this as evidence.
posted by crazy with stars at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
The DNC overturned Obama's ban on lobbyist and PAC contributions.
Fucks sake, I know they want to stack the decks but that's a hugely self destructive way of doing it, while possibly not actually helping their candidate since her problem is being seen as the candidate of stacked decks and special interests.
posted by Artw at 8:46 AM on February 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Fucks sake, I know they want to stack the decks but that's a hugely self destructive way of doing it, while possibly not actually helping their candidate since her problem is being seen as the candidate of stacked decks and special interests.
posted by Artw at 8:46 AM on February 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
If Trump really started the whole campaign just to piss off Jeb, that'd truly be the ultimate fuck you, right there.
omg
this would go right to the front of the highlight reel that schoolyard bullies watch to psych themselves up to steal some kid's lunch money. like, this is the platonic form of the craft, sit back and watch something beautiful happen.
posted by indubitable at 8:51 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
omg
this would go right to the front of the highlight reel that schoolyard bullies watch to psych themselves up to steal some kid's lunch money. like, this is the platonic form of the craft, sit back and watch something beautiful happen.
posted by indubitable at 8:51 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
crazy with stars, thank you for looking at the poll more critically than I did.
I wonder what this race would look like if the Republicans and the DNC weren't trying to force their narratives, and what level of activity they had on the 2008 Obama-Clinton competition.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:52 AM on February 12, 2016
I wonder what this race would look like if the Republicans and the DNC weren't trying to force their narratives, and what level of activity they had on the 2008 Obama-Clinton competition.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:52 AM on February 12, 2016
If you're wanting coal dead I would suggest Clinton isn't going to go up against the fossil fuel industry any time soon.
IIRC, Clinton was the only one last night who name checked the coal industry, going on to describe it as an important part of our energy industry or something like that.
posted by indubitable at 9:01 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
IIRC, Clinton was the only one last night who name checked the coal industry, going on to describe it as an important part of our energy industry or something like that.
posted by indubitable at 9:01 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
> The DNC overturned Obama's ban on lobbyist and PAC contributions.
From the article:
How does this help Clinton? It furthers the narrative that the fix is in for Hillary, it furthers the narrative that she's the establishment's candidate, and it furthers the narrative that big money can buy candidates. So how does it help other than in dollars?
It is also, on the surface, another Obama failure. His own party is charting a course without him.
I read this and think, Way to give Sanders another talking point.
Example: The DNC changed the rules to help out Clinton. We know why they did this. Money corrupts. Even Obama believed this wasn't the way to go, but they pushed aside his changes to pave the way for their pick of candidate. The special interests have to be stopped. I call on Secretary Clinton to refuse this money and not insult the intelligence of Americans by pretending she'll be able to take these monies without being influenced.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:03 AM on February 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
From the article:
The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.So here's my question….
The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.
How does this help Clinton? It furthers the narrative that the fix is in for Hillary, it furthers the narrative that she's the establishment's candidate, and it furthers the narrative that big money can buy candidates. So how does it help other than in dollars?
It is also, on the surface, another Obama failure. His own party is charting a course without him.
I read this and think, Way to give Sanders another talking point.
Example: The DNC changed the rules to help out Clinton. We know why they did this. Money corrupts. Even Obama believed this wasn't the way to go, but they pushed aside his changes to pave the way for their pick of candidate. The special interests have to be stopped. I call on Secretary Clinton to refuse this money and not insult the intelligence of Americans by pretending she'll be able to take these monies without being influenced.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:03 AM on February 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
how does it help other than in dollars?
maybe they think the dollars are all that is needed. that would fit the narrative.
posted by andrewcooke at 9:05 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
maybe they think the dollars are all that is needed. that would fit the narrative.
posted by andrewcooke at 9:05 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse
Losing New Hampshire by 22 points to an avowed socialist was bad enough for Hillary Clinton. But then came the news — first reported by WaPo — that the State Department had opened a inquiry regarding the activities of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation during her time time as secretary of state. And bad went to way, way worse.
posted by syzygy at 9:06 AM on February 12, 2016
Losing New Hampshire by 22 points to an avowed socialist was bad enough for Hillary Clinton. But then came the news — first reported by WaPo — that the State Department had opened a inquiry regarding the activities of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation during her time time as secretary of state. And bad went to way, way worse.
posted by syzygy at 9:06 AM on February 12, 2016
How does this help Clinton? It furthers the narrative that the fix is in for Hillary, it furthers the narrative that she's the establishment's candidate, and it furthers the narrative that big money can buy candidates. So how does it help other than in dollars?
The rule was changed last summer. I doubt they thought Sanders would make it this far. I really don't think they took the establishment/big-money concerns seriously (and I think they're still failing to do so).
posted by melissasaurus at 9:09 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The rule was changed last summer. I doubt they thought Sanders would make it this far. I really don't think they took the establishment/big-money concerns seriously (and I think they're still failing to do so).
posted by melissasaurus at 9:09 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Look I'm no Hillary supporter, but WTF is up with all these freaking investigations? Who's calling for them to be done now?
(can't read the articles. reached my limit a Wapo. who knew?)
posted by Trochanter at 9:09 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
(can't read the articles. reached my limit a Wapo. who knew?)
posted by Trochanter at 9:09 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The reversal was limited until today: Last summer the DNC announced it was lifting a ban on lobbyist contributions to convention-related expenses.
The current ban lift sounds like it is more sweeping and announced this morning. The DNC’s recent, sweeping reversal of the previous ban on donations from lobbyists and political action committees was confirmed by three Democratic lobbyists who said they have already received solicitations from the committee.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:12 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The current ban lift sounds like it is more sweeping and announced this morning. The DNC’s recent, sweeping reversal of the previous ban on donations from lobbyists and political action committees was confirmed by three Democratic lobbyists who said they have already received solicitations from the committee.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:12 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The current ban lift sounds like it is more sweeping and announced this morning.
Yeah, then I have no explanations. I don't understand who is making decisions at the DNC. Do they not see how this looks bad for Clinton? How it looks bad for the party as a whole, especially since we might be up against PAC-less Trump? UGHHHHHHH.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, then I have no explanations. I don't understand who is making decisions at the DNC. Do they not see how this looks bad for Clinton? How it looks bad for the party as a whole, especially since we might be up against PAC-less Trump? UGHHHHHHH.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
So here's another question I have from last night's debate:
What Super PAC does Sanders have?
My twitter feed lit up with people calling him a liar and saying he does have PAC support, that a candidate can't have or not have one, that PACs are independent, and the candidate gets no choice, etc.
Now, I get a lot of the rules around PACs (thanks to the Colbert show), but the only PAC I know supporting Sanders is MoveOn, and they aren't a Sanders PAC, they are a progressive PAC and they more gave their endorsement of Sanders after their members voted, rather than being a PAC created to support Sanders. Only other PAC support I know he's getting is from the GOP PACs attacking Clinton.
I think that's a far stretch to suggest he has a PAC.
This said, I thought of a get rich quick scheme a while back of making a Sanders PAC (under the rules he couldn't stop me) and then just cashing fat checks. Like all my get rich schemes though there's a good chance I'd end up jailed and I am lazy, so I didn't, but I still don't get what's to stop someone from making a Bernie PAC. Hell, even Clinton could make one just to shut him up.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:25 AM on February 12, 2016
What Super PAC does Sanders have?
My twitter feed lit up with people calling him a liar and saying he does have PAC support, that a candidate can't have or not have one, that PACs are independent, and the candidate gets no choice, etc.
Now, I get a lot of the rules around PACs (thanks to the Colbert show), but the only PAC I know supporting Sanders is MoveOn, and they aren't a Sanders PAC, they are a progressive PAC and they more gave their endorsement of Sanders after their members voted, rather than being a PAC created to support Sanders. Only other PAC support I know he's getting is from the GOP PACs attacking Clinton.
I think that's a far stretch to suggest he has a PAC.
This said, I thought of a get rich quick scheme a while back of making a Sanders PAC (under the rules he couldn't stop me) and then just cashing fat checks. Like all my get rich schemes though there's a good chance I'd end up jailed and I am lazy, so I didn't, but I still don't get what's to stop someone from making a Bernie PAC. Hell, even Clinton could make one just to shut him up.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:25 AM on February 12, 2016
I don't understand who is making decisions at the DNC.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who is rightly despised by many if not most Democrats for being completely useless except for the times when she is actively damaging.
Do they not see how this looks bad for Clinton? How it looks bad for the party as a whole, especially since we might be up against PAC-less Trump?
Her and her staff have extreme tunnel vision, so yes, they don't see it.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who is rightly despised by many if not most Democrats for being completely useless except for the times when she is actively damaging.
Do they not see how this looks bad for Clinton? How it looks bad for the party as a whole, especially since we might be up against PAC-less Trump?
Her and her staff have extreme tunnel vision, so yes, they don't see it.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
can't read the articles. reached my limit a Wapo. who knew?
{Open Link in New Private Window}
posted by OmieWise at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
{Open Link in New Private Window}
posted by OmieWise at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can only presume at this point that Debbie Wasserman Schultz plans to take the money and run.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2016
The main SuperPAC support for Sanders so far is National Nurses United. He doesn't fundraise for it. Clinton fundraises for hers.
posted by clawsoon at 9:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 9:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse
I find this activity of the state department curious. I know that it operates with a bit of independence from the President and the AG, but not that much independence. Couldn't Obama quietly signal that they should hold off for a while, or otherwise slow this process down? We choose to not investigate and not prosecute people all the time. It would be called a political move by the Republicans but nobody would pay that much attention, considering their Benghazi committee has been holding hearings for an eternity and we know they'll believe anything bad about the Clintons is true. One thing about this that makes sense to me is: if the Clinton foundation has committed any prosecutable crimes (I have no idea), then surely they want to get it out in the open before HRC becomes president and thus becomes essentially impossible to prosecute.
All these investigations are really strange coming from the Democratic administration. Could you imagine the Bush white house opening an investigation on the Republican front-runner during the election?
Maybe Obama isn't a Hillary fan after all. Or maybe I just went off the tin-foil hat deep end.
posted by dis_integration at 9:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find this activity of the state department curious. I know that it operates with a bit of independence from the President and the AG, but not that much independence. Couldn't Obama quietly signal that they should hold off for a while, or otherwise slow this process down? We choose to not investigate and not prosecute people all the time. It would be called a political move by the Republicans but nobody would pay that much attention, considering their Benghazi committee has been holding hearings for an eternity and we know they'll believe anything bad about the Clintons is true. One thing about this that makes sense to me is: if the Clinton foundation has committed any prosecutable crimes (I have no idea), then surely they want to get it out in the open before HRC becomes president and thus becomes essentially impossible to prosecute.
All these investigations are really strange coming from the Democratic administration. Could you imagine the Bush white house opening an investigation on the Republican front-runner during the election?
Maybe Obama isn't a Hillary fan after all. Or maybe I just went off the tin-foil hat deep end.
posted by dis_integration at 9:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't understand who is making decisions at the DNC.
Corrupt people. People who will take money to fuck over America. That is Hillary Clinton's constituency and we are going to make her President. God help us.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:29 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Corrupt people. People who will take money to fuck over America. That is Hillary Clinton's constituency and we are going to make her President. God help us.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:29 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
It looks like M-3UB0's latest firmware upgrade hasn't fixed the glitch.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:33 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 9:33 AM on February 12, 2016
[…] or otherwise slow this process down?
They have been. State asked for a month extension because it snowed over the weekend. Also, they forgot how to job and didn't send all the documents to the correct people to sign off on because they have the dumb, so please give us more time 'cause reasons. Of course this means the emails wouldn't be released until after super Tuesday.
Note, links are just top google grabs for "state delays clinton email release."
posted by cjorgensen at 9:36 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
They have been. State asked for a month extension because it snowed over the weekend. Also, they forgot how to job and didn't send all the documents to the correct people to sign off on because they have the dumb, so please give us more time 'cause reasons. Of course this means the emails wouldn't be released until after super Tuesday.
Note, links are just top google grabs for "state delays clinton email release."
posted by cjorgensen at 9:36 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
All these investigations are really strange coming from the Democratic administration.
That's why I'm inclined to believe there is some there there (unlike the GOP House 'investigations').
posted by melissasaurus at 9:38 AM on February 12, 2016
That's why I'm inclined to believe there is some there there (unlike the GOP House 'investigations').
posted by melissasaurus at 9:38 AM on February 12, 2016
From the WaPo article:
There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State.
This is why I get frustrated when people claim it's just a partisan plot. Just because it's extremely beneficial to the Republican narrative doesn't mean that it's something driven solely by them, or that there's nothing there of substance.
All these investigations are really strange coming from the Democratic administration
Only if you think that it's a partisan issue. Which I believe it isn't.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State.
This is why I get frustrated when people claim it's just a partisan plot. Just because it's extremely beneficial to the Republican narrative doesn't mean that it's something driven solely by them, or that there's nothing there of substance.
All these investigations are really strange coming from the Democratic administration
Only if you think that it's a partisan issue. Which I believe it isn't.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Couldn't Obama quietly signal that they should hold off for a while, or otherwise slow this process down? ... Maybe Obama isn't a Hillary fan after all.
I mean, so long as we're trying on tin foil hats, why not assume the investigations will be cursory and shallow, and that the Clintons will be officially cleared of all wrong-doing well in advance of the actual election?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, so long as we're trying on tin foil hats, why not assume the investigations will be cursory and shallow, and that the Clintons will be officially cleared of all wrong-doing well in advance of the actual election?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
{Open Link in New Private Window}
I have no idea why that works, but it works. Thanks a bunch.
From the article:
But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State.
Does it though? Does it strain credulity? It strains credulity that there's NOT an agenda in the middle of a campaign.
posted by Trochanter at 9:40 AM on February 12, 2016
I have no idea why that works, but it works. Thanks a bunch.
From the article:
But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State.
Does it though? Does it strain credulity? It strains credulity that there's NOT an agenda in the middle of a campaign.
posted by Trochanter at 9:40 AM on February 12, 2016
Sanders does have a PAC, Progressive Voters of America, and they give 30k/year to establishment Democrats.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:44 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:44 AM on February 12, 2016
Steve Linick, Inspector General at State, was appointed in 2013 after a 5.5 year vacancy which included the entirety of Clinton's term. He had a lot to catch up on. I assume that's why we're just now hearing about some of this stuff from her tenure at State:
But coming from a Democrat-run State department? It'd be one thing if it was Condi Rice's department, but John Kerry is running it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:47 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The straight talk was nothing new from Linick, who has surprised many inside and outside the State Department by his willingness to publicly bash the department for lapses ranging from Benghazi to its mismanagement of millions of dollars of U.S. reconstruction money in Iraq and Afghanistan. Linick is also an unusually active inspector general: His office has issued dozens of reports this year, including seven audits in the month of December alone. ...Does it though? Does it strain credulity? It strains credulity that there's NOT an agenda in the middle of a campaign.
And the high tempo is no accident: Linick is in a literal sense making up for lost time. When he took his post in late 2013, the inspector general position had been vacant for an eye-opening five and a half years, leaving the department without an independent and Senate-confirmed watchdog during a period marred by some of the worst miscues in the State Department’s recent history. The void spanned the entire length of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and was at the time the longest in the history of any federal department.
But coming from a Democrat-run State department? It'd be one thing if it was Condi Rice's department, but John Kerry is running it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:47 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
some of the worst miscues in the State Department’s recent history.
That's the sort of thing that makes me wonder about people who talk about all of Hillary's foreign policy experience. Experience at what? Sucking?
posted by Trochanter at 9:51 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's the sort of thing that makes me wonder about people who talk about all of Hillary's foreign policy experience. Experience at what? Sucking?
posted by Trochanter at 9:51 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
How is it so hard to believe that Clinton may have actually done something that warrants investigation? Is it really so much easier to believe that the State Department - part of the Democratically controlled executive branch - and the FBI are really just puppets of the Republicans?
That the Republicans are driving a lot of the inertia behind this is not mutually exclusive to some actual wrongdoing worth investigating, and that investigation shouldn't just be put off because the timing of it is politically disadvantageous for a candidate. If there's no substance to this, then it shouldn't be a problem. If, however, there is, having that come up in the middle of the General -- or during an actual tenure as POTUS, if it came to that -- is much, much worse.
This is actually why I've been so disappointed with how this has been handled. While I've been open about being a Sanders supporter, I really didn't think that was a realistic option until fairly recently - It seemed a sure bet that it would be Clinton. And the handling of this has been incredibly poor - The delays on everything and the changing of her statements on it drive a perception that she's hiding something. My big fear is that it may be a reality, and not just a perception.
On preview: Holy shit, 5.5 years without an Inspector General. So there was literally no oversight. That doesn't help any of the narratives.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:53 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
That the Republicans are driving a lot of the inertia behind this is not mutually exclusive to some actual wrongdoing worth investigating, and that investigation shouldn't just be put off because the timing of it is politically disadvantageous for a candidate. If there's no substance to this, then it shouldn't be a problem. If, however, there is, having that come up in the middle of the General -- or during an actual tenure as POTUS, if it came to that -- is much, much worse.
This is actually why I've been so disappointed with how this has been handled. While I've been open about being a Sanders supporter, I really didn't think that was a realistic option until fairly recently - It seemed a sure bet that it would be Clinton. And the handling of this has been incredibly poor - The delays on everything and the changing of her statements on it drive a perception that she's hiding something. My big fear is that it may be a reality, and not just a perception.
On preview: Holy shit, 5.5 years without an Inspector General. So there was literally no oversight. That doesn't help any of the narratives.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:53 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders does have a PAC, Progressive Voters of America, and they give 30k/year to establishment Democrats.
International Business Times has the credibility of a toddler with cookie crumbs on her face. That said, even in that article, that Pac gives money to other candidates. Did Sanders raise money for that PAC? Did he take money from that PAC? Connect the dots for me. How is that his PAC or how is that a PAC supporting his campaign?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:53 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
International Business Times has the credibility of a toddler with cookie crumbs on her face. That said, even in that article, that Pac gives money to other candidates. Did Sanders raise money for that PAC? Did he take money from that PAC? Connect the dots for me. How is that his PAC or how is that a PAC supporting his campaign?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:53 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure why I can't find this, but I know they've granted another extension to release more Clinton emails and I'm wondering if that extension is before or after South Carolina. To be honest I haven't been following the email thing too closely but the delays are bothering me.
On preview, cjorgenson is on it, including Google search terms!
They wouldn't be so stupid as to actually be hiding something until after people vote, would they? I'm not assuming anything about the content, but this is shady.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:54 AM on February 12, 2016
On preview, cjorgenson is on it, including Google search terms!
They wouldn't be so stupid as to actually be hiding something until after people vote, would they? I'm not assuming anything about the content, but this is shady.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:54 AM on February 12, 2016
From the WaPo article:
Just to be clear, that isn't an article, it's an Op-Ed. I tend to agree with Cilliza's take a lot, but you aren't quoting reporting in the "strains credibility bit," you are quoting his opinion.
posted by OmieWise at 9:55 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to be clear, that isn't an article, it's an Op-Ed. I tend to agree with Cilliza's take a lot, but you aren't quoting reporting in the "strains credibility bit," you are quoting his opinion.
posted by OmieWise at 9:55 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
{Open Link in New Private Window}
I have no idea why that works, but it works. Thanks a bunch.
The # of visits counter is based on a cookie. Incognito / Private windows don't give that to the requesting site, so it thinks you're visiting for the first time. .
posted by zarq at 9:58 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea why that works, but it works. Thanks a bunch.
The # of visits counter is based on a cookie. Incognito / Private windows don't give that to the requesting site, so it thinks you're visiting for the first time. .
posted by zarq at 9:58 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The # of visits counter is based on a cookie. Incognito / Private windows don't give that to the requesting site, so it thinks you're visiting for the first time. .
SECRET INSIDER INFO GIVES YOU ACCESS TO WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE!!
EARN BIG MONEY PETTING KITTENS IN YOUR OWN HOME!!
posted by Trochanter at 10:02 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
SECRET INSIDER INFO GIVES YOU ACCESS TO WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE!!
EARN BIG MONEY PETTING KITTENS IN YOUR OWN HOME!!
posted by Trochanter at 10:02 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
The delays on releasing email will keep going well into the general. It's death by a thousand cuts. Clinton has never learned the lesson of getting out in front of something and moving on. This is why the Goldman Sachs transcripts will never die until they are released. She laughed at the reporter asking about them initially and pretending she could make him go away by pretending even harder. Then when asked by Anderson Cooper pretended she had no idea and would have to look into it. Then when asked again her camping said voters had no interest in such piffling things, and when asked again said she'd be a leader on this and release them once every other single person who had ever giving a paid speech had gone first then she'd be happy to release hers. And so on. She just likes taking body blows. At least with the State Department stuff she can disavow having any control over how they investigate, but it still looks sketchy as all get out.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:03 AM on February 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 10:03 AM on February 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Just to be clear, that isn't an article, it's an Op-Ed.
Yes, that is an opinion. One I happen to agree with. It also cites something that isn't an opinion - that the investigations are coming from the State Department and from the FBI. What also isn't an opinion is that the State Department is lead by a Democrat, and part of the Democratically lead Executive branch.
If you believe that the Republicans have pushed for some to investigate this, sure, I'm willing to believe that. It seems considerably less likely that the State Department and the FBI are somehow being controlled by the Republicans. Maybe you disagree, I don't know.
The motivation is absolutely political, but the investigations themselves, and what may come out of them, are not partisan in of themselves - the events that lead to them and the discoveries that may come from this are where any real problems could arise here.
So here's my question:
Is the problem that the Republicans are driving this, or is the problem that there are things worthy of investigation in the first place? While I certainly dislike and distrust the motivation, I tend to agree that the latter is a much larger problem here - and that may be where I'm clashing with others.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:07 AM on February 12, 2016
Yes, that is an opinion. One I happen to agree with. It also cites something that isn't an opinion - that the investigations are coming from the State Department and from the FBI. What also isn't an opinion is that the State Department is lead by a Democrat, and part of the Democratically lead Executive branch.
If you believe that the Republicans have pushed for some to investigate this, sure, I'm willing to believe that. It seems considerably less likely that the State Department and the FBI are somehow being controlled by the Republicans. Maybe you disagree, I don't know.
The motivation is absolutely political, but the investigations themselves, and what may come out of them, are not partisan in of themselves - the events that lead to them and the discoveries that may come from this are where any real problems could arise here.
So here's my question:
Is the problem that the Republicans are driving this, or is the problem that there are things worthy of investigation in the first place? While I certainly dislike and distrust the motivation, I tend to agree that the latter is a much larger problem here - and that may be where I'm clashing with others.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:07 AM on February 12, 2016
Sanders and the S Word
Trump and Sanders are entirely electable
What's Wrong With Bernie Sander's Message? He Makes People Feel Poor
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the Kind of Discourse We Need
The Big Fight in the Democratic Primary Is Whether President Obama Succeeded
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:14 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump and Sanders are entirely electable
What's Wrong With Bernie Sander's Message? He Makes People Feel Poor
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the Kind of Discourse We Need
The Big Fight in the Democratic Primary Is Whether President Obama Succeeded
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:14 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know that many are sick of hearing about her damned emails. I want to make it clear that I'm not just attacking Clinton because she may not be my preferred candidate, or just for fun, or mentioning this because of any other reason outside of that I think that it's an issue that you should be concerned about if you are a Clinton supporter, as opposed to summarily dismissing it as a Republican plot. Yes, it's politically driven, and yes, it's nasty. That's the nature of politics and elections in general.
Believe it or not, I actually want her to be a stronger candidate, so I'm not saying any of this just out of some "let's watch Hillary fail" glee. Far from it. I'll admit that I do come from one particular perspective on this, and that's as somebody who has worked in security and compliance for some time now. Everything I'm seeing from her side looks like a classic cover-up from that perspective... The slow trickle of details to the vagueness to the changing statements -- let alone the server she had set up for herself that's completely unaccountable to anyone else. There's so much here that is so very suspicious.
I honestly feel like the only reason to use delay tactics and to avoid this issue from her side is because there may be a huge bomb hiding somewhere in there - and it really worries me for her.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:20 AM on February 12, 2016
Believe it or not, I actually want her to be a stronger candidate, so I'm not saying any of this just out of some "let's watch Hillary fail" glee. Far from it. I'll admit that I do come from one particular perspective on this, and that's as somebody who has worked in security and compliance for some time now. Everything I'm seeing from her side looks like a classic cover-up from that perspective... The slow trickle of details to the vagueness to the changing statements -- let alone the server she had set up for herself that's completely unaccountable to anyone else. There's so much here that is so very suspicious.
I honestly feel like the only reason to use delay tactics and to avoid this issue from her side is because there may be a huge bomb hiding somewhere in there - and it really worries me for her.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:20 AM on February 12, 2016
DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists (Feb 12)
posted by kyp at 10:23 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by kyp at 10:23 AM on February 12, 2016
This week's Slate Political Gabfest is worth a listen in relation to all this. The exasperation of David Plotz, a major Hillary booster, at HRC having to fight for the nomination, is palpable. You get the feeling that he wants to scream: but she was supposed to be the nominee! And Bazelon, who is more level headed, also seems taken aback by the whole thing, especially by Clinton's failure to put out any of the scandal-tinged fires that surround her. The sense I get from it is that if Sanders wins more primaries, the Democratic establishment is going to lose their shit.
posted by dis_integration at 10:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 10:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think it's kinda a waste of time for us to devote this much attention to the emails at this point. The investigations will happen as they happen and we can't really predict the outcome, so it just falls into another electability argument until we know more. I'd rather focus on the close ties to Wall Street, thinking Kissinger isn't a piece of shit, etc. The things the Democratic party shouldn't be about. Not an investigation we have no control over. That's just a scandal. Moving the party towards not being involved in all this evil stuff is more important to me.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Time: Bernie Sanders Volunteers Develop Canvassing App
Wow. They're cutting out the establishment data vendor after the recent fiasco.
posted by mikelieman at 10:29 AM on February 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Wow. They're cutting out the establishment data vendor after the recent fiasco.
posted by mikelieman at 10:29 AM on February 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
cjorgensen: is opensecrets.org a less biased source?
I'll admit that I don't understand what relationship "Affiliate: Bernie Sanders (I-VT)" implies.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:31 AM on February 12, 2016
I'll admit that I don't understand what relationship "Affiliate: Bernie Sanders (I-VT)" implies.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:31 AM on February 12, 2016
2016 ALL CANDIDATES DEBATE!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:33 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:33 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Progressive Voters of America is a "Leadership PAC", not a Super PAC. It cannot be used to fund Bernie's own campaign, but only to help fund other candidates campaigns.
posted by dis_integration at 10:37 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by dis_integration at 10:37 AM on February 12, 2016
So are we now targeting any PAC as opposed to just SuperPACs as being problematic? My local blacksmith association has four times the budget of Progressive Voters of America...
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, that is an opinion. One I happen to agree with.
Sure, and I'm not actually disagreeing with the conclusions he comes to, I'm just saying that it's important to maintain the distinction between articles and opinion pieces when we talk about them.
posted by OmieWise at 10:41 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, and I'm not actually disagreeing with the conclusions he comes to, I'm just saying that it's important to maintain the distinction between articles and opinion pieces when we talk about them.
posted by OmieWise at 10:41 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
They have been. State asked for a month extension because it snowed over the weekend.
I'm not going to defend this email foot-dragging in any way, but to call the impact of that blizzard on the area "it snowed" is fucking nonsense and my still-aching lower back would like to have some words with you about it. When you consider workforce outage because schools were closed for the full subsequent week there were a lot of lost workhours.
posted by phearlez at 10:41 AM on February 12, 2016
I'm not going to defend this email foot-dragging in any way, but to call the impact of that blizzard on the area "it snowed" is fucking nonsense and my still-aching lower back would like to have some words with you about it. When you consider workforce outage because schools were closed for the full subsequent week there were a lot of lost workhours.
posted by phearlez at 10:41 AM on February 12, 2016
I never said that it was a Super PAC, only that it was a PAC, in response to I think that's a far stretch to suggest he has a PAC.
And I linked to the (apparently partisan) ibtimes article because it stated that the purpose of that PAC was to help establishment candidates, which is contrary to the narrative that he doesn't help the party.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:42 AM on February 12, 2016
And I linked to the (apparently partisan) ibtimes article because it stated that the purpose of that PAC was to help establishment candidates, which is contrary to the narrative that he doesn't help the party.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:42 AM on February 12, 2016
I agree 100% re: opinion articles, and it's a fair point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:42 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:42 AM on February 12, 2016
Perhaps the State Department doesn't permit its employees to telework, but I can tell you that my people here in suburban Maryland worked that week, even if they couldn't drive to the office to do it.
posted by wintermind at 10:43 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 10:43 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Radiophonic Oddity: cjorgensen: is opensecrets.org a less biased source?
From my limited understanding of Open Secrets, "Bernie's" PAC received a total of $23,116 in donations in 2015, and only received 4 'large' donations (more than $200) from individuals during that time, for a total of $5,020 from 'large' donations.
This is a totally different league than the one in which Hillary Clinton is operating.
posted by syzygy at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
From my limited understanding of Open Secrets, "Bernie's" PAC received a total of $23,116 in donations in 2015, and only received 4 'large' donations (more than $200) from individuals during that time, for a total of $5,020 from 'large' donations.
This is a totally different league than the one in which Hillary Clinton is operating.
posted by syzygy at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
There Will Be Blood: Why the South Carolina Primaries Could Be the Ugliest Yet
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
/I WOULD HAVE CALLED THIS ONE 'PALMETTO BUGS'posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
{Open Link in New Private Window}
I have no idea why that works, but it works. Thanks a bunch.
The # of visits counter is based on a cookie. Incognito / Private windows don't give that to the requesting site, so it thinks you're visiting for the first time.
There's a Chrome extension you can use to tell your browser to always open certain sites in incognito mode. Useful to get around leaky paywalls and also to open sites where you don't want them to get any useful tracking info from you (assuming you're not using something like Ghostery for that)
posted by phearlez at 10:46 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea why that works, but it works. Thanks a bunch.
The # of visits counter is based on a cookie. Incognito / Private windows don't give that to the requesting site, so it thinks you're visiting for the first time.
There's a Chrome extension you can use to tell your browser to always open certain sites in incognito mode. Useful to get around leaky paywalls and also to open sites where you don't want them to get any useful tracking info from you (assuming you're not using something like Ghostery for that)
posted by phearlez at 10:46 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
10 reasons why voters are turning to Bernie Sanders
When we (The Guardian) asked our readers who they wanted to see as Democratic candidate, we were deluged with responses – most of them in favour of Bernie Sanders
posted by syzygy at 10:48 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
When we (The Guardian) asked our readers who they wanted to see as Democratic candidate, we were deluged with responses – most of them in favour of Bernie Sanders
posted by syzygy at 10:48 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ok, at some point here, I missed the point of what we are talking about with this PAC. I don't know why we are really questioning if someone who wasn't even a member of the Democratic party until 2015 has a large history of supporting the Democratic party...
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:49 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:49 AM on February 12, 2016
2016 ALL CANDIDATES DEBATE!
Am I the only one who has had the Marco Rubio song stuck in their head for days? It really does poll quite well, in my household at least.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:50 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Am I the only one who has had the Marco Rubio song stuck in their head for days? It really does poll quite well, in my household at least.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:50 AM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Perhaps the State Department doesn't permit its employees to telework, but I can tell you that my people here in suburban Maryland worked that week, even if they couldn't drive to the office to do it.
You are free to believe that the Friday to Friday period encompassing the blizzard contained better than 50% productivity if you like. I do not.
posted by phearlez at 10:51 AM on February 12, 2016
You are free to believe that the Friday to Friday period encompassing the blizzard contained better than 50% productivity if you like. I do not.
posted by phearlez at 10:51 AM on February 12, 2016
I'm not arguing that his PAC is in the same league as Clinton's. But it's disingenuous, imo, to say that he doesn't have any PAC when he does.
In 2014: Last year, Sanders directed most of his political contributions to a leadership political action committee he runs, Progressive Voters of America, which can be tapped for expenses not directly related to a campaign.
Isn't the problem the SuperPACs, not that he has a PAC? And why shouldn't I challenge claims like I think that's a far stretch to suggest he has a PAC? I want him to be a strong candidate and asserting things that aren't true isn't the way I prefer to live.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:54 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
In 2014: Last year, Sanders directed most of his political contributions to a leadership political action committee he runs, Progressive Voters of America, which can be tapped for expenses not directly related to a campaign.
Isn't the problem the SuperPACs, not that he has a PAC? And why shouldn't I challenge claims like I think that's a far stretch to suggest he has a PAC? I want him to be a strong candidate and asserting things that aren't true isn't the way I prefer to live.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:54 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Radiophonic Oddity:
Sure thing - it's not my intention to be fighty here. I just thought the donation totals to Bernie's PAC were pretty interesting.
posted by syzygy at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2016
Sure thing - it's not my intention to be fighty here. I just thought the donation totals to Bernie's PAC were pretty interesting.
posted by syzygy at 10:58 AM on February 12, 2016
You are free to believe that the Friday to Friday period encompassing the blizzard contained better than 50% productivity if you like. I do not.
The snow thing is transparently a weak excuse for having "misplaced" 7000 pages of emails for months:
"In a filing last month, the State Department said it needed a one-month extension to release the final set of emails because approximately 7,000 pages of them had been misplaced for a period of several months before they could be sent to other government agencies to review.
That error, State argued, compounded by a weather-related government closure, meant they wouldn't be able to get the final batch of emails out by the original January 29 deadline."
posted by dialetheia at 11:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
The snow thing is transparently a weak excuse for having "misplaced" 7000 pages of emails for months:
"In a filing last month, the State Department said it needed a one-month extension to release the final set of emails because approximately 7,000 pages of them had been misplaced for a period of several months before they could be sent to other government agencies to review.
That error, State argued, compounded by a weather-related government closure, meant they wouldn't be able to get the final batch of emails out by the original January 29 deadline."
posted by dialetheia at 11:04 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I didn't suggest that State should ignore its procedures regarding sensitive materials. I'm simply pointing out that the storm and its aftermath did not result in work stoppage at all federal agencies, and it shouldn't have. I shoveled as much snow as anyone in central Maryland, I'm well aware of the storm's impacts.
posted by wintermind at 11:04 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by wintermind at 11:04 AM on February 12, 2016
They certainly are interesting donation amounts! I'm perpetually amazed that he's walking the walk year after year and remaining true to these values.
Also that he raised nearly 716k in Q2 2014, a non-election year for him.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:08 AM on February 12, 2016
Also that he raised nearly 716k in Q2 2014, a non-election year for him.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:08 AM on February 12, 2016
What are we actually discussing with this PAC? This seems about as controversy free as I could possibly imagine...
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:08 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:08 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
That it's awesome he can fundraise so well from almost entirely small donors! And that the PAC supports Democratic candidates, which is counter to assertions made by various people.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:12 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:12 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, and again based on my limited understanding of the data at Open Secrets, Bernie received <$500 from leadership PACs in 2015.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, received more money from leadership PACs ($235K) in the same time period than any other presidential candidate, from either party (with Rubio coming in second at $70K).
posted by syzygy at 11:20 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, received more money from leadership PACs ($235K) in the same time period than any other presidential candidate, from either party (with Rubio coming in second at $70K).
posted by syzygy at 11:20 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Indeed it does support Democratic candidates.
Looking over the candidate list - I think that with Landrieu and Grimes on that list, the two that I know of off the top of my head who were VERY much "establishment" candidates, there really shouldn't be any questions or controversy here, unless you want to nitpick over if the candidates were really progressive or not.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looking over the candidate list - I think that with Landrieu and Grimes on that list, the two that I know of off the top of my head who were VERY much "establishment" candidates, there really shouldn't be any questions or controversy here, unless you want to nitpick over if the candidates were really progressive or not.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:26 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm simply pointing out that the storm and its aftermath did not result in work stoppage at all federal agencies, and it shouldn't have.
Well, you can tell it to everyone like me who had to cope with having kids home from school for an entire week because of school closures. You can tell it to everyone who had liberal leave open to them because of OPM decisions for 4 full workdays. Blah blah blah etc.
I'm not disputing State making a tremendous fuckup of this process in every other way. I'm just saying that "it snowed over the weekend" is fucking bullshit and insulting to those of us who dealt with the weather event and the repercussions of local government choices. You live here and it didn't make much of a blip in your life? Good for you. Not true for a tremendous number of people.
posted by phearlez at 11:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, you can tell it to everyone like me who had to cope with having kids home from school for an entire week because of school closures. You can tell it to everyone who had liberal leave open to them because of OPM decisions for 4 full workdays. Blah blah blah etc.
I'm not disputing State making a tremendous fuckup of this process in every other way. I'm just saying that "it snowed over the weekend" is fucking bullshit and insulting to those of us who dealt with the weather event and the repercussions of local government choices. You live here and it didn't make much of a blip in your life? Good for you. Not true for a tremendous number of people.
posted by phearlez at 11:28 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm simply pointing out that the storm and its aftermath did not result in work stoppage at all federal agencies, and it shouldn't have.
When, as cjelli pointed out, the work involved specifically cannot be done on home computers or even over home Internet connections and involves allegations of the same, your pointing out that other people did work from home is like saying that the snow didn't affect cranberry farmers.
posted by Etrigan at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
When, as cjelli pointed out, the work involved specifically cannot be done on home computers or even over home Internet connections and involves allegations of the same, your pointing out that other people did work from home is like saying that the snow didn't affect cranberry farmers.
posted by Etrigan at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I won't nitpick over whether PVfA PAC supported only progressive candidates, mainly because a big tent party like the Democratic party needs buy-in from more than just progressive candidates. I don't think Mary Landrieu is progressive, but I don't think the enfranchised voting population in Louisiana is ready to field a progressive.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:34 AM on February 12, 2016
See? This is why I can never make small talk; even idle chat about the weather has become mired in controversy!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:38 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, well the weather is WAY worse where I live.
posted by Fleebnork at 11:39 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Fleebnork at 11:39 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
phearlez, I'm sorry that you feel that my description of my own experiences is some kind of attack on you. I guess I'm just tired of hearing other executive agencies making excuses for why they couldn't do their job when I was hard at work doing mine, snow and all.
posted by wintermind at 11:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by wintermind at 11:40 AM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The emails got damp from the snow and they need a little time to hang them in front of the fire to dry.
posted by Fleebnork at 11:42 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Fleebnork at 11:42 AM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Does a 1 week work stoppage really result in a one month delay on what is basically processing of paperwork?
posted by indubitable at 11:44 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 11:44 AM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I won't nitpick over whether PVfA PAC supported only progressive candidates
Neither will I, that was largely sarcasm on my part. I agree with you re: Landrieu and Louisiana.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:47 AM on February 12, 2016
Neither will I, that was largely sarcasm on my part. I agree with you re: Landrieu and Louisiana.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:47 AM on February 12, 2016
Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders Make Major Pledge On Abortion Policy
I wish they asked about Hyde and Helms in the debate.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:48 AM on February 12, 2016
I wish they asked about Hyde and Helms in the debate.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:48 AM on February 12, 2016
Latest Republican poll from South Carolina.
Republican establishment supporters/electability worriers are consoling themselves with, "But looks, 64% of Republicans are against Trump!" They usually fail to note that the Trump+Cruz anti-establishment vote leaves all the establish support put together at (in this poll) only 44%.
It's definitely shaping up to be an interesting election, on both sides.
posted by clawsoon at 12:55 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Republican establishment supporters/electability worriers are consoling themselves with, "But looks, 64% of Republicans are against Trump!" They usually fail to note that the Trump+Cruz anti-establishment vote leaves all the establish support put together at (in this poll) only 44%.
It's definitely shaping up to be an interesting election, on both sides.
posted by clawsoon at 12:55 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ezekiel Kweku (@theshrillest) has a fantastic essay today on Trump's appeal. It's pretty clear that all the attacks from the establishment (e.g. that disastrously stupid "Against Trump" NRO issue) are really only helping him at this point, and Kweku gets at the reason: What Makes A Person Vote For Donald Trump?
To understand the root of Trump’s appeal, we have to look at the most dominant economic trend of postwar America: a sharp increase in income inequality and the subsequent establishment of a new upper class. Since the 1960s, after-tax real income for households at or below the median has barely increased, if at all. Instead, the benefits of economic growth have gone to those households in the top half of the income distribution. In fact, most of the growth has been concentrated at the very top: Household income for those at the cutoff of the top 5 percent of Americans has doubled, and for those at the cutoff of the top 1 percent, it has more than doubled. ...posted by dialetheia at 1:09 PM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
But the sentiment underlying Trump’s support isn’t just that the elites are distant. It’s that they have failed — publicly, repeatedly, and completely. [e.g. the Iraq War, the Great Recession] ...
While Trump is a member of the 1 percent, his career for the past three decades has been to embody a working-class person’s fantasy of what they themselves would be like if they became rich. He has perfected the role. The fact that he has had no role in any significant policy debate or decision in recent memory is an asset, not a liability, because it means that he is not implicated in those failures.
What Makes A Person Vote For Donald Trump?
You know, I keep seeing pieces like this, but almost none of them seem to be based on speaking to actual Trump supporters. Which is not to say that this particular article is bad, but - where are the pieces written by people who have spoken to a bunch of Trump supporters and actually asked them what they think? Or even written BY Trump supporters?
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:16 PM on February 12, 2016
You know, I keep seeing pieces like this, but almost none of them seem to be based on speaking to actual Trump supporters. Which is not to say that this particular article is bad, but - where are the pieces written by people who have spoken to a bunch of Trump supporters and actually asked them what they think? Or even written BY Trump supporters?
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:16 PM on February 12, 2016
where are the pieces written by people who have spoken to a bunch of Trump supporters and actually asked them what they think?
Previously on MetaFilter.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Previously on MetaFilter.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thanks!
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:33 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:33 PM on February 12, 2016
Just in case anyone missed it, Anthony Atamanuik and James Adomian did a hilarious Trump vs Sanders debate earlier this summer. They even made CNN! UCB held a 'debate' with all the Presidential candidates, too. You can tell it was awhile ago because Lincoln Chafee was still running.
posted by dialetheia at 1:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Atamanuik and Adomian also appeared as Trump and Sanders (not sure which one is which) on Comedy Bang Bang recently. You have to get through some really vulgar Gilbert Gottfried stuff first, but it's pretty good.
posted by dis_integration at 1:52 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dis_integration at 1:52 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
where are the pieces written by people who have spoken to a bunch of Trump supporters and actually asked them what they think?
TAL on a christian talk radio show host who supports cruz and his split with a long time listener who supports trump :P (transcript)
posted by kliuless at 2:03 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
TAL on a christian talk radio show host who supports cruz and his split with a long time listener who supports trump :P (transcript)
posted by kliuless at 2:03 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Livestream: Black America Forum with Sen. Sanders
#BlackForumMN
posted by melissasaurus at 2:19 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
#BlackForumMN
posted by melissasaurus at 2:19 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
A SuperPAC supporting Rubio just released an ad that actually makes him sound like a robot. Brilliant!
posted by zombieflanders at 2:29 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 2:29 PM on February 12, 2016
UCB held a 'debate' with all the Presidential candidates, too.
Previously!
posted by Room 641-A at 2:50 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Previously!
posted by Room 641-A at 2:50 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cruz hits Clinton on the email server with Office Space-themed ad: "Damn it feels good to be a Clinton"
posted by dialetheia at 2:53 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 2:53 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
the kweku article linked by dialetheia is really good:
posted by andrewcooke at 2:57 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
When his supporters listen to him, they hear the unpolished, impolitic truths that they themselves believe in, things they believe the average American privately agrees with. [...] So when the media attacks or mocks Trump, portraying him as ignorant, ridiculous, or extreme, his supporters take it as a deeply personal insult. No criticism from the traditional media or the political establishment can really hurt Trump with his supporters, because they don’t just distrust these institutions, they actively despise them. Trump has something almost as politically valuable as the right set of friends — he has the right set of enemies.(mtv wtf)
posted by andrewcooke at 2:57 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to button it up, Trump vs. Sanders begins a national tour tonight.
posted by rhizome at 2:57 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 2:57 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
(mtv wtf)
MTV News made a bunch of high-profile hires this week, none of which are Kennedy. They're back!
posted by rhizome at 3:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
MTV News made a bunch of high-profile hires this week, none of which are Kennedy. They're back!
posted by rhizome at 3:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
That Rubio ad - outside of him sounding like a robot, which he absolutely does - is straight up facism. From the supposed "moderate" candidate. It's no surprise, just sometimes jarring to see it so transparently.
The downer music seems fitting, though.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:05 PM on February 12, 2016
The downer music seems fitting, though.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:05 PM on February 12, 2016
I'm not going to defend this email foot-dragging in any way, but to call the impact of that blizzard on the area "it snowed" is fucking nonsense and my still-aching lower back would like to have some words with you about it. When you consider workforce outage because schools were closed for the full subsequent week there were a lot of lost workhours.
I'm glad you're not defending, because when you wait until the last minute shit happens. When State loses the files, then forgets their own procedures, then blames the weather it starts to look like they are grasping. I'm sure I am glossing over some of heir stall tactics, just as I glossed over the weather. Seriously, a week of snow still looks like the dog ate my homework.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:11 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm glad you're not defending, because when you wait until the last minute shit happens. When State loses the files, then forgets their own procedures, then blames the weather it starts to look like they are grasping. I'm sure I am glossing over some of heir stall tactics, just as I glossed over the weather. Seriously, a week of snow still looks like the dog ate my homework.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:11 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
That Cruz ad makes me want to vote for Clinton. Office Space rules!
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on February 12, 2016
re: explaining Trump supporters, I've always preferred emjaybee's "Racism = Farts" analogy.
posted by indubitable at 3:21 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 3:21 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
FYI the BlackForumMN I linked to above is getting started now.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:35 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 3:35 PM on February 12, 2016
People Keep Talking About 'The Establishment.' What Is It, Anyway?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:43 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:43 PM on February 12, 2016
An Open Letter to Rep. John Lewis
When you use your history as a hero of the Movement to disparage others because you never personally knew them, it is a slap in the face to all those people who fought hard and never made it into the history books or into Congress. It is a slap in the face to people like my grandmother.posted by rhizome at 3:46 PM on February 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
You get the feeling that he wants to scream: but she was supposed to be the nominee! And Bazelon, who is more level headed, also seems taken aback by the whole thing, especially by Clinton's failure to put out any of the scandal-tinged fires that surround her. The sense I get from it is that if Sanders wins more primaries, the Democratic establishment is going to lose their shit.
Good. America is not a monarchy. No heirs presumptive. She wants the presidency, she's going to have to fight at least as hard as Sanders has to get it. Fair is fair.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:52 PM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Good. America is not a monarchy. No heirs presumptive. She wants the presidency, she's going to have to fight at least as hard as Sanders has to get it. Fair is fair.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:52 PM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Madeleine Albright: My Undiplomatic Moment
posted by melissasaurus at 3:56 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:56 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seriously, a week of snow still looks like the dog ate my homework.
For sure; they have earned every bit of derision their slacking and obstruction and half-assedness had caused to be heaped on them. The rest of us here who dealt with the blizzard don't deserve the ongoing BS dismissal and snark over what it was like to deal with a significant storm by sneering that we don't own as many plows as Minnesota or shrugging that it snowed over the weekend. There are at least 19 people and their families who deserve less shitty framing than that.
posted by phearlez at 3:58 PM on February 12, 2016
For sure; they have earned every bit of derision their slacking and obstruction and half-assedness had caused to be heaped on them. The rest of us here who dealt with the blizzard don't deserve the ongoing BS dismissal and snark over what it was like to deal with a significant storm by sneering that we don't own as many plows as Minnesota or shrugging that it snowed over the weekend. There are at least 19 people and their families who deserve less shitty framing than that.
posted by phearlez at 3:58 PM on February 12, 2016
Also, Bernie still casually talks about a health care revolution that was actually voted down when Democrats controlled the house, to keep their jobs mainly. This is not because they don't like the idea, but because state-level elections have a conservative advantage, because conservatives actually vote, and they vote against socialism.
I feel that Congress is in general not going to go overboard with sweeping measures in either direction. Which is why I'm not too terrified of Trump's chances to force Mexico to pay for a giant border wall, or enact a ban against Muslims. It just seems rather too cinematic to actually happen. What would be more possible is for him to enact clandestine scary shit, i.e. PATRIOT Act, NSA wiretapping, which the general public would not or could not see. But then, I'm not sure if Trump is subtle enough to do use the system in such a way. He lacks the policy advisors that Bush had.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel that Congress is in general not going to go overboard with sweeping measures in either direction. Which is why I'm not too terrified of Trump's chances to force Mexico to pay for a giant border wall, or enact a ban against Muslims. It just seems rather too cinematic to actually happen. What would be more possible is for him to enact clandestine scary shit, i.e. PATRIOT Act, NSA wiretapping, which the general public would not or could not see. But then, I'm not sure if Trump is subtle enough to do use the system in such a way. He lacks the policy advisors that Bush had.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which is why I'm not too terrified of Trump's chances to force Mexico to pay for a giant border wall, or enact a ban against Muslims.
That's true. But, there is also some credibility to the theory that "the person at top" kind of sets the mood and temperament of the country. And with Trump elected, I can see hundreds or maybe thousands of little ways that his supporters and people sympathetic with his views would feel it was suddenly acceptable to do out in the open with impunity.
posted by FJT at 4:07 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's true. But, there is also some credibility to the theory that "the person at top" kind of sets the mood and temperament of the country. And with Trump elected, I can see hundreds or maybe thousands of little ways that his supporters and people sympathetic with his views would feel it was suddenly acceptable to do out in the open with impunity.
posted by FJT at 4:07 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Madeleine Albright: My Undiplomatic Moment
"What you thought I meant wasn't what I meant! But I do feel that way."
I hope she was a better diplomat than this.
posted by an animate objects at 4:09 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
"What you thought I meant wasn't what I meant! But I do feel that way."
I hope she was a better diplomat than this.
posted by an animate objects at 4:09 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
An Open Letter to Rep. John Lewis
Your pullquote is fine rhizome, but surely this:
"We are going to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl, or that you once stated to a Clinton biographer that, “[t]he first time I ever heard of Bill Clinton was the 1970s”"
posted by Trochanter at 4:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Your pullquote is fine rhizome, but surely this:
"We are going to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl, or that you once stated to a Clinton biographer that, “[t]he first time I ever heard of Bill Clinton was the 1970s”"
posted by Trochanter at 4:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I hope she was a better diplomat than this.
No shit. This is like reading a racist screed where the guy's defense is, "Shit, I been saying that shit for years, and now you're calling me on it? Look, it's not that I exactly hate black people. I just like white people." Context matters?
Seriously, first rule of damage control is to quit digging.
The idea that women have some special responsibility, and some special punishment for failing in said, is exactly what she should have been spending the last 25 years dispelling, not perpetuating. That essay read exactly like what it was. The product of someone that was a product of her time. This is exactly why we get old and get replaced with new people with new ideas.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:20 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
No shit. This is like reading a racist screed where the guy's defense is, "Shit, I been saying that shit for years, and now you're calling me on it? Look, it's not that I exactly hate black people. I just like white people." Context matters?
Seriously, first rule of damage control is to quit digging.
The idea that women have some special responsibility, and some special punishment for failing in said, is exactly what she should have been spending the last 25 years dispelling, not perpetuating. That essay read exactly like what it was. The product of someone that was a product of her time. This is exactly why we get old and get replaced with new people with new ideas.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:20 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernies lost it comparing hillys talks with Kissenger as tantamount to supporting the Khmer Roughe.
I bet he was the only one in office when we supported Pol Pot AFTER the Vietnamese kicked their ass.
Stupid, bernie
posted by clavdivs at 4:22 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I bet he was the only one in office when we supported Pol Pot AFTER the Vietnamese kicked their ass.
Stupid, bernie
posted by clavdivs at 4:22 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not to pick on the guy, but the jabs write themselves:
You Know You've Made It When John Lewis Hasn't Heard Of You
John Lewis, Perfect Juror
Okay... I did do that to pick on him. On someone who has probably accomplished waaay more than I have. (I'm not sure about that, though, because until now I had never heard of him.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:31 PM on February 12, 2016
You Know You've Made It When John Lewis Hasn't Heard Of You
John Lewis, Perfect Juror
Okay... I did do that to pick on him. On someone who has probably accomplished waaay more than I have. (I'm not sure about that, though, because until now I had never heard of him.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:31 PM on February 12, 2016
At this point, I'm afraid of which other groundbreaking progressives are going to accidentally trip onto their own (s)words in defense of Hillary.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:39 PM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 4:39 PM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
He lacks the policy advisors that Bush had.
Who would be in a Trump Cabinet? Like real people, not Celebrity Apprentices.
posted by sweetkid at 4:50 PM on February 12, 2016
Who would be in a Trump Cabinet? Like real people, not Celebrity Apprentices.
posted by sweetkid at 4:50 PM on February 12, 2016
Bloomberg: "The Trump Doctrine Revealed" for his foreign policy advisors
Though in terms of advisors I also mean actual apparatchiks who know how to work the Washington system. Not aware of Trump having any yet.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:59 PM on February 12, 2016
Though in terms of advisors I also mean actual apparatchiks who know how to work the Washington system. Not aware of Trump having any yet.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:59 PM on February 12, 2016
(I'm not sure about that, though, because until now I had never heard of him.)
... John Lewis is an American hero. And I don't say that about virtually anyone. He's one of the biggest icons of the Civil Rights movement, on a level with MLK.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
... John Lewis is an American hero. And I don't say that about virtually anyone. He's one of the biggest icons of the Civil Rights movement, on a level with MLK.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Okay. I have not read this whole thread, because it has, like the last one, far outstripped my ability to keep up as a guy with a job. Maybe someone has made this point in the thousand comments between where I am and where we are now. I hope so, because I feel like it is a desperately important one and I haven't seen anyone make it so far. Next mega thread I hope I'll get in early to repeat this, but who knows.
There's tension on the Democratic side of this race between Sanders supporters either saying they are straight up not going to vote for Clinton or will do so only while holding their nose. This comment is what really got me thinking about this. The general idea is that Clinton is not going to do anything to get Wall Street's boot off our necks. In this contingent, the primary argument for going ahead and supporting Clinton anyway is that the Supreme Court is important, but they won't like it. I'll grant all of this.
The Supreme Court is not the most important part of this presidential election. Not by a long shot.
According to this article, " 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state — are in Republicans hands." I have not fact checked this, but I see no reason to, either. That's right now. Not to mention the House and Senate.
Let's take it as a given that whichever party wins the White House will make gains down ticket. I mean, I guess it's possible that Trump could win the White House and Democrats could make gains in Congress and state legislators at the same time, but it doesn't seem likely. So, if a republican wins in November, that means they will also make gains in the House, the Senate, and might gain control of another state legislature or two.
Guys, that's amend the Constitution territory. Everything is by no means already lost if Clinton takes the White House, but if the GOP wins in November, it sure will be. Just because the Supreme Court has come down on our side on marriage equality and whatever else doesn't mean that can't be undone. And if the GOP has the White House, the Senate, the House, and 75 percent of state legislatures, you better believe they won't stop at just an amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman.
posted by Caduceus at 5:04 PM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
There's tension on the Democratic side of this race between Sanders supporters either saying they are straight up not going to vote for Clinton or will do so only while holding their nose. This comment is what really got me thinking about this. The general idea is that Clinton is not going to do anything to get Wall Street's boot off our necks. In this contingent, the primary argument for going ahead and supporting Clinton anyway is that the Supreme Court is important, but they won't like it. I'll grant all of this.
The Supreme Court is not the most important part of this presidential election. Not by a long shot.
According to this article, " 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state — are in Republicans hands." I have not fact checked this, but I see no reason to, either. That's right now. Not to mention the House and Senate.
Let's take it as a given that whichever party wins the White House will make gains down ticket. I mean, I guess it's possible that Trump could win the White House and Democrats could make gains in Congress and state legislators at the same time, but it doesn't seem likely. So, if a republican wins in November, that means they will also make gains in the House, the Senate, and might gain control of another state legislature or two.
Guys, that's amend the Constitution territory. Everything is by no means already lost if Clinton takes the White House, but if the GOP wins in November, it sure will be. Just because the Supreme Court has come down on our side on marriage equality and whatever else doesn't mean that can't be undone. And if the GOP has the White House, the Senate, the House, and 75 percent of state legislatures, you better believe they won't stop at just an amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman.
posted by Caduceus at 5:04 PM on February 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Guys, that's amend the Constitution territory.
An amendment requires a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, which is 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. That would require 53 GOP pickups in the House and 13 in the Senate. Not really that close.
posted by Etrigan at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
An amendment requires a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, which is 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. That would require 53 GOP pickups in the House and 13 in the Senate. Not really that close.
posted by Etrigan at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to Article V, Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, "on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," meaning 34 state legislatures would have to submit similarly-worded applications calling for specific amendments or specifying the same type of amendments to be considered. Once an Article V Convention has proposed them, then the amendment or amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.
That's the other option if Congress doesn't vote to send the amendment to the states.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 5:12 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the other option if Congress doesn't vote to send the amendment to the states.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 5:12 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
People Keep Talking About 'The Establishment.' What Is It, Anyway?
I can just hear the soothing public radio voice: "This NPR article is brought to you courtesy of the Ford Foundation..."
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
I can just hear the soothing public radio voice: "This NPR article is brought to you courtesy of the Ford Foundation..."
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't think you're wrong Caduceus; naturally there's a tremendous risk involved if the white house falls into Republican control in the given climate. But that risk can grow.
If the Democrats were really earnest about representing progressive agendas, they would be just as terrified of another 4-8 years of cozying up to big money, big drugs, big ag, big defense, etc as they are of losing gay marriage (which I grant is SO IMPORTANT... but people are starving, freezing, going insane and nobody with deep wallets is even pretending to care.)
Hillary Clinton will run Obama's policies forward. The right's hatred for her can only grow during her presidency, and without an aggressive agenda (that she has avowed not to pursue,) no one will be satisfied by her term. I am afraid of a mediocre 4 years of Hillary and then a massive surge of incredibly angry disaffected people who will elect anyone just to get the Wall Street Democrats out of the white house -- and government entirely. And then we really are fucked, because we won't have a Bernie Sanders to run against them.
posted by an animate objects at 5:16 PM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
If the Democrats were really earnest about representing progressive agendas, they would be just as terrified of another 4-8 years of cozying up to big money, big drugs, big ag, big defense, etc as they are of losing gay marriage (which I grant is SO IMPORTANT... but people are starving, freezing, going insane and nobody with deep wallets is even pretending to care.)
Hillary Clinton will run Obama's policies forward. The right's hatred for her can only grow during her presidency, and without an aggressive agenda (that she has avowed not to pursue,) no one will be satisfied by her term. I am afraid of a mediocre 4 years of Hillary and then a massive surge of incredibly angry disaffected people who will elect anyone just to get the Wall Street Democrats out of the white house -- and government entirely. And then we really are fucked, because we won't have a Bernie Sanders to run against them.
posted by an animate objects at 5:16 PM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
So, it looks like Republicans control both houses (or in the case of Nebraska, the one and only house) of the legislature in 31 states. In another 8, they control one house but not both. And 5 of those look to be pretty certain to remain split. (From Ballotpedia.) That's bad. But it's not enough (even if they do pretty well in November) to let them ratify amendments to the Constitution. Picking up 7 of the 8 houses where they are split would be ... surprising. (One of those 8 are certainly not flipping, since one of them is New York's House, which is currently at 106 Ds to 44 Rs.)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:24 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:24 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The odds on who will be the GOP candidate, as of now. Ignoring the data fluff of updates yet to filter through e.g. the removal of Gilmore.
In a nutshell:
- Trump is the clear favorite, though not a dead cert favorite, at around 11/10.
- At longer odds is a pack of three, namely Rubio (around 3/1), Cruz (9/2), then Bush (11/2).
- Some way significantly longer behind is Kasich, at around 20/1.
- Way way behind is Ben Carson, at between 100/1 and 300/1.
- Roughly half of the bookies are offering odds on three people who are not (yet) running to be the GOP candidate:
Michael Bloomberg, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Their odds are all roughly around the 100/1 mark. Which is gloomy news if you're Ben Caron, I guess.
posted by Wordshore at 5:25 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
In a nutshell:
- Trump is the clear favorite, though not a dead cert favorite, at around 11/10.
- At longer odds is a pack of three, namely Rubio (around 3/1), Cruz (9/2), then Bush (11/2).
- Some way significantly longer behind is Kasich, at around 20/1.
- Way way behind is Ben Carson, at between 100/1 and 300/1.
- Roughly half of the bookies are offering odds on three people who are not (yet) running to be the GOP candidate:
Michael Bloomberg, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Their odds are all roughly around the 100/1 mark. Which is gloomy news if you're Ben Caron, I guess.
posted by Wordshore at 5:25 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
@realDonaldTrump
If @TedCruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:36 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
If @TedCruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:36 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
If @TedCruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen.
We asked for our politics to as closely resemble reality TV as they possibly could. And because this is America, we get what we ask for.
or something
*sob*
posted by an animate objects at 5:38 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
We asked for our politics to as closely resemble reality TV as they possibly could. And because this is America, we get what we ask for.
or something
*sob*
posted by an animate objects at 5:38 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
At the point where you're talking constitutional amendments you also get into the fact that republicans at the state level aren't a perfectly homogenous block. It's the flip side of the tea party loonies. Yes, the freedom caucus in the house is filled with batshit crazy whackos from different places in the country and the structure of our government allows them to cause a real issue with governance. But they're a notable extreme from various locales where they can be that extreme and still get elected. It's why the Senate is rarely that extremist - those folks answer to an entire state's worth of people.
I think you'd find enough republicans in state house positions that aren't that secure that they can vote for any batshit amendment that comes around and still keep their seats. So you have three things going for you: One: a lot of these issues are sops to the fringe that many establishment Rs don't give a crap about. Add in Two: they want to keep their jobs on a personal level. Then Three: they don't want a few homers, they want to keep winning the game year after year.
So upending marriage equality at the possible expense of taxation issues? I think you'd lose enough state level R votes to make it harder. Ditto abortion access. They're not safe issues from the death of a thousand cuts but they're popular with enough of the citizenry that I think amendment ratification would be tough.
posted by phearlez at 5:38 PM on February 12, 2016
I think you'd find enough republicans in state house positions that aren't that secure that they can vote for any batshit amendment that comes around and still keep their seats. So you have three things going for you: One: a lot of these issues are sops to the fringe that many establishment Rs don't give a crap about. Add in Two: they want to keep their jobs on a personal level. Then Three: they don't want a few homers, they want to keep winning the game year after year.
So upending marriage equality at the possible expense of taxation issues? I think you'd lose enough state level R votes to make it harder. Ditto abortion access. They're not safe issues from the death of a thousand cuts but they're popular with enough of the citizenry that I think amendment ratification would be tough.
posted by phearlez at 5:38 PM on February 12, 2016
Has anyone else who once considered themselves a moderate realized that they may be living in a world where they are firmly to the left of Hillary Clinton? No? Just me?
posted by Phyltre at 5:39 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Phyltre at 5:39 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's funny because I wasn't really a talking on the internet kind of person until the first season of the Apprentice, which I guess I really wanted to talk about, so I found Television without Pity. Then, I felt like it was too strictly moderated so I somehow found Metafilter, which is mostly the right blend for me because I can't deal with zero moderation either.
I want to go back and tell my younger self that that funny clown who yells at people in the boardroom and has a funny catchphrase will one day be well in the lead for President. i think she would be stunned, my younger self.
posted by sweetkid at 5:40 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I want to go back and tell my younger self that that funny clown who yells at people in the boardroom and has a funny catchphrase will one day be well in the lead for President. i think she would be stunned, my younger self.
posted by sweetkid at 5:40 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Has anyone else who once considered themselves a moderate realized that they may be living in a world where they are firmly to the left of Hillary Clinton? No? Just me?
"Moderate" is like "independent" or "middle class". Far more people consider it part of their identity than to whom it can possibly reasonably apply.
posted by Justinian at 5:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
"Moderate" is like "independent" or "middle class". Far more people consider it part of their identity than to whom it can possibly reasonably apply.
posted by Justinian at 5:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Bernie Sanders New Hampshire Campaign Event - June 2015
posted by Room 641-A at 5:48 PM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 5:48 PM on February 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Moderates are firmly to the left of Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:53 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 5:53 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wait what? So Sec. Clinton is a rightwing politician now?
I'm a good little social democrat like everyone else around here, but I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is some Trump-lite pseudo-Fascist.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm a good little social democrat like everyone else around here, but I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is some Trump-lite pseudo-Fascist.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think the point people are making is that Clinton represents that part of the Democrat party that has sold out its values for the past couple decades to win over "swing voters."
posted by teponaztli at 6:03 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 6:03 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
And seriously, that's a narrative that still drives a lot of the conversation about the election today. The assumption is that a candidate like Sanders could never, ever win because those Red States are just too backwards and right wing to accept a left-leaning platform, and the Republican policies are just too popular. And the Democrats want to show that they have "broad appeal."
posted by teponaztli at 6:06 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 6:06 PM on February 12, 2016
But "broad appeal" is a symptom of the top-down establishment thinking. It's a realization that marketing is necessary to transfer power the way they'd like.
posted by rhizome at 6:08 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 6:08 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I put it in quotes because I don't think the Democrats actually understand what has a broad appeal. They've lost support by watering down their own values, and when they see support dwindle, they assume it means they're too far to the left. That's been their plan for ages now, and part of the excitement people have about Bernie Sanders is that he doesn't do that.
posted by teponaztli at 6:16 PM on February 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 6:16 PM on February 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
I agree. The marketing is necessary because they are out of touch. It's "...fellow kids" writ political.
posted by rhizome at 6:32 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by rhizome at 6:32 PM on February 12, 2016
My best hope is that Trump and Sanders both draw in anti-establishment local, state, federal politicians that take over both parties, speak powerful truth to the citizenry, get elected en masse and forge a set of constitutional amendments that lays a groundwork of fairness. I've dreamed of a better world, with varying degrees of focus, for decades, but have felt powerless until now. I know there's such vast work that needs to be done by people collectively, the likelihood of positive change is so small, and the challenges are so great. But the vast corruption of the political elite that binds us together in subjugation isn't going away willingly and wreaks such havoc on uncountable lives.
The root cause of our democratic failure is identified by Sanders as citizen engagement in their political system. He's absolutely right. The feeling that a politician like Bernie Sanders isn't going to come around very often makes me want to fight passionately for this opportunity we have in 2016 to reshape our world. From his crowds and volunteer base I believe it's actually possible.
My fantasy is that Trump, in the general election, starts channeling Eisenhower's farewell address and publicly agrees on a set of amendments with Sanders that make this country greater than it's been.
Even if Bernie doesn't attain the executive office, I fervently hope that this builds the tools and associations that lead to my personal favorite, the world of R. Buckminster Fuller.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:38 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The root cause of our democratic failure is identified by Sanders as citizen engagement in their political system. He's absolutely right. The feeling that a politician like Bernie Sanders isn't going to come around very often makes me want to fight passionately for this opportunity we have in 2016 to reshape our world. From his crowds and volunteer base I believe it's actually possible.
My fantasy is that Trump, in the general election, starts channeling Eisenhower's farewell address and publicly agrees on a set of amendments with Sanders that make this country greater than it's been.
Even if Bernie doesn't attain the executive office, I fervently hope that this builds the tools and associations that lead to my personal favorite, the world of R. Buckminster Fuller.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:38 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a good little social democrat like everyone else around here, but I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is some Trump-lite pseudo-Fascist.
Maybe their point is that you need to pretend that Bernie can win moderate states and voters by insulting them first; and pretend that abortion isn't always on the ballot each election, and that the gun lobby is gender neutral and doesn't know the first name of every male voter without a job in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Rule 12: If you can perceive someone's followers as having religious fervor, they probably do.
posted by Brian B. at 6:39 PM on February 12, 2016
Maybe their point is that you need to pretend that Bernie can win moderate states and voters by insulting them first; and pretend that abortion isn't always on the ballot each election, and that the gun lobby is gender neutral and doesn't know the first name of every male voter without a job in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Rule 12: If you can perceive someone's followers as having religious fervor, they probably do.
posted by Brian B. at 6:39 PM on February 12, 2016
I agree. The marketing is necessary because they are out of touch. It's "...fellow kids" writ political.
Agreed
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:40 PM on February 12, 2016
Agreed
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:40 PM on February 12, 2016
Of course, my fantasy keeps getting spoiled every time Trump does things that remind me of Hitler's political style, and that's really, really often.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:45 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:45 PM on February 12, 2016
So Sec. Clinton is a rightwing politician now?
I'm a good little social democrat like everyone else around here, but I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is some Trump-lite pseudo-Fascist.
Who said that? I said she was to the right of the moderates. I didn't say she was to the right of Cruz.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:48 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm a good little social democrat like everyone else around here, but I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is some Trump-lite pseudo-Fascist.
Who said that? I said she was to the right of the moderates. I didn't say she was to the right of Cruz.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:48 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I called this narrative about DNC actions above:
The DNC abolished the ban on contributions from federal lobbyists, to help Hillary? Have another $50 Bernie!
Just one guy on Reddit, but expect to see it more.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:57 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The DNC abolished the ban on contributions from federal lobbyists, to help Hillary? Have another $50 Bernie!
Just one guy on Reddit, but expect to see it more.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:57 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's only one part of that "moderate states and voters" link that should be taken to heart:
Could I be wrong? Of course. We’re all just guessing here.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Could I be wrong? Of course. We’re all just guessing here.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:00 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Could I be wrong? Of course. We’re all just guessing here. But a lot of very smart, very informed and very connected political experts share my concerns. These are people who really know how the American electorate thinks.
This was mine. Literally, I literally laughed out loud.
posted by Trochanter at 7:05 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
This was mine. Literally, I literally laughed out loud.
posted by Trochanter at 7:05 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wait what? So Sec. Clinton is a rightwing politician now?
As has been said many times before, there are very few American politicians indeed, excepting, it seems, Bernie Sanders, who are not to the right as right and left are generally understood in the rest of the world.
Clinton is currently being forced to pay lip service (at the very least) to the left thanks to Sanders, but I don't think outside of the American context that many would call her a leftwing politician.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
As has been said many times before, there are very few American politicians indeed, excepting, it seems, Bernie Sanders, who are not to the right as right and left are generally understood in the rest of the world.
Clinton is currently being forced to pay lip service (at the very least) to the left thanks to Sanders, but I don't think outside of the American context that many would call her a leftwing politician.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Maybe their point is that you need to pretend that Bernie can win moderate states and voters by insulting them first... Rule 12: If you can perceive someone's followers as having religious fervor, they probably do.
Who is insulting whom now? I don't get why this has to be so personal at every single turn, sheesh.
posted by teponaztli at 7:23 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who is insulting whom now? I don't get why this has to be so personal at every single turn, sheesh.
posted by teponaztli at 7:23 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I kept meaning to say something similar to cjelli but then I was too lazy and did not. But I'll back him up. Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton is right-wing or even moderate is spending too much time in a bubble of radicalism. She's a centrist Democrat which makes her somewhat left of center. Not a whole lot since the Democratic party is far too cozy with Wall Street (which is Sanders biggest selling point) but at least a little.
posted by Justinian at 8:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not a whole lot since the Democratic party is far too cozy with Wall Street (which is Sanders biggest selling point) but at least a little.
Isn't that a pretty big deal, though? I think her politics are generally pretty good, but the Democratic party is much more of a centrist party, and being one of the more left-leaning Democrats still only puts her to the left of center.
To be clear - I don't the problem is her politics as much as it is how close she is with the Democratic party.
posted by teponaztli at 9:15 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Isn't that a pretty big deal, though? I think her politics are generally pretty good, but the Democratic party is much more of a centrist party, and being one of the more left-leaning Democrats still only puts her to the left of center.
To be clear - I don't the problem is her politics as much as it is how close she is with the Democratic party.
posted by teponaztli at 9:15 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton is right-wing or even moderate is spending too much time in a bubble of radicalism.
Anybody who thinks she's progressive is not spending enough time with disadvantaged and vulnerable Americans. I suggest people start volunteering at their local soup kitchens and talk to the people that come through; listen to their stories. We can do better as a nation. Clinton is right-wing in the context of what that word means to the politicians of most developed nations. Sure for American politics she can most definitely be termed a "liberal," but more specifically she's a neoliberal. Neoliberals are not progressive, they view it as America's right to use it's economic and military might to exploit and in many cases completely destroy other countries cultures and ways of life. This is a fact born out by the record and indisputable. Sure people can spout propaganda about humanitarian interventionism, but war is the same at its always been...a racket.
I was watching NPR today and I wanted to reach through the radio and strangle the host and two "commentators" (read propaganda mouthpieces). They were discussing the last debate and the Kissinger exchange was brought up. There was absolutely no analysis of why Sanders would say what he said. No reference to Kissinger's crimes. He was called "a distinguished old gentleman" by one of the mouthpieces. They made fun of Sanders for referencing things 30-40 years ago. They made fun of his age. Then after the segment they segued into asking me for money because NPR is able to give you the context you need to understand a complex world blah blah blah.....FUCK!!!! Here's $50 more Bernie.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:58 PM on February 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
Anybody who thinks she's progressive is not spending enough time with disadvantaged and vulnerable Americans. I suggest people start volunteering at their local soup kitchens and talk to the people that come through; listen to their stories. We can do better as a nation. Clinton is right-wing in the context of what that word means to the politicians of most developed nations. Sure for American politics she can most definitely be termed a "liberal," but more specifically she's a neoliberal. Neoliberals are not progressive, they view it as America's right to use it's economic and military might to exploit and in many cases completely destroy other countries cultures and ways of life. This is a fact born out by the record and indisputable. Sure people can spout propaganda about humanitarian interventionism, but war is the same at its always been...a racket.
I was watching NPR today and I wanted to reach through the radio and strangle the host and two "commentators" (read propaganda mouthpieces). They were discussing the last debate and the Kissinger exchange was brought up. There was absolutely no analysis of why Sanders would say what he said. No reference to Kissinger's crimes. He was called "a distinguished old gentleman" by one of the mouthpieces. They made fun of Sanders for referencing things 30-40 years ago. They made fun of his age. Then after the segment they segued into asking me for money because NPR is able to give you the context you need to understand a complex world blah blah blah.....FUCK!!!! Here's $50 more Bernie.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:58 PM on February 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
From the Bernie reddit linked above I realized what my fantasy ticket is: Sanders/Carlin 2016. Too bad George is no longer with us.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:04 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:04 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I bet you guys are wondering how I was "watching" NPR. Sorry I can't tell you...trade secrets.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:06 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:06 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The man went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon.
Probably knew Calvin Cooledge and drinks water in fake beer bottles with late night fools.
Tell yourself
Do you deserve democracy.
posted by clavdivs at 10:10 PM on February 12, 2016
Probably knew Calvin Cooledge and drinks water in fake beer bottles with late night fools.
Tell yourself
Do you deserve democracy.
posted by clavdivs at 10:10 PM on February 12, 2016
I bet you guys are wondering how I was "watching" NPR. Sorry I can't tell you...trade secrets.
G C G
Well, Old Joe, he moves slow
C G C G Am
He likes to look at things and paint pictures on his radio
D7 G
He says they make the songs look better.
posted by mikelieman at 10:13 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites] Its all a crime aelf
Always has, there was a time I thought democrats were sane.
There are more loony and dangerous then any republican.
posted by clavdivs at 10:15 PM on February 12, 2016
Always has, there was a time I thought democrats were sane.
There are more loony and dangerous then any republican.
posted by clavdivs at 10:15 PM on February 12, 2016
politicalcompass.org graph of 2016 presidential candidates
It would be interesting to see their methodology.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:31 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would be interesting to see their methodology.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:31 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
For another perspective, June 2015, HuffPo using insidegov tools has Hillary Clinton a bit to the right of Sanders, but to the left of Biden, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee. "Hillary Clinton winds up a bit more liberal than average for a Democratic candidate, though Bernie Sanders would be the most left-leaning choice among Democrats. The Green Party's Jill Stein would make for the most liberal president of all."
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:11 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:11 PM on February 12, 2016
Sure for American politics she can most definitely be termed a "liberal," but more specifically she's a neoliberal. Neoliberals are not progressive
Sure, but nothing you said contradicts me or cjelli. The original assertion was that Clinton is right of a moderate. Like it or not, she isn't. Perhaps that says that American politics are too right leaning overall; I'd agree with that.
Clinton may not be particularly progressive but she sure isn't right-wing.
posted by Justinian at 11:14 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, but nothing you said contradicts me or cjelli. The original assertion was that Clinton is right of a moderate. Like it or not, she isn't. Perhaps that says that American politics are too right leaning overall; I'd agree with that.
Clinton may not be particularly progressive but she sure isn't right-wing.
posted by Justinian at 11:14 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would be interesting to see their methodology.
Given it shows Clinton roughly as right wing as Bush, Trump, or Cruz... yeah. You can't be just as right wing as people with which you disagree 90% of the time.
posted by Justinian at 11:15 PM on February 12, 2016
Given it shows Clinton roughly as right wing as Bush, Trump, or Cruz... yeah. You can't be just as right wing as people with which you disagree 90% of the time.
posted by Justinian at 11:15 PM on February 12, 2016
You can't? Just because one has the same authoritarian tendencies as the other party doesn't mean that they agree about the particulars of who, how, what should be controlled.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:19 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:19 PM on February 12, 2016
Clinton may not be particularly progressive but she sure isn't right-wing.
I think she's just about as far right as you can go, and still put a " - D " after your name...
posted by mikelieman at 11:20 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think she's just about as far right as you can go, and still put a " - D " after your name...
posted by mikelieman at 11:20 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
See above: Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate during her tenure there
You're arguing that the 11th most liberal Senator barely even qualifies as a Democrat.
posted by Justinian at 11:24 PM on February 12, 2016
You're arguing that the 11th most liberal Senator barely even qualifies as a Democrat.
posted by Justinian at 11:24 PM on February 12, 2016
An interview with Chomsky a few weeks ago:
Chomsky considers Sanders a New Deal democrat, which in today’s political spectrum is way off on the left. President Eisenhower would look like a radical leftist in today’s spectrum, literally. Eisenhower said that anyone who questions New Deal measures – a series of domestic measures introduced in the US in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression – is just out of the political system. “By now practically everyone questions them, Sanders is unusual in that he upholds them.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:28 PM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Chomsky considers Sanders a New Deal democrat, which in today’s political spectrum is way off on the left. President Eisenhower would look like a radical leftist in today’s spectrum, literally. Eisenhower said that anyone who questions New Deal measures – a series of domestic measures introduced in the US in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression – is just out of the political system. “By now practically everyone questions them, Sanders is unusual in that he upholds them.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:28 PM on February 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Clinton may not be particularly progressive
She seems to think she's progressive.
she sure isn't right-wing
Her economic and foreign policy positions have significant overlap with those of the GOP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:32 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
She seems to think she's progressive.
she sure isn't right-wing
Her economic and foreign policy positions have significant overlap with those of the GOP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:32 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
You're arguing that the 11th most liberal Senator barely even qualifies as a Democrat.
I think the argument is that the Democratic party has shifted so far to the right that being the "11th most liberal Senator" from that party isn't saying much.
Perhaps that says that American politics are too right leaning overall; I'd agree with that. Clinton may not be particularly progressive but she sure isn't right-wing.
I would still argue that Clinton is, economically speaking, accurately described as right wing or slightly right of center.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:33 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think the argument is that the Democratic party has shifted so far to the right that being the "11th most liberal Senator" from that party isn't saying much.
Perhaps that says that American politics are too right leaning overall; I'd agree with that. Clinton may not be particularly progressive but she sure isn't right-wing.
I would still argue that Clinton is, economically speaking, accurately described as right wing or slightly right of center.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:33 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'll agree with you, then. Clinton leans slightly right of center on some aspects of the economy (though not, I think, all). But on many other issues she is quite liberal.
posted by Justinian at 11:47 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 11:47 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's her commitment to those other issues which is why I'll vote for her in a close general election.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:51 PM on February 12, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:51 PM on February 12, 2016
But on many other issues she is quite liberal.
Again I would have to argue that she pays lip service to several progressive social issues, but once elected those will take a back seat to foreign policy and fiscal concerns. I could be wrong, but that's just my impression.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:00 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Again I would have to argue that she pays lip service to several progressive social issues, but once elected those will take a back seat to foreign policy and fiscal concerns. I could be wrong, but that's just my impression.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:00 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know, even with all of the 60s talk above, it didn't even occur to me that the campaigns might go back that far. This could get very interesting, especially if it opens up foreign policy talk, with Vietnam providing a rhetorical anchor and home turf for Bernie.
posted by rhizome at 1:55 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 1:55 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can understand why Sanders reached that far back with Kissenger, because you cannot understand the enormity of that man's actions without reaching back into history and it's important to understand whose career Clinton will model herself after. I really hope they don't start relitigating ancient history in general, though, and I doubt that Sanders intends to do that.
posted by indubitable at 4:37 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 4:37 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Henry Kissinger’s War Crimes Are Central to the Divide Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders
posted by bukvich at 6:03 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bukvich at 6:03 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm thinking, what if President Sanders had a monthly address/call to action, explaining in simple terms the economic ramifications of certain bills that were coming up for a vote and asking people to call their people and let them know what they want. I think it could really work. He wouldn't have to advocate for a yes or no vote, just lay out the facts and encourage people to participate in the process.
To merge this with a different comment I made about how to get the R voters on board, this would be the way to let voters know, not what crumbs a bill supposedly have for them, but what huge giveaways it had for the corps and 1%, that they would see the light. You completely defang the Limbaughs and Hannitys, because what are they going to say, no the bill doesn't contain those big breaks? Sunshine exposes that lie. And then they're left defending a bill that gives those breaks. I think you could move a certain part of the Rs to this part of his platform.
We know the WS fuckers are really scared. They're not afraid of "Bernie Sanders" they're afraid of this happening.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:46 AM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
To merge this with a different comment I made about how to get the R voters on board, this would be the way to let voters know, not what crumbs a bill supposedly have for them, but what huge giveaways it had for the corps and 1%, that they would see the light. You completely defang the Limbaughs and Hannitys, because what are they going to say, no the bill doesn't contain those big breaks? Sunshine exposes that lie. And then they're left defending a bill that gives those breaks. I think you could move a certain part of the Rs to this part of his platform.
We know the WS fuckers are really scared. They're not afraid of "Bernie Sanders" they're afraid of this happening.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:46 AM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm a good little social democrat like everyone else around here, but I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is some Trump-lite pseudo-Fascist.
Let's be honest: Anyone who voted for the PATRIOT Act is a pseudo-fascist.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:47 AM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
Let's be honest: Anyone who voted for the PATRIOT Act is a pseudo-fascist.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:47 AM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton is right-wing or even moderate is spending too much time in a bubble of radicalism. She's a centrist Democrat which makes her somewhat left of center. Not a whole lot since the Democratic party is far too cozy with Wall Street (which is Sanders biggest selling point) but at least a little.
This kinda cracks me up.
If you took the entire US political spectrum and put them on a line:
posted by cjorgensen at 7:04 AM on February 13, 2016
This kinda cracks me up.
If you took the entire US political spectrum and put them on a line:
L———————DM————————D|R——————RM—————————R
H
And you called anything to the right of the center line a Republican, and anything left of the center line a Democrat (for ease of labeling). You would then divide that line again to see who your moderate people in each party are (with the far right and far left being your fringe). I would put her damn close to the center on the solid D. Looks like you would as well, which I am going to say puts her solidly to the right of the moderates in her party.posted by cjorgensen at 7:04 AM on February 13, 2016
so, very electable?
and roundabout and roundabout and roundabout we go....
posted by andrewcooke at 7:12 AM on February 13, 2016
and roundabout and roundabout and roundabout we go....
posted by andrewcooke at 7:12 AM on February 13, 2016
You completely defang the Limbaughs and Hannitys, because what are they going to say, no the bill doesn't contain those big breaks?
Limbaugh made a career out of mocking Hillary Clinton, even referring to her 13-year old daughter the "White House dog" on his show. He was so successful, a dozen stars made their mark doing the same thing. That's what they do, find the weak spot for their audience and run with it. They were never rational. In fact, the entire left and right scale is a rational versus emotional scale in the American context. The irony is that young people who hate Hillary Clinton were children or childhood friends of those listeners, probably without few exceptions. You can tell by the visceral reaction that is only put there by exposure to thought reform. This is why we're having a nonsense discussion about left and right by willfully ignoring the fact that the country is right wing and their votes are amplified through a conservative voting process. Bernie will be shredded on conservative talk radio and television as they giggle and laugh, without even the slightest effort to conjure up a group of crying swift boaters to trash his Vietnam war record like they did to Kerry.
posted by Brian B. at 7:21 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Limbaugh made a career out of mocking Hillary Clinton, even referring to her 13-year old daughter the "White House dog" on his show. He was so successful, a dozen stars made their mark doing the same thing. That's what they do, find the weak spot for their audience and run with it. They were never rational. In fact, the entire left and right scale is a rational versus emotional scale in the American context. The irony is that young people who hate Hillary Clinton were children or childhood friends of those listeners, probably without few exceptions. You can tell by the visceral reaction that is only put there by exposure to thought reform. This is why we're having a nonsense discussion about left and right by willfully ignoring the fact that the country is right wing and their votes are amplified through a conservative voting process. Bernie will be shredded on conservative talk radio and television as they giggle and laugh, without even the slightest effort to conjure up a group of crying swift boaters to trash his Vietnam war record like they did to Kerry.
posted by Brian B. at 7:21 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Let's be honest: Anyone who voted for the PATRIOT Act is a pseudo-fascist.
"Pseudo" is not quite right.
Pseudo- comes from the Greek for false/lie and refers particularly to something not genuine.
Quasi- comes from the Latin for almost and refers to something that is almost something else.
So, more like quasi-fascist, pseudo-progressive.
(Kidding. Although I view some of the stuff going on as de facto fascist.)
John LeCarré: “Mussolini’s definition of fascism was that when you can’t distinguish corporate power from governmental power,"
posted by Trochanter at 7:27 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Pseudo" is not quite right.
Pseudo- comes from the Greek for false/lie and refers particularly to something not genuine.
Quasi- comes from the Latin for almost and refers to something that is almost something else.
So, more like quasi-fascist, pseudo-progressive.
(Kidding. Although I view some of the stuff going on as de facto fascist.)
John LeCarré: “Mussolini’s definition of fascism was that when you can’t distinguish corporate power from governmental power,"
posted by Trochanter at 7:27 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Limbaugh made a career out of mocking Hillary Clinton, even referring to her 13-year old daughter the "White House dog" on his show.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the president spelling out the giveaways in certain bills, but I guess we can agree that Rush Limbaugh is a piece of shit human.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:44 AM on February 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm not sure what this has to do with the president spelling out the giveaways in certain bills, but I guess we can agree that Rush Limbaugh is a piece of shit human.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:44 AM on February 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
John LeCarré: “Mussolini’s definition of fascism was that when you can’t distinguish corporate power from governmental power,"
Different kind of "corporate power" there...
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:11 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Different kind of "corporate power" there...
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:11 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Care to expand on that? I've seen LeCarré use that turn of phrase several times.
posted by Trochanter at 8:38 AM on February 13, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 8:38 AM on February 13, 2016
"Conservative talk radio and television will shred X" isn't a good argument for or against any potential Democratic candidate. They are going to be consistently on the attack regardless, while remaining silent about any potential moral shortcomings of whoever wins the Republican primary. Profitable partisan propaganda is going to remain profitable, no matter how this plays out.
I'd like to think that people would work with the facts, but I can't say I have a ton of confidence there. I think it's possible that a few would discover these explanations of measures and bills and possibly "defect" in support of Sanders due to breaks for the ultra-wealthy, but certainly not probable. It would require a significant amount of people to get over the massive partisan chasm in political discussion at all, and to actually have a good source for getting objective facts, as opposed to tailored sound bites and clickbait.
I don't see this as an area where any particular Democratic candidate has an advantage, though, so I certainly wouldn't take it as a negative for Sanders.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:43 AM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'd like to think that people would work with the facts, but I can't say I have a ton of confidence there. I think it's possible that a few would discover these explanations of measures and bills and possibly "defect" in support of Sanders due to breaks for the ultra-wealthy, but certainly not probable. It would require a significant amount of people to get over the massive partisan chasm in political discussion at all, and to actually have a good source for getting objective facts, as opposed to tailored sound bites and clickbait.
I don't see this as an area where any particular Democratic candidate has an advantage, though, so I certainly wouldn't take it as a negative for Sanders.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:43 AM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
So now we're arguing about what kind of fascist Clinton is?
posted by octothorpe at 8:46 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:46 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know LeCarré's context, but the corporate entities of Mussolini's corporatist fascism were not what today is called a "corporation". The system involved centralized control and was opposed to free market capitalism.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:49 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:49 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think it's quite right to call Secretary Clinton a fascist, but I think she does support much stronger rights for corporations than some of us are comfortable with. I certainly believe in much stronger regulation of businesses than she is comfortable with, and I worry that neither she nor Senator Sanders has articulated a good solution to the regulatory capture problem, which is huge.
posted by wintermind at 8:56 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 8:56 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Celebrated Photographer: Yes, That Is Bernie Sanders. Time Magazine Is Lying.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:11 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 9:11 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I can understand why Sanders reached that far back with Kissenger, because you cannot understand the enormity of that man's actions without reaching back into history and it's important to understand whose career Clinton will model herself after. I really hope they don't start relitigating ancient history in general, though, and I doubt that Sanders intends to do that.
To be fair, he didn't bring it up originally, she did. She was proud Kissinger said she was a good Secretary of State.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:59 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
To be fair, he didn't bring it up originally, she did. She was proud Kissinger said she was a good Secretary of State.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:59 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie will be shredded
I love how we have actual video footage of Clinton using racist dog whistles and the best dirt they can get on Sanders are unsubstantiated smear pieces like this. Don't even bother giving the douche canoe who wrote it the page views.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:08 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I love how we have actual video footage of Clinton using racist dog whistles and the best dirt they can get on Sanders are unsubstantiated smear pieces like this. Don't even bother giving the douche canoe who wrote it the page views.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:08 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I bet things are tightening in Nevada but I wouldn't trust this as evidence.
538 has updated their projections for Nevada based on the TargetPoint polling, and are calling it 50-50 for Clinton/Sanders. They weight polls based on how reliable they are, so they must think that TargetPoint is at least not just a total partisan-hack poll.
posted by dis_integration at 10:17 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
538 has updated their projections for Nevada based on the TargetPoint polling, and are calling it 50-50 for Clinton/Sanders. They weight polls based on how reliable they are, so they must think that TargetPoint is at least not just a total partisan-hack poll.
posted by dis_integration at 10:17 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Conversations about "electability" are really frustrating to me, especially arguments that try to draw parallels between the influence of talk radio in the 90s and early 00s and what influence, e.g., Rush Limbaugh can have now. Clearly, no one knows what could happen going forward because the internet.
We've seen the most "unelectable" presidential candidate in my lifetime, Barack Hussein Obama, decisively win two terms and achieve real, substantial accomplishments despite a Congress completely set against letting his administration do anything, and in the context of far more hateful and pervasive messages about him booming through the right-wing talk radio/media sphere than the Clintons ever faced.
There are thousands of volunteer activists self-organizing across the country and coordinating campaign and GOTV efforts with no campaign infrastructure whatsoever, using a citizen-made app (the Field the Bern app, which is an amazing thing).
The internet changed all of this, and it just seems self-evident to me that we don't know what's possible, because the social environment, modes of public discourse, and tools for information, communication, and coordination are all completely unprecedented for everyone alive right now. We are living through cultural change on the order of magnitude brought about by the printing press (hello, Enlightenment!) and simply can't know at this point what could be possible.
Those who change the status quo first must have the audacity to imagine a different one, and then the idealism and fortitude to go forth and try their best to make it so. In 2016 we have better tools for doing that than any human beings have ever had, ever, and the game continues to change so quickly that I am kind of gobsmacked that anyone, from any perspective, can have confidence about how the next nine months will play out.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:53 AM on February 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
We've seen the most "unelectable" presidential candidate in my lifetime, Barack Hussein Obama, decisively win two terms and achieve real, substantial accomplishments despite a Congress completely set against letting his administration do anything, and in the context of far more hateful and pervasive messages about him booming through the right-wing talk radio/media sphere than the Clintons ever faced.
There are thousands of volunteer activists self-organizing across the country and coordinating campaign and GOTV efforts with no campaign infrastructure whatsoever, using a citizen-made app (the Field the Bern app, which is an amazing thing).
The internet changed all of this, and it just seems self-evident to me that we don't know what's possible, because the social environment, modes of public discourse, and tools for information, communication, and coordination are all completely unprecedented for everyone alive right now. We are living through cultural change on the order of magnitude brought about by the printing press (hello, Enlightenment!) and simply can't know at this point what could be possible.
Those who change the status quo first must have the audacity to imagine a different one, and then the idealism and fortitude to go forth and try their best to make it so. In 2016 we have better tools for doing that than any human beings have ever had, ever, and the game continues to change so quickly that I am kind of gobsmacked that anyone, from any perspective, can have confidence about how the next nine months will play out.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:53 AM on February 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
I love how we have actual video footage of Clinton using racist dog whistles and the best dirt they can get on Sanders are unsubstantiated smear pieces like this.
And they keep backfiring. Now people are debating Bernie's involvement in the civil rights movement with plenty of black leaders stepping up and saying, "He was there. I worked with him. You're a dumbass if you say he wasn't." All while people are asking, "What was Hillary doing then?" Oh, ooops.
Seriously, I said it one of these threads, but you almost have to feel bad for Clinton's campaign. Every attack ends up backfiring or making her look childish. "He took money from big banks too!" Oh, that's terrible, let's look into that and compare how much and who benefited. "He has a Super PAC too!" Really? "He said bad things about Obama!" Something something pot/kettle. "He likes guns!" He's from fucking Vermont. The pacifists there like guns. "He's unrealistic!" Yeah, seems that's what people want. "He's inexperienced at foreign policy!" He may be, but turns out you suck at it. "He had paid speeches too!" Yeah? What did he do with the money he earned and how much was that again?
Has there been a single Clinton attack that hasn't backfired? Has one stuck?
And then there's Bernie wanting to talk about issues. He's had it with her damn emails, doesn't give a rip if she releases her speeches, and keeps talking about how much he respects her.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:55 AM on February 13, 2016 [23 favorites]
And they keep backfiring. Now people are debating Bernie's involvement in the civil rights movement with plenty of black leaders stepping up and saying, "He was there. I worked with him. You're a dumbass if you say he wasn't." All while people are asking, "What was Hillary doing then?" Oh, ooops.
Seriously, I said it one of these threads, but you almost have to feel bad for Clinton's campaign. Every attack ends up backfiring or making her look childish. "He took money from big banks too!" Oh, that's terrible, let's look into that and compare how much and who benefited. "He has a Super PAC too!" Really? "He said bad things about Obama!" Something something pot/kettle. "He likes guns!" He's from fucking Vermont. The pacifists there like guns. "He's unrealistic!" Yeah, seems that's what people want. "He's inexperienced at foreign policy!" He may be, but turns out you suck at it. "He had paid speeches too!" Yeah? What did he do with the money he earned and how much was that again?
Has there been a single Clinton attack that hasn't backfired? Has one stuck?
And then there's Bernie wanting to talk about issues. He's had it with her damn emails, doesn't give a rip if she releases her speeches, and keeps talking about how much he respects her.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:55 AM on February 13, 2016 [23 favorites]
Clinton attack
Also, the only thing the Clinton camp and her supporters have to throw at Sanders is all based on fear. They are using fear as a weapon. Sanders on the other hand is pushing a message of activism and political revolution.
And then there's Bernie wanting to talk about issues.
I know, it's great.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:02 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, the only thing the Clinton camp and her supporters have to throw at Sanders is all based on fear. They are using fear as a weapon. Sanders on the other hand is pushing a message of activism and political revolution.
And then there's Bernie wanting to talk about issues.
I know, it's great.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:02 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's pretty close to rendering herself utterly unelectable with this shit. which would be twice now, which doesn't speak well of her alleged pragmatism. I don't exactly celebrate this because if the past is anything to go by she's likely to dig in all the way and salt the earth in her passing, which is no good for anyone.
I suggest she be given a hard pass if she tries running again after this.
posted by Artw at 11:11 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I suggest she be given a hard pass if she tries running again after this.
posted by Artw at 11:11 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Someone upthread mentioned Slate's political gabfest. I recommend it because of what Emily Bazelon has to say. She's really great. Awesome on legal stuff, etc.
She's got a good take on Hillary's handling of the scandals. It's similar to what I said earlier about how HRC is so much about tactics and yet her tactics are, frankly, bad.
posted by Trochanter at 11:24 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's got a good take on Hillary's handling of the scandals. It's similar to what I said earlier about how HRC is so much about tactics and yet her tactics are, frankly, bad.
posted by Trochanter at 11:24 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I suggest she be given a hard pass if she tries running again after this.
Honestly, that's how I formed my opinion of her. The way she campaigned against Obama was pretty disgusting. I was proud as an Iowan when she imploded here.
The fact that she thinks $15 is too high for a minimum wage, that she's abandoned the idea of universal healthcare as unreasonable when she ran on it in 2007 and has been attacking Bernie for advocating it (hypocrite much?), that she is not only ignorant on the issue of encryption, but well into the dangerous loon camp (I'd rather she believe the internet was a series of tubes). Etc.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:36 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Honestly, that's how I formed my opinion of her. The way she campaigned against Obama was pretty disgusting. I was proud as an Iowan when she imploded here.
The fact that she thinks $15 is too high for a minimum wage, that she's abandoned the idea of universal healthcare as unreasonable when she ran on it in 2007 and has been attacking Bernie for advocating it (hypocrite much?), that she is not only ignorant on the issue of encryption, but well into the dangerous loon camp (I'd rather she believe the internet was a series of tubes). Etc.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:36 AM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
The irony is that young people who hate Hillary Clinton were children or childhood friends of those listeners, probably without few exceptions. You can tell by the visceral reaction that is only put there by exposure to thought reform.
So, first, we need to calibrate what we mean by "young." In the campaign, "young voters" are those in their 20s. I am in my early 30s and my preteen and teen years were during the Clinton administration - I am not considered a "young voter." People who will be 18 in November were born in 1998; they were still in diapers when the Clintons left office. So, the hypothesized Limbaugh effect would not be on young voters, but on those in their 30s.
I was a kid whose parents listed to talk radio. I am a Sanders supporter this year, and supported Obama in 2008, but I voted for Clinton for Senate in 2006. So, in my particular case, I don't think she's the best choice for president, but don't have a visceral hatred for her.
It's important to note that the attacks on Hillary and Chelsea Clinton in the 90s were not limited to talk radio - mainstream sources piled on as well. And this doesn't even touch the slut shaming and bullying of 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky. Slut shaming was the main pasttime of the society in which women in their 30s 'came of age.' I think most women my age (who are Dems at least) recognize that none of these attacks were about the attacked people, they were about misogyny. I don't have a visceral hatred for Hillary Clinton (I do, as a result, have a visceral hatred for Bill Clinton) - but my feminism is informed by that lens. In some ways, this is one reason I bristle so strongly at Albright's words. Fine, a woman president would be a good thing - representation matters. But, for me, a Hillary Clinton election, instead of showing young girls that "women can do anything!" it would imply that women can do anything, as long as they stay with their rapist husbands, keep their heads down, and don't call out misogyny. I think younger women are aware that they can do anything, but that, for many, reaching the top (whether it be president, or CEO, or partner at a law firm) is not worth it if you have to steel yourself against constant misogyny. That speaking out against injustice, even if it means you don't advance to CEO, is better than going along to get along. I can understand and empathize with the sexist hurdles Clinton had to overcome. But I can also say that if getting to the top means contributing to the slut shaming of your husband's rape victims, then perhaps we have a different set of ideals.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:39 AM on February 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
So, first, we need to calibrate what we mean by "young." In the campaign, "young voters" are those in their 20s. I am in my early 30s and my preteen and teen years were during the Clinton administration - I am not considered a "young voter." People who will be 18 in November were born in 1998; they were still in diapers when the Clintons left office. So, the hypothesized Limbaugh effect would not be on young voters, but on those in their 30s.
I was a kid whose parents listed to talk radio. I am a Sanders supporter this year, and supported Obama in 2008, but I voted for Clinton for Senate in 2006. So, in my particular case, I don't think she's the best choice for president, but don't have a visceral hatred for her.
It's important to note that the attacks on Hillary and Chelsea Clinton in the 90s were not limited to talk radio - mainstream sources piled on as well. And this doesn't even touch the slut shaming and bullying of 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky. Slut shaming was the main pasttime of the society in which women in their 30s 'came of age.' I think most women my age (who are Dems at least) recognize that none of these attacks were about the attacked people, they were about misogyny. I don't have a visceral hatred for Hillary Clinton (I do, as a result, have a visceral hatred for Bill Clinton) - but my feminism is informed by that lens. In some ways, this is one reason I bristle so strongly at Albright's words. Fine, a woman president would be a good thing - representation matters. But, for me, a Hillary Clinton election, instead of showing young girls that "women can do anything!" it would imply that women can do anything, as long as they stay with their rapist husbands, keep their heads down, and don't call out misogyny. I think younger women are aware that they can do anything, but that, for many, reaching the top (whether it be president, or CEO, or partner at a law firm) is not worth it if you have to steel yourself against constant misogyny. That speaking out against injustice, even if it means you don't advance to CEO, is better than going along to get along. I can understand and empathize with the sexist hurdles Clinton had to overcome. But I can also say that if getting to the top means contributing to the slut shaming of your husband's rape victims, then perhaps we have a different set of ideals.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:39 AM on February 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
This is why we're having a nonsense discussion about left and right by willfully ignoring the fact that the country is right wing and their votes are amplified through a conservative voting process. Bernie will be shredded on conservative talk radio and television as they giggle and laugh, without even the slightest effort to conjure up a group of crying swift boaters to trash his Vietnam war record like they did to Kerry.
"the fact that the country is right wing" is question-begging of the first order. When polled on issues, rather than labels or personalities, the country consistently and heavily leans left. Yes, the election process is warped to the right, which is why the standard Democratic Party approach has been so ineffective. Sanders has a long history of success in a state that was solidly Republican and conservative in recent times that overlap his success. He does this using the same approach he's using in this race -- telling the truth as he sees it and proposing measures that will produce better outcomes for ordinary people. Clinton does not do that, and even if she started doing it, she would not be believed by voters, and would lose the support of her corporate friends.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:42 AM on February 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
"the fact that the country is right wing" is question-begging of the first order. When polled on issues, rather than labels or personalities, the country consistently and heavily leans left. Yes, the election process is warped to the right, which is why the standard Democratic Party approach has been so ineffective. Sanders has a long history of success in a state that was solidly Republican and conservative in recent times that overlap his success. He does this using the same approach he's using in this race -- telling the truth as he sees it and proposing measures that will produce better outcomes for ordinary people. Clinton does not do that, and even if she started doing it, she would not be believed by voters, and would lose the support of her corporate friends.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:42 AM on February 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
Apparently, in the nature of history lessons, it is relevant to remember that the notion of Vermont as a liberal state is only about 25 years old, Vermont Republican Party History. In fact, Vermont is so famously a Republican state that there is a joke in the film White Christmas about how they could not pull off a publicity stunt of having found a Democrat in the state because it would be too preposterous for people to believe. That was filmed within the lifetimes of both candidates.
It was noted above that if Eisenhower ran today, he'd be considered left wing. Certainly (anecdotally) most people I have met in Vermont or upstate New York who have switched voting patterns believe that the parties have moved more than they have in terms of values and priorities. That there is a vocal movement to the right in this country is undeniable. Whether it has the power it claims is a big question. (A hyuuuuge question?) I posit that it is so loud and obstructionist precisely because it has found it does not.
posted by meinvt at 11:52 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
It was noted above that if Eisenhower ran today, he'd be considered left wing. Certainly (anecdotally) most people I have met in Vermont or upstate New York who have switched voting patterns believe that the parties have moved more than they have in terms of values and priorities. That there is a vocal movement to the right in this country is undeniable. Whether it has the power it claims is a big question. (A hyuuuuge question?) I posit that it is so loud and obstructionist precisely because it has found it does not.
posted by meinvt at 11:52 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's hard to call the US purely left or right wing, that oversimplifies it. We're more authoritarian than what would be considered the middle, more focused on capitalism, yet more socially liberal... Those are just a few factors. Most people view "left" and "right" solely through any one of those aspects - We don't always agree on what is being discussed when we use either term.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:55 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:55 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, Americans. You're right wing. Any aserration to the contrary is basically considered a joke. Sorry if this is a surprise, but the fact that you have no mainstream left wing political parties and the word "socialist" is considered shocking should be a tip off.
posted by Artw at 11:58 AM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:58 AM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
Don't get me wrong, I agree that over all we are more right wing in a traditional view - Especially in governance. Sanders is by far the most left wing Democrat of significance - and he only joined the party because otherwise he'd be fighting against it.
But for those who are thinking "hey we can't be right wing because of X" - I point towards the authoritarian and capitalist tendencies over all else as an indicator of why we are, as opposed to any social liberalism that others may be focusing on. I think the people who consider us maybe slightly left of center on the spectrum are focusing on a few select aspects like these, as opposed to looking at the entire picture. That was really more of what my point was.
It doesn't help that many of us here don't really have a great frame of reference for what a true left extreme looks like in action, and I think many have seen the the extreme nature of the right wing for so long as the norm, that it doesn't seem extreme at all.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
But for those who are thinking "hey we can't be right wing because of X" - I point towards the authoritarian and capitalist tendencies over all else as an indicator of why we are, as opposed to any social liberalism that others may be focusing on. I think the people who consider us maybe slightly left of center on the spectrum are focusing on a few select aspects like these, as opposed to looking at the entire picture. That was really more of what my point was.
It doesn't help that many of us here don't really have a great frame of reference for what a true left extreme looks like in action, and I think many have seen the the extreme nature of the right wing for so long as the norm, that it doesn't seem extreme at all.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Former Obama intel official: Hillary Clinton should drop out
Oh, Americans. You're right wing.
We're definitely right wing in an international sense! But I wholeheartedly agree that America is much more left wing than it was in the 90s or early 2000s. Can you imagine Black Lives Matter protesters being embraced by the Democratic party of the 90s? They'd have campaigned on a bill to throw them all in jail. Can you imagine transgender acceptance going anywhere near as far as it has in the last year anytime during the 2000s? We'd have had a rash of wedge-issue ballot measures about it by now. Can you imagine the Republican frontrunner promising he won't touch Social Security and talking about people dying because they don't have health insurance? He would have been eviscerated onstage in a Republican debate in 2000 for challenging their economic orthodoxy - not today (possibly for other reasons too, but still). None of those things would have even been imaginable 10 years ago.
posted by dialetheia at 12:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, Americans. You're right wing.
We're definitely right wing in an international sense! But I wholeheartedly agree that America is much more left wing than it was in the 90s or early 2000s. Can you imagine Black Lives Matter protesters being embraced by the Democratic party of the 90s? They'd have campaigned on a bill to throw them all in jail. Can you imagine transgender acceptance going anywhere near as far as it has in the last year anytime during the 2000s? We'd have had a rash of wedge-issue ballot measures about it by now. Can you imagine the Republican frontrunner promising he won't touch Social Security and talking about people dying because they don't have health insurance? He would have been eviscerated onstage in a Republican debate in 2000 for challenging their economic orthodoxy - not today (possibly for other reasons too, but still). None of those things would have even been imaginable 10 years ago.
posted by dialetheia at 12:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess I need to work on that whole "political sphere" thing I talked about last thread and get mainstream acceptance of saying we are a front-top-right or whatever. I'm sure that will simplify everything.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've never been able to look at Bill Clinton the same way since learning that he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you imagine Black Lives Matter protesters being embraced by the Democratic party of the 90s?
Look more to the actions we take than what the leaders of the party say.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:16 PM on February 13, 2016
Look more to the actions we take than what the leaders of the party say.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:16 PM on February 13, 2016
Both Trump and Limbaugh are already referring to Bernie as a communist. This will likely prompt some of his defenders to embrace the term.
posted by Brian B. at 12:23 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Brian B. at 12:23 PM on February 13, 2016
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Superdelegates Exist to Protect Party Leaders from Grassroots Activists
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:23 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:23 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Apparently, in the nature of history lessons, it is relevant to remember that the notion of Vermont as a liberal state is only about 25 years old, Vermont Republican Party History. In fact, Vermont is so famously a Republican state that there is a joke in the film White Christmas about how they could not pull off a publicity stunt of having found a Democrat in the state because it would be too preposterous for people to believe.
Not saying that Vermont was actually super-liberal in 1954 or 1970, but party isn't good evidence that it was conservative. Time was, Mississippi voted about 100% Democratic, and for goddam sure not because it was liberal, or moderate, or anything but a little to the right of Genghis Khan. There used to be liberal Republicans, like in New England, just like there used to be a lot more conservative Democrats.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:24 PM on February 13, 2016
Not saying that Vermont was actually super-liberal in 1954 or 1970, but party isn't good evidence that it was conservative. Time was, Mississippi voted about 100% Democratic, and for goddam sure not because it was liberal, or moderate, or anything but a little to the right of Genghis Khan. There used to be liberal Republicans, like in New England, just like there used to be a lot more conservative Democrats.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:24 PM on February 13, 2016
Look more to the actions we take than what the leaders of the party say.
Sure, but the AG is suing Ferguson for civil rights violations, whereas in the 90s we would have gotten super predators part 2. I'm not saying we don't still have a ton of authoritarian structures in this country that keep us structurally right-wing in certain ways (e.g. police unions and racist, compromised prosecutors), but really - the reaction to those protests at any point since 1970 would have been considerably more virulent on both sides than it has been today.
I certainly don't mean to overextrapolate from any one piece of evidence, either, but I think it's undeniable that the left has built a great deal more power than the right during the Obama era, if only by setting the tone of internet discourse (which certainly isn't everything but counts for a lot these days). Who even listens to Limbaugh anymore? In the 90s they reported his rantings on the evening news. Now he's a marginalized voice who has far less influence over mainstream discourse even if just as many racist dead-enders tune in. Frankly, I'm not worried about what Limbaugh says at all. Look at how much his endless racist attacks against Obama mattered in an electoral sense - hardly at all. People who listen to him are not persuadable anyway, and he has very little credibility with anyone else anymore.
This will likely prompt some of his defenders to embrace the term.
Oh come the fuck on. Did you just arrive in a time capsule from 1994 or something? I will eat my hat if prominent supporters of Bernie Sanders start defending communism outside of some tiny corner of twitter or something.
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, but the AG is suing Ferguson for civil rights violations, whereas in the 90s we would have gotten super predators part 2. I'm not saying we don't still have a ton of authoritarian structures in this country that keep us structurally right-wing in certain ways (e.g. police unions and racist, compromised prosecutors), but really - the reaction to those protests at any point since 1970 would have been considerably more virulent on both sides than it has been today.
I certainly don't mean to overextrapolate from any one piece of evidence, either, but I think it's undeniable that the left has built a great deal more power than the right during the Obama era, if only by setting the tone of internet discourse (which certainly isn't everything but counts for a lot these days). Who even listens to Limbaugh anymore? In the 90s they reported his rantings on the evening news. Now he's a marginalized voice who has far less influence over mainstream discourse even if just as many racist dead-enders tune in. Frankly, I'm not worried about what Limbaugh says at all. Look at how much his endless racist attacks against Obama mattered in an electoral sense - hardly at all. People who listen to him are not persuadable anyway, and he has very little credibility with anyone else anymore.
This will likely prompt some of his defenders to embrace the term.
Oh come the fuck on. Did you just arrive in a time capsule from 1994 or something? I will eat my hat if prominent supporters of Bernie Sanders start defending communism outside of some tiny corner of twitter or something.
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do think that outside of governance, the left is getting more of a voice than they have had in a long time. I think this is largely attributable to the internet - It's allowed for more rapid and cohesive discussion and organization of issues throughout the country than we would have ever had prior. I don't think we'd have quite the awareness of Sanders, the corruption throughout the parties, or Black Lives Matters, or so many other issues that fall into what you are talking about otherwise. Can you imagine what this campaign would look like if it was solely word of mouth and media coverage?
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:38 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:38 PM on February 13, 2016
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Superdelegates Exist to Protect Party Leaders from Grassroots Activists
I don't mean to reduce her to her appearance, but DWS is aping Collette Reardon in that video.
posted by rhizome at 12:38 PM on February 13, 2016
I don't mean to reduce her to her appearance, but DWS is aping Collette Reardon in that video.
posted by rhizome at 12:38 PM on February 13, 2016
Here's a digital ad released this week by a right-wing super PAC hitting Sanders on socialism. Honestly I think it's pretty funny. I'm sure they'll get better at it, but it's not like the right wing's rhetorical chops are very good on socialism right now. They've gotten away with just being able to say the word for so long that they aren't as good at arguing why it's bad anymore, especially when it's framed against the under-regulated casino capitalism that is ruining our economy and reducing our standard of living.
posted by dialetheia at 12:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh come the fuck on. Did you just arrive in a time capsule from 1994 or something? I will eat my hat if prominent supporters of Bernie Sanders start defending communism outside of some tiny corner of twitter or something.
Now you probably know how Clinton supporters feel when she's called a fascist.
Maybe everyone could dial it back!
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now you probably know how Clinton supporters feel when she's called a fascist.
Maybe everyone could dial it back!
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clintons worked with Kasich on welfare 'reform'
posted by rhizome at 12:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 12:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Superdelegates Exist to Protect Party Leaders from Grassroots Activists
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:23 PM on February 13
I don't know if that's quite eponysterical, but it is funny.
posted by Trochanter at 12:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:23 PM on February 13
I don't know if that's quite eponysterical, but it is funny.
posted by Trochanter at 12:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I really hope they don't start relitigating ancient history in general, though, and I doubt that Sanders intends to do that.
Remember, Sanders mentioned Mossadegh, too. I think there is a ripe angle here, a blindingly bright line, that goes back to the 50s and explains the Team America bullshit wars we've seen in the interim. Bernie has a chance at really striking a blow against terrible, awful foreign policy. People want to know what Bernie's got for FP? I'm not sure they know what they're asking for.
I really don't think Clinton wants to have to explain anything more than 10 years in the past, because then it starts to look really really bad.
posted by rhizome at 12:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Remember, Sanders mentioned Mossadegh, too. I think there is a ripe angle here, a blindingly bright line, that goes back to the 50s and explains the Team America bullshit wars we've seen in the interim. Bernie has a chance at really striking a blow against terrible, awful foreign policy. People want to know what Bernie's got for FP? I'm not sure they know what they're asking for.
I really don't think Clinton wants to have to explain anything more than 10 years in the past, because then it starts to look really really bad.
posted by rhizome at 12:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Based on her voting record while in office, though, she was, in aggregate, to the left of the moderates in the Democratic party. Her voting record is open: we can all take a look at that.
Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
People wanna believe what they wanna believe.
posted by Justinian at 12:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
People wanna believe what they wanna believe.
posted by Justinian at 12:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Both Trump and Limbaugh are already referring to Bernie as a communist. This will likely prompt some of his defenders to embrace the term.
If your disqualifying criterion for president is, "Talk radio meanies are going to say mean things about them and be mean", all you've got is... Trump? You could vote for Donald Trump. Or maybe Ted Cruz. But Trump called him a pussy on national television, so maybe not.
posted by indubitable at 12:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
If your disqualifying criterion for president is, "Talk radio meanies are going to say mean things about them and be mean", all you've got is... Trump? You could vote for Donald Trump. Or maybe Ted Cruz. But Trump called him a pussy on national television, so maybe not.
posted by indubitable at 12:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh come the fuck on. Did you just arrive in a time capsule from 1994 or something? I will eat my hat if prominent supporters of Bernie Sanders start defending communism outside of some tiny corner of twitter or something.
I don't think anyone knows what words even mean anymore. The right sort of has to throw this nonsense at Sanders, though, since they've already been throwing the "socialist" epithet at Obama. Where else do they have to go?
In any event, I also doubt that prominent Sanders supporters will start defending communism. Too bad, really. ;) I mean, just look at the ten points at the end of Section II of The Communist Manifesto. I definitely support 2 and 10. I could see myself supporting 1, 3, 5, and 6. And I could see reasonable variations on 7 and 8 that I might also support. The only ones I think are right out are 4 -- because of the threat of abuses -- and 9 -- because it doesn't make nearly as much sense today as it did in 1850. Communism isn't so bad when you get past the label and the associations with Soviet Russia and get down to issues.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think anyone knows what words even mean anymore. The right sort of has to throw this nonsense at Sanders, though, since they've already been throwing the "socialist" epithet at Obama. Where else do they have to go?
In any event, I also doubt that prominent Sanders supporters will start defending communism. Too bad, really. ;) I mean, just look at the ten points at the end of Section II of The Communist Manifesto. I definitely support 2 and 10. I could see myself supporting 1, 3, 5, and 6. And I could see reasonable variations on 7 and 8 that I might also support. The only ones I think are right out are 4 -- because of the threat of abuses -- and 9 -- because it doesn't make nearly as much sense today as it did in 1850. Communism isn't so bad when you get past the label and the associations with Soviet Russia and get down to issues.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
That the Democratic party, as a whole, is rightward of where a lot of people would like it is an entirely separate issue from talking about where Clinton falls within the party.
And I have no problem seeing that she was a solid establishment Democrat at the time, but with recent developments we're seeing her getting stuck standing up in Progressive Musical Chairs.
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on February 13, 2016
And I have no problem seeing that she was a solid establishment Democrat at the time, but with recent developments we're seeing her getting stuck standing up in Progressive Musical Chairs.
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on February 13, 2016
Based on her voting record while in office, though, she was, in aggregate, to the left of the moderates in the Democratic party. Her voting record is open: we can all take a look at that.
But the point is that it isn't 2000-2008 anymore, and the Democratic party's voters have moved substantially leftward over the course of the Obama administration. She doesn't seem to have followed, especially on economic issues. What seemed somewhat liberal then seems nearly conservative now. That's why she's getting challenged by someone attacking her from the left right now.
posted by dialetheia at 12:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
But the point is that it isn't 2000-2008 anymore, and the Democratic party's voters have moved substantially leftward over the course of the Obama administration. She doesn't seem to have followed, especially on economic issues. What seemed somewhat liberal then seems nearly conservative now. That's why she's getting challenged by someone attacking her from the left right now.
posted by dialetheia at 12:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
It plans to finish making her emails public on Feb. 29, a day before the critical Super Tuesday primaries.
Did the groundhog see its shadow? Because that might delay the release.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:56 PM on February 13, 2016
Did the groundhog see its shadow? Because that might delay the release.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:56 PM on February 13, 2016
Here's a digital ad released this week by a right-wing super PAC hitting Sanders on socialism
I'm consistently amazed at how much the propaganda put out by the right wing resembles much of what we've seen in dystopian fiction or satire. Down to the name of the PAC - "America Rising." It's like where some of us saw political commentary, others saw an instruction manual and blueprints.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm consistently amazed at how much the propaganda put out by the right wing resembles much of what we've seen in dystopian fiction or satire. Down to the name of the PAC - "America Rising." It's like where some of us saw political commentary, others saw an instruction manual and blueprints.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
We've seen the most "unelectable" presidential candidate in my lifetime, Barack Hussein Obama, decisively win two terms and achieve real, substantial accomplishments despite a Congress completely set against letting his administration do anything, and in the context of far more hateful and pervasive messages about him booming through the right-wing talk radio/media sphere than the Clintons ever faced.
Obama was successful and created real accomplishments in part because he moved to the right and compromised on many campaign issues that the idealists who elected him to office were and are still pissed about, but whose shift probably helped at least some moderates and independents decide to vote for him. War. Drones. Transparency. Wiretapping. Etc. His Politifact "broken promises" list is long. His list of compromises is slightly longer. But because he was willing to work with and compromise when working within his party (and yes, sometimes with Republicans, too) and not treat his election like a dictatorship, he got things done.
One could argue that such behavior is expected of our Presidents, because the power the office has is not legislative. And when Presidents refuse to compromise, the way George W Bush's administrations did, it makes getting anything done very difficult.
All Presidents do this. Most politicians do. They campaign on ideals and govern in reality.
We keep talking about Sanders' electibility and speculating about what his Presidency might look like. He is more to the left of anyone in the Democratic party. He is more to the left of neoliberal candidate Clinton, and of neoliberal President Obama. His supporters like him because he refuses to compromise his ideals.
But even if Republican voters say they like the benefits of social programs, they sure as hell don't vote that way. Republican politicians elected to office are beholden to their constituencies. So are Democrats. In many districts and states throughout this country, there are Democratic politicians who were voted in, but probably can't support certain social programs without pissing off their constituencies and getting voted out of office.
The five biggest items I've been paying attention to in Sanders platform are:
1) living wages
2) universal single-payer healthcare
3) free education for everyone
4) finance industry regulation and regulation of corporate interests and industries.
5) normalizing relations with Iran
Republican citizens who are more moderate might vote for politicians who support single payer. Polls show a majority of Americans support the idea. They might even vote for politicians who support paying people a living wage, although probably not at California levels. Both issues have at least some bipartisan support amongst voters, if not their representatives.
As for the rest.... it's highly unlikely that #'s 3, 4 and 5 will gain support from either Republican voters or the politicians they elect any time soon.
I look at all this and wonder how those promises and others would play out if he were to win the general. He can't rule by fiat. And if Congress doesn't turn solidly Dem with a supermajority, what happens then? People keep saying he works well with Republicans. They respect him. Great!
Who blinks first?
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama was successful and created real accomplishments in part because he moved to the right and compromised on many campaign issues that the idealists who elected him to office were and are still pissed about, but whose shift probably helped at least some moderates and independents decide to vote for him. War. Drones. Transparency. Wiretapping. Etc. His Politifact "broken promises" list is long. His list of compromises is slightly longer. But because he was willing to work with and compromise when working within his party (and yes, sometimes with Republicans, too) and not treat his election like a dictatorship, he got things done.
One could argue that such behavior is expected of our Presidents, because the power the office has is not legislative. And when Presidents refuse to compromise, the way George W Bush's administrations did, it makes getting anything done very difficult.
All Presidents do this. Most politicians do. They campaign on ideals and govern in reality.
We keep talking about Sanders' electibility and speculating about what his Presidency might look like. He is more to the left of anyone in the Democratic party. He is more to the left of neoliberal candidate Clinton, and of neoliberal President Obama. His supporters like him because he refuses to compromise his ideals.
But even if Republican voters say they like the benefits of social programs, they sure as hell don't vote that way. Republican politicians elected to office are beholden to their constituencies. So are Democrats. In many districts and states throughout this country, there are Democratic politicians who were voted in, but probably can't support certain social programs without pissing off their constituencies and getting voted out of office.
The five biggest items I've been paying attention to in Sanders platform are:
1) living wages
2) universal single-payer healthcare
3) free education for everyone
4) finance industry regulation and regulation of corporate interests and industries.
5) normalizing relations with Iran
Republican citizens who are more moderate might vote for politicians who support single payer. Polls show a majority of Americans support the idea. They might even vote for politicians who support paying people a living wage, although probably not at California levels. Both issues have at least some bipartisan support amongst voters, if not their representatives.
As for the rest.... it's highly unlikely that #'s 3, 4 and 5 will gain support from either Republican voters or the politicians they elect any time soon.
I look at all this and wonder how those promises and others would play out if he were to win the general. He can't rule by fiat. And if Congress doesn't turn solidly Dem with a supermajority, what happens then? People keep saying he works well with Republicans. They respect him. Great!
Who blinks first?
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the Sanders campaign does nothing else, it was worth it just for prompting a wide-scale re-evaluation of Kissinger's legacy with respect to our current foreign policy. I have been loving the historical discussion this week - it's well past time we took a good historical look at the legacies and lessons of our interventionist history, and especially as they relate to the roots of our current foreign policy challenges. Clinton's proud embrace of the leading light of modern interventionism really does say a lot to discredit her foreign policy judgment.
Why the Kissinger exchange matters: Sanders is right about Kissinger. His civilian death toll nears 4 million, his policies built today's Middle East
Why Bernie Sanders sees Henry Kissinger's controversial history as an asset
Why Bernie whacked Hillary on Kissinger: “There are big differences between them and Kissinger is really the embodiment of those differences. He’s the father of the neo-cons and their use of force.”
Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It's Personal. Very Personal.
Hillary Clinton cozies up to Henry Kissinger at her own peril
Bernie Sanders is right: Henry Kissinger is a war criminal
Does Hillary Clinton see the harm that invoking Kissinger does to her campaign?
Sanders proudly declaring “Kissinger is not my friend” totally destroys notion that Clinton’s better on foreign policy: By distancing himself from this destructive, bloody legacy, Sanders is demonstrating just how much wiser he is
posted by dialetheia at 1:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Why the Kissinger exchange matters: Sanders is right about Kissinger. His civilian death toll nears 4 million, his policies built today's Middle East
Why Bernie Sanders sees Henry Kissinger's controversial history as an asset
Why Bernie whacked Hillary on Kissinger: “There are big differences between them and Kissinger is really the embodiment of those differences. He’s the father of the neo-cons and their use of force.”
Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It's Personal. Very Personal.
Hillary Clinton cozies up to Henry Kissinger at her own peril
Bernie Sanders is right: Henry Kissinger is a war criminal
Does Hillary Clinton see the harm that invoking Kissinger does to her campaign?
Sanders proudly declaring “Kissinger is not my friend” totally destroys notion that Clinton’s better on foreign policy: By distancing himself from this destructive, bloody legacy, Sanders is demonstrating just how much wiser he is
posted by dialetheia at 1:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Communism isn't so bad when you get past the label and the associations with Soviet Russia and get down to issues
Communism is one of those things that's sort of interesting in theory, but doesn't hold up to critical analysis, and has never been put to practice in any way that isn't largely corrupt and authoritarian - and I don't believe it's actually anything that can be. Communism concentrates all of the power in the state - It gives a lot of lip service to the idea of rule by the people, but that has yet to actually happen. When communist governance corrupts, which is incredibly likely given it is the sole source of power, it corrupts badly. And theres literally no way that any society that already has a ton of private property ownership will suddenly accept the idea of all property being public.
I could see it working for a country like Mongolia, which has a tradition of public land use and nomadism, but I do not see it scaling to anything remotely resembling a single US state - let alone the country.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:08 PM on February 13, 2016
Communism is one of those things that's sort of interesting in theory, but doesn't hold up to critical analysis, and has never been put to practice in any way that isn't largely corrupt and authoritarian - and I don't believe it's actually anything that can be. Communism concentrates all of the power in the state - It gives a lot of lip service to the idea of rule by the people, but that has yet to actually happen. When communist governance corrupts, which is incredibly likely given it is the sole source of power, it corrupts badly. And theres literally no way that any society that already has a ton of private property ownership will suddenly accept the idea of all property being public.
I could see it working for a country like Mongolia, which has a tradition of public land use and nomadism, but I do not see it scaling to anything remotely resembling a single US state - let alone the country.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:08 PM on February 13, 2016
I hope we can avoid the "how about communism? Is it really that bad?" discussion, I certainly had enough of those in my early 20s for several lifetimes. I'm not really sure where we can take that here anyways - Maybe we can debate as to if there's anyone communist enough to represent those ideals in the executive office. Who represents those ideals in this primary, anyways? How would an unkempt female communist do in this race?
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama was successful and created real accomplishments in part because he moved to the right and compromised
As has been pointed out several times in this thread it seems that Sanders is envisioning a different strategy than most politicians. Unlike Obama, he's calling on his supporters telling us before we vote for him that for his plans to be implemented there is going to have to be a substantial amount of political activism. What he terms a political revolution. He's looking for an empowered citizenry who will begin to shut down major cities if congress does not play ball with Sanders' agenda.
Obama never did this. He asked us to call and write our congresspeople. Bernie is calling for direct action. That's his baseline for success, and the amazing thing is that he is doing it openly and getting away with it on national TV.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
As has been pointed out several times in this thread it seems that Sanders is envisioning a different strategy than most politicians. Unlike Obama, he's calling on his supporters telling us before we vote for him that for his plans to be implemented there is going to have to be a substantial amount of political activism. What he terms a political revolution. He's looking for an empowered citizenry who will begin to shut down major cities if congress does not play ball with Sanders' agenda.
Obama never did this. He asked us to call and write our congresspeople. Bernie is calling for direct action. That's his baseline for success, and the amazing thing is that he is doing it openly and getting away with it on national TV.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton Testing Out New Strategy Against Bernie Sanders
posted by Artw at 1:26 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Artw at 1:26 PM on February 13, 2016
Bernie is calling for direct action.
Now that his movement is reaching some sort of critical mass for being taken seriously, I would absolutely love to see him flex this soon. Maybe mass protests at the Supreme Court when they take up the issue of whether to condemn our planet to unrestricted warming would be in order, or demonstrations when Republicans stonewall our next budget.
posted by dialetheia at 1:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Now that his movement is reaching some sort of critical mass for being taken seriously, I would absolutely love to see him flex this soon. Maybe mass protests at the Supreme Court when they take up the issue of whether to condemn our planet to unrestricted warming would be in order, or demonstrations when Republicans stonewall our next budget.
posted by dialetheia at 1:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's a mistake to take communism as a single block idea. It's not a single block idea; it's a collection of related policy proposals. I mean, look, in the U.S. we already have two-ish of the ten things that Marx and Engels advocated for in their manifesto: a progressive income tax and free education. The "-ish" here comes from the facts that (1) the federal income tax is progressive but maybe not "heavy" enough, (2) state and local taxes make overall U.S. tax burden nearly flat overall and actually anti-progressive for the highest earners, and (3) education is only free to a certain point.
I think it would be an interesting to debate things like ending inheritance. Push the opposite direction of the Republicans: disallow inheritance altogether. No new aristocracy.
I think it would be interesting to debate centralization of communication and transportation as well. We have partially-funded public communication and transportation options. Why not start with better funding for those things? That is an incremental step toward Marx and Engels' ten-points.
I think it would be interesting to debate mandatory social service commitments. Institute a "service" draft. Require people to work as educators, as construction workers, as social workers, as city planners, as Peace Corps volunteers, etc. (I'm not in favor of military service generally, but if we're going to have a military, maybe make military service an option.)
I don't think we're going to eliminate private property any time soon. But that's not the end-all be-all of communism, anyway. And I don't think that taking incremental steps toward at least some of the actual communist proposals is crazy. It's only viewed as crazy because very few people really think about what those proposals are or about the historical context in which they were initially proposed.
On preview, I'll drop this line of discussion here (I didn't want to have typed all that for nothing): If anyone is interested in continuing it, send me a memail.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think it would be an interesting to debate things like ending inheritance. Push the opposite direction of the Republicans: disallow inheritance altogether. No new aristocracy.
I think it would be interesting to debate centralization of communication and transportation as well. We have partially-funded public communication and transportation options. Why not start with better funding for those things? That is an incremental step toward Marx and Engels' ten-points.
I think it would be interesting to debate mandatory social service commitments. Institute a "service" draft. Require people to work as educators, as construction workers, as social workers, as city planners, as Peace Corps volunteers, etc. (I'm not in favor of military service generally, but if we're going to have a military, maybe make military service an option.)
I don't think we're going to eliminate private property any time soon. But that's not the end-all be-all of communism, anyway. And I don't think that taking incremental steps toward at least some of the actual communist proposals is crazy. It's only viewed as crazy because very few people really think about what those proposals are or about the historical context in which they were initially proposed.
On preview, I'll drop this line of discussion here (I didn't want to have typed all that for nothing): If anyone is interested in continuing it, send me a memail.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Now you probably know how Clinton supporters feel when she's called a fascist.
Until about three months ago basically everyone was a Clinton supporter.
Both Trump and Limbaugh are already referring to Bernie as a communist.
Don't you see? Trump and Limbaugh are calling him a communist. Why aren't they calling him a socialist, which is actually true? It's because 99% of the people in the US that would use the words communist and socialist as a slur don't actually know what they mean, they are just parroting whatever right-wing kook they are listening to who use the terms interchangeably and think it's 1994.
That's why you had idiots calling Obama a commie and a socialist and Hillary a fascist long before Bernie was on the presidential scene. These are short-hand dogwhistles that have no actual meaning to the people using them other than "un-American." As in, the House Un-American Activities Committee.
They will call any Dem nominee a socialist and a communist, and it doesn't matter if they actually are because the words have no meaning. These people are fucking mor-ons. I won't link to the YouTube video that is described as This video shows Hillary Clinton admitting she's a Progressive (i.e., a Communist, Socialist). See other Communists and Socialists in US Government, including Barack Obama and 80+ members of Congress.
Even Hillary doesn't seem to know the difference.
This will likely prompt some of his defenders to embrace the term
That's just dumb.
On preview: do you think the wing nuts are having nuanced conversations like Jonathan Livengood is talking about above?
posted by Room 641-A at 1:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Until about three months ago basically everyone was a Clinton supporter.
Both Trump and Limbaugh are already referring to Bernie as a communist.
Don't you see? Trump and Limbaugh are calling him a communist. Why aren't they calling him a socialist, which is actually true? It's because 99% of the people in the US that would use the words communist and socialist as a slur don't actually know what they mean, they are just parroting whatever right-wing kook they are listening to who use the terms interchangeably and think it's 1994.
That's why you had idiots calling Obama a commie and a socialist and Hillary a fascist long before Bernie was on the presidential scene. These are short-hand dogwhistles that have no actual meaning to the people using them other than "un-American." As in, the House Un-American Activities Committee.
They will call any Dem nominee a socialist and a communist, and it doesn't matter if they actually are because the words have no meaning. These people are fucking mor-ons. I won't link to the YouTube video that is described as This video shows Hillary Clinton admitting she's a Progressive (i.e., a Communist, Socialist). See other Communists and Socialists in US Government, including Barack Obama and 80+ members of Congress.
Even Hillary doesn't seem to know the difference.
This will likely prompt some of his defenders to embrace the term
That's just dumb.
On preview: do you think the wing nuts are having nuanced conversations like Jonathan Livengood is talking about above?
posted by Room 641-A at 1:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Social Democracy feels like it's worth a try. There's plenty of potential for success for more people without reaching Communism.
posted by rhizome at 1:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 1:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
On better preview, again what Jonathan Livengood said.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:34 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 1:34 PM on February 13, 2016
I guess if you're going to be a single issue candidate, income inequality, death of the middle class, and abandonment of the poor, is a fairly good issue to run on. In my mind the majority of the world's ills directly follow from this single issue. War, immigration, taxes, education, liberty, the fucking American Dream, are all subsumed by income inequality. Good luck with this attack, Hillary. Again, she'll just show Sanders cares. Put the pin back in. I implore you.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I missed the call to arms as well, but I would like to subscribe to this newsletter.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good luck with this attack, Hillary.
I just want to know what Clinton's detailed and concrete plan for ending sexism and racism is, since apparently now she's got one.
posted by Artw at 1:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
I just want to know what Clinton's detailed and concrete plan for ending sexism and racism is, since apparently now she's got one.
posted by Artw at 1:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Really, having those as issues however vaguely would be better than being a zero issue candidate, which is what she is right now. If she wanted to push those in some way other than as an attack on her opponent I think we'd all think much better of her.
posted by Artw at 1:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 1:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
WOW. Someone found footage of Hillary Clinton talking about how she could compromise on constitutional restrictions on abortion if they included provisions for the mother's health - in 2015! I cannot believe this isn't from 1996 or something.
"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action."
posted by dialetheia at 1:44 PM on February 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action."
posted by dialetheia at 1:44 PM on February 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
The same people who would be moved by a slur of "socialist" or "communist" already see "democrat" as a synonym and a slur - I'm surprised that we haven't seen something trying to equate democrats to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea or similar. It makes just as much sense in this context, it's just trying to make associations with those that the US has seen as "enemies"
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:47 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:47 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
That PP endorsement looking like exactly the bad idea I thought it was.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
I love how people who are only interested in "free stuff" are managing to out raise every other candidate out there from actual people. Don't worry, Hillary, corporations are people too, my friend. Seems people really like their socialism.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, Jonathan Livengood - Wasn't trying to silence you, and I apologize if it came off that way. Not my intention at all. I do think that there's room for incorporating some of those concepts long term - There's a significant overlap with much of what you discussed and socialism in general.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:56 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:56 PM on February 13, 2016
Antonin Scalia Found Dead
May you live in interesting times.
posted by rhizome at 2:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
May you live in interesting times.
posted by rhizome at 2:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
So, hey, I guess we can rest easy on the judge thing.
Also: INCOMING EVEN MORE CONTENTIOUS POLITICS THREAD
posted by Artw at 2:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also: INCOMING EVEN MORE CONTENTIOUS POLITICS THREAD
posted by Artw at 2:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I tried for a minute to think of a way to make a post that wouldn't just be #newsfilter, but I quickly realized that would take a week.
posted by rhizome at 2:09 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by rhizome at 2:09 PM on February 13, 2016
As has been pointed out several times in this thread it seems that Sanders is envisioning a different strategy than most politicians.
Which would help him push through an agenda how, exactly?
He's looking for an empowered citizenry who will begin to shut down major cities if congress does not play ball with Sanders' agenda.
I must have missed that part of his campaign platform! Free education for everyone... Normalization of relations with Iran... homegrown terrorists shutting down Boston... single payer healthcare....
I'm pretty sure he's not asking the voting electorate to hold the country hostage to spite Congress. *eyeroll*
posted by zarq at 2:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which would help him push through an agenda how, exactly?
He's looking for an empowered citizenry who will begin to shut down major cities if congress does not play ball with Sanders' agenda.
I must have missed that part of his campaign platform! Free education for everyone... Normalization of relations with Iran... homegrown terrorists shutting down Boston... single payer healthcare....
I'm pretty sure he's not asking the voting electorate to hold the country hostage to spite Congress. *eyeroll*
posted by zarq at 2:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing just posting an animated gif of champagne corks popping would be considered unclassy for an obituary thread, but it's tempting.
posted by Artw at 2:11 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:11 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clintons just promised to end all discrimination, end voter inequality and get rid of gerrymandering so long as we don't break up banks, so really curious to see her ten point plan on that.
posted by Artw at 2:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh my. Thing are about to get very interesting, aren't they.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:13 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:13 PM on February 13, 2016
Which would help him push through an agenda how, exactly?
By moving the Overton window instead of pre-emptively acquiescing to the Republican framing, as Hillary Clinton is doing right now. We sure aren't going to get our agenda passed by calling it "impossible" - and especially not after receiving millions of dollars of donations from the very people who want it to be impossible.
I'm pretty sure he's not asking the voting electorate to hold the country hostage to spite Congress. *eyeroll*
He absolutely is calling for an involved citizenry that puts pressure on their elected representatives to move legislation, even when those representatives aren't Democrats. It's worth actually looking at the stuff he says when he talks about his "political revolution" - he might not be talking about shutting down cities, but he is talking about direct action to put pressure on elected officials and change the narrative.
posted by dialetheia at 2:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
By moving the Overton window instead of pre-emptively acquiescing to the Republican framing, as Hillary Clinton is doing right now. We sure aren't going to get our agenda passed by calling it "impossible" - and especially not after receiving millions of dollars of donations from the very people who want it to be impossible.
I'm pretty sure he's not asking the voting electorate to hold the country hostage to spite Congress. *eyeroll*
He absolutely is calling for an involved citizenry that puts pressure on their elected representatives to move legislation, even when those representatives aren't Democrats. It's worth actually looking at the stuff he says when he talks about his "political revolution" - he might not be talking about shutting down cities, but he is talking about direct action to put pressure on elected officials and change the narrative.
posted by dialetheia at 2:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Thank you for that more realistic answer, dialetheia.
posted by zarq at 2:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 2:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wasn't trying to silence you, and I apologize if it came off that way.
Hah! No worries. I didn't feel silenced. I thought you were just correctly pointing out that it was likely to be an unhelpful derail.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:18 PM on February 13, 2016
Hah! No worries. I didn't feel silenced. I thought you were just correctly pointing out that it was likely to be an unhelpful derail.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:18 PM on February 13, 2016
Two immediate things about Scalia make this relevant, not so much to Sanders, but to a current-election thread:
- There's a Republican debate tonight
- There are several high-profile SC cases that will come out 4-4
I hope this puts into perspective why people need to vote for the Democratic nominee even if its Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 2:20 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Justinian at 2:20 PM on February 13, 2016
I can't think of anything to say about Scalia that will survive moderation.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 2:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is Scalia really dead??!?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
WSJ is reporting it, NBC just broke into TV, some others are doing independent confirmation, but it appears true.
posted by rhizome at 2:23 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by rhizome at 2:23 PM on February 13, 2016
Nobody has buried him at a crossroads or stuffed his head full of garlic yet though. >
posted by Artw at 2:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I must have missed that part of his campaign platform! Free education for everyone... Normalization of relations with Iran... homegrown terrorists shutting down Boston... single payer healthcare....
Terrorists? Really? Are really that authoritarian that protesters are now "terrorists?" If so you really need to check your privilege.
Bernie Sanders Reveals How as President He'll Beat Obstructionist Congress
So he doesn't explicitly call for "shutting down cities," but in this piece he does say: "I will be in your state so a few hundred thousand of us can say hi to your senator." Sounds like direct action to me.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Terrorists? Really? Are really that authoritarian that protesters are now "terrorists?" If so you really need to check your privilege.
Bernie Sanders Reveals How as President He'll Beat Obstructionist Congress
So he doesn't explicitly call for "shutting down cities," but in this piece he does say: "I will be in your state so a few hundred thousand of us can say hi to your senator." Sounds like direct action to me.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, do you guys agree with me that the election in November is now going to focus on the Supreme Court in a way unprecedented in our (for values of "our" = less than 50) lifetimes?
posted by Justinian at 2:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Terrorists? Really? Are really that authoritarian that protesters are now "terrorists?" If so you really need to check your privilege.
Check your wording. "Shutting down cities" is not "protests." And the idea that Sanders would call for the former is ludicrous. If you're going to respond to a serious query with ridiculous hyperbole, then don't be shocked when you get called out for it.
posted by zarq at 2:29 PM on February 13, 2016
Check your wording. "Shutting down cities" is not "protests." And the idea that Sanders would call for the former is ludicrous. If you're going to respond to a serious query with ridiculous hyperbole, then don't be shocked when you get called out for it.
posted by zarq at 2:29 PM on February 13, 2016
Justinian: We'll get some indication in about 5 hours unless they cancel the debate.
posted by rhizome at 2:32 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by rhizome at 2:32 PM on February 13, 2016
I wonder when there's been a Presidential election with only 8 justices [sic].
posted by rhizome at 2:34 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by rhizome at 2:34 PM on February 13, 2016
So, do you guys agree with me that the election in November is now going to focus on the Supreme Court in a way unprecedented in our (for values of "our" = less than 50) lifetimes?
Pretty much.
There will be an appointment.
And Congress will do their damnedest to stall until after the election.
posted by zarq at 2:36 PM on February 13, 2016
Pretty much.
There will be an appointment.
And Congress will do their damnedest to stall until after the election.
posted by zarq at 2:36 PM on February 13, 2016
"Shutting down cities" is not "protests."
Really? But it's terrorism? Some of us don't have time for you guys to wait for the stars to align to change this country. We need to do it now.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:36 PM on February 13, 2016
Really? But it's terrorism? Some of us don't have time for you guys to wait for the stars to align to change this country. We need to do it now.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:36 PM on February 13, 2016
homegrown terrorists shutting down Boston...
Is that maybe referring to the marathon? Because that makes more sense.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is that maybe referring to the marathon? Because that makes more sense.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some possible good news, at least. "The longest Supreme Court confirmation process from nomination to resolution was Brandeis, at 125 days. Obama has 342 days left in office."
The last two and a half months of his term would be after the election, though. So there's no way an appointment could happen then.
posted by zarq at 2:42 PM on February 13, 2016
The last two and a half months of his term would be after the election, though. So there's no way an appointment could happen then.
posted by zarq at 2:42 PM on February 13, 2016
And Congress will do their damnedest to stall until after the election.
You mean the Senate, and I doubt so. A lot of R senators are up for re-election this year, too.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
You mean the Senate, and I doubt so. A lot of R senators are up for re-election this year, too.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was not expecting that.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:44 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 2:44 PM on February 13, 2016
I'd be rather suspicious of you if you were.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
> I hope this puts into perspective why people need to vote for the Democratic nominee even if it's Clinton.
Not for me.
First, whenever this is proposed it's always the Sanders supporters that are somehow expected to capitulate. If I, for a second, believed Clinton herself and her supporters would fall in line behind a Bernie win, then I might extend her this courtesy, but I don't see her doing this. As already been pointed out she's a salt the earth kind of loser. When asked what she thought about a Bloomberg entrance into the race she said, "He's a good friend of mine. The way I read what he said is if I didn't get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I'm going to relieve him of that and get the nomination so he doesn't have to." She didn't say, "If I don't get the nomination I will give my support to the Democratic candidate."
Second, the US did fine with a conservative justice on the bench. Even one as terrible as Scalia. It would be hard to outdo him, but even if this somehow managed to come to pass, you are talking about one justice of nine, in one of the three branches of government. If you are that concerned, that this is what you are basing your voting on, then you are living in fear. Now that Obama will get to replace him you have even less of a concern for the future of SCOTUS. Add in you never really know how good a justice will actually be. The person Obama picks may be a boffo.
Third, some of us don't believe Clinton is worthy of being President. Period. Her love of war, love of intrusive government, wavering convictions, overwhelming need to hold onto power and prove herself, her difficulty with transparency and honesty, her ties to financial institutions, and her inability to be on the right side of history until well after the fact, means she's just not getting my vote.
I would prefer another 8 years of Scalia to 8 of Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:58 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not for me.
First, whenever this is proposed it's always the Sanders supporters that are somehow expected to capitulate. If I, for a second, believed Clinton herself and her supporters would fall in line behind a Bernie win, then I might extend her this courtesy, but I don't see her doing this. As already been pointed out she's a salt the earth kind of loser. When asked what she thought about a Bloomberg entrance into the race she said, "He's a good friend of mine. The way I read what he said is if I didn't get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I'm going to relieve him of that and get the nomination so he doesn't have to." She didn't say, "If I don't get the nomination I will give my support to the Democratic candidate."
Second, the US did fine with a conservative justice on the bench. Even one as terrible as Scalia. It would be hard to outdo him, but even if this somehow managed to come to pass, you are talking about one justice of nine, in one of the three branches of government. If you are that concerned, that this is what you are basing your voting on, then you are living in fear. Now that Obama will get to replace him you have even less of a concern for the future of SCOTUS. Add in you never really know how good a justice will actually be. The person Obama picks may be a boffo.
Third, some of us don't believe Clinton is worthy of being President. Period. Her love of war, love of intrusive government, wavering convictions, overwhelming need to hold onto power and prove herself, her difficulty with transparency and honesty, her ties to financial institutions, and her inability to be on the right side of history until well after the fact, means she's just not getting my vote.
I would prefer another 8 years of Scalia to 8 of Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:58 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
It should be a moot point because the Democrats should fight as hard to get a reasonable appointment through the Senate as they've ever fought for anything in their lives. That level of obstructionism would be unprecedented and they should be shamed until it hurts them at the ballot box. They cannot be allowed to stall out an appointment. There are still moderate senators who need to get re-elected and they should be run out of office if they play along with the GOP.
posted by dialetheia at 3:04 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:04 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hope this puts into perspective why people need to vote for the Democratic nominee even if it's Clinton.
If one candidate is polling much better against the R it will be that person. If both Clinton and Sanders poll with a comfortable lead over the R then that makes it less urgent to vote for Clinton.
It will be interesting to see how all the candidates respond with this news. (Or react, in the case of Rubio.)
posted by Room 641-A at 3:08 PM on February 13, 2016
If one candidate is polling much better against the R it will be that person. If both Clinton and Sanders poll with a comfortable lead over the R then that makes it less urgent to vote for Clinton.
It will be interesting to see how all the candidates respond with this news. (Or react, in the case of Rubio.)
posted by Room 641-A at 3:08 PM on February 13, 2016
cjorgensen: you're way off base. If Sanders were to win the Democratic party would get behind him in full force. They did for Obama and they would for Sanders. I have no idea what leads you to believe otherwise.
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no idea what leads you to believe otherwise.
Probably because he intends to dismantle the big wall street players who currently rig the economy. They are a pretty powerful constituency of the Democratic party.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Probably because he intends to dismantle the big wall street players who currently rig the economy. They are a pretty powerful constituency of the Democratic party.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that the party won't fall in line behind Sanders in the event of a win is not reality-based thinking. We should live in the reality based community.
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't think this will be an issue for the upcoming election. I actually think the Senate will rather speedily confirm someone. The main reason being that if the election is widely seen as about the Supreme Court -- with an actual justice definitely in play -- then turnout will be very large. And very large turnout does not favor the Republicans. It doesn't favor them for the Presidency. And it doesn't favor them down-ticket either. Moreover, they would be seriously rolling the dice that the next justice is nominated by a sane Republican, as opposed to being nominated by Trump, let alone being nominated by the Republican arch-nemesis Clinton or the "socialist-communist" Sanders.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Justinian: several of Clinton's advisors have made shady comments about Bloomberg's run in public - Doug Band and Ed Rendell at the very least. Rendell even had to walk his comments back.
posted by dialetheia at 3:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 3:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
And tons of people made snide comments about Obama in 2008, or Clinton, etc. It all goes away after the primary.
posted by Justinian at 3:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
We should live in the reality based community.
Have you ever seen how foreign policy discussions go on here? Decidedly not reality based. I agree, though, that the odds of the Democratic Party revolting against a Sanders win are pretty low. But not outside of reality.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:21 PM on February 13, 2016
Have you ever seen how foreign policy discussions go on here? Decidedly not reality based. I agree, though, that the odds of the Democratic Party revolting against a Sanders win are pretty low. But not outside of reality.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:21 PM on February 13, 2016
And tons of people made snide comments about Obama in 2008, or Clinton, etc. It all goes away after the primary.
Not his close advisors and surrogates! If you can find me a single example of one of Obama's campaign surrogates (like Rendell) threatening to support a third party if Obama doesn't win, I'll buy you a beer.
posted by dialetheia at 3:23 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not his close advisors and surrogates! If you can find me a single example of one of Obama's campaign surrogates (like Rendell) threatening to support a third party if Obama doesn't win, I'll buy you a beer.
posted by dialetheia at 3:23 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Antonin Scalia Found Dead
I swear to god, I was just wishing for this and chiding myself for wishing it. Holy crap.
posted by Trochanter at 3:25 PM on February 13, 2016
I swear to god, I was just wishing for this and chiding myself for wishing it. Holy crap.
posted by Trochanter at 3:25 PM on February 13, 2016
Ralph Schiano @RalphSchiano
If #marxist scumbag @POTUS gets to nominate #Scalia's replacement, we are screwed.
BINGO!
posted by Room 641-A at 3:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
If #marxist scumbag @POTUS gets to nominate #Scalia's replacement, we are screwed.
BINGO!
posted by Room 641-A at 3:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's Electionwang
posted by rhizome at 3:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 3:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Doug Band and Ed Rendell at the very least. Rendell even had to walk his comments back.
So they're using Trump's tactics now? Are we witnessing the extinction burst of the old guard?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
So they're using Trump's tactics now? Are we witnessing the extinction burst of the old guard?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Scalia was there for 30 years. 30 years of Trump or Cruz appointee would be way worse that 8 years of Clinton - it's a position with way more power to make things stick than President.
posted by Artw at 3:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 3:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It will be interesting to see how all the candidates respond with this news. (Or react, in the case of Rubio.)
I doubt that rubio has been programmed for this situation. Someone is probably writing the code right now.
posted by futz at 3:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I doubt that rubio has been programmed for this situation. Someone is probably writing the code right now.
posted by futz at 3:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
If Sanders were to win the Democratic party would get behind him in full force. They did for Obama and they would for Sanders. I have no idea what leads you to believe otherwise.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember the DNC not supporting Obama, but you have the chair of the DNC making comments on how super delegates are there to keep out grassroots activists, and you have Hillary supporters already banking the win because she has this super delegate lead.
Sure, at the point that he wins the party will have little choice, but it would be nice to see some support for its members now. Also, I didn't say the DNC wouldn't fall in line, I said Hillary wouldn't.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:48 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I could be wrong, but I don't remember the DNC not supporting Obama, but you have the chair of the DNC making comments on how super delegates are there to keep out grassroots activists, and you have Hillary supporters already banking the win because she has this super delegate lead.
Sure, at the point that he wins the party will have little choice, but it would be nice to see some support for its members now. Also, I didn't say the DNC wouldn't fall in line, I said Hillary wouldn't.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:48 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
WOW. Someone found footage of Hillary Clinton talking about how she could compromise on constitutional restrictions on abortion if they included provisions for the mother's health - in 2015! I cannot believe this isn't from 1996 or something.
That's insanely huge news. I wonder what Planned Parenthood has to say. Clinton is very lucky that Scalia croaked.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's insanely huge news. I wonder what Planned Parenthood has to say. Clinton is very lucky that Scalia croaked.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
So. I'm not as smart, nor as familiar with historical and present day norms, as you folks about political realities.
What's the functional over/under that Obama actually gets to appoint someone? Like in the real world, not just in paper...
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:53 PM on February 13, 2016
What's the functional over/under that Obama actually gets to appoint someone? Like in the real world, not just in paper...
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:53 PM on February 13, 2016
Never mind, I just saw the Scalia the thread, I'll go over there and educate myself. Blame me being on my phone for not knowing about said thread.
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:54 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:54 PM on February 13, 2016
The Onion @TheOnion 6m6 minutes ago
Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress
posted by Trochanter at 4:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress
posted by Trochanter at 4:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
“This an unfortunate step backward. We support the restrictions that President Obama put in place and we hope Secretary Clinton will join us in supporting the president.”
Bernie Sanders Presses Hillary Clinton To Demand DNC Keep Ban On Lobbyist Cash
posted by localhuman at 4:40 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Well, obviously the holy scripture of Obama is open to interpretation..."
posted by Artw at 4:51 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Artw at 4:51 PM on February 13, 2016
I hope this puts into perspective why people need to vote for the Democratic nominee even if its Clinton.
No.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on February 13, 2016
No.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on February 13, 2016
MSNBC: On the ground in SC
HRC: 14 staffers, 2 offices
BS: 240 staffers, 10 offices
??
posted by Room 641-A at 5:59 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
HRC: 14 staffers, 2 offices
BS: 240 staffers, 10 offices
??
posted by Room 641-A at 5:59 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is this thread for bitching about the Republican debate?
posted by peeedro at 6:03 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:03 PM on February 13, 2016
Give 'er
posted by Trochanter at 6:04 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 6:04 PM on February 13, 2016
I assume so.
I guess they avoided the previous clown show by having everyone on the stage at the same time.
posted by homunculus at 6:05 PM on February 13, 2016
I guess they avoided the previous clown show by having everyone on the stage at the same time.
posted by homunculus at 6:05 PM on February 13, 2016
##### GOP DEBATE THREAD DECLARED #####
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Donald sounds hoarse.
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:07 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:07 PM on February 13, 2016
How is it not treasonous to announce you will block anyone the president puts up?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
And Donald put it straight on the Senate to do something about stopping Obama from nominating a SC justice.
posted by peeedro at 6:08 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:08 PM on February 13, 2016
Trump: Delay. Delay. Delay.
No surprises.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
No surprises.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump wants McConnell to delay, delay, delay.
No sugar coating it for Trumpy.
posted by futz at 6:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
No sugar coating it for Trumpy.
posted by futz at 6:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh my god Carson is a moron. Like... I can't even.
posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
If we can secure that seat then does that leave Kasich as the most normal? I know he's extremely anti-choice.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Allow?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:10 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:10 PM on February 13, 2016
Pitch-perfect answer from Kasich. Bipartisanship, moderation, consensus nominee should be put forth, President should hold off.
He's hoping people won't notice that the end result of his proposal is the same as Trump's: "delay delay delay", by more genteel means.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
He's hoping people won't notice that the end result of his proposal is the same as Trump's: "delay delay delay", by more genteel means.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carson calling for an end to lifetime appointments is something I agree with.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:10 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:10 PM on February 13, 2016
Rubio-bot got a new sub-routine!
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
What about Justice Kennedy you robot talking head?!
posted by leotrotsky at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Uh oh, the rubio-bot is fast talking. CPU overload alert!
posted by futz at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Carson: Constitutional scholar but never read Article II.
posted by Talez at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Talez at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I turned on the TV just in time to see the moderator ask Ben Carson a question about replacing Scalia. And so I immediately hit the button again and turned it off. I can't handle that right now.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I miss Chris Christie right now.
posted by homunculus at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
How many cups of coffee has Rubio had? He seems jittery.
posted by octothorpe at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 6:12 PM on February 13, 2016
The time limit is going to kill Carson. This is going to be entertaining. Oh yes.
posted by futz at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016
What's the originalist case for refusing to consider a duly nominated Justice?
Just kidding, originalism was always complete bullshit. There's no originalist case for anything, ever.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just kidding, originalism was always complete bullshit. There's no originalist case for anything, ever.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jeb Bush: "We got a 5-4 conservative majority fair and square during Reagan, so take one conservative off we should get one conservative back"
posted by Talez at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Talez at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016
Rubio said Scalia understood the constitution better than anyone in the history of the republic. Ouch, Mr. Jefferson.
The moderator is doing a good job of pinning these guys down.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
The moderator is doing a good job of pinning these guys down.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Boo! Only dirty liberals apologize.
posted by homunculus at 6:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Considering the context.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:15 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:15 PM on February 13, 2016
Facts are getting boo'd. Keeping it unreal repubs.
posted by futz at 6:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 6:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't apologize John Dickerson.
posted by peeedro at 6:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 6:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I just wanted to get the facts straight"
*BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*
Yeah... this is a good start...
posted by Talez at 6:16 PM on February 13, 2016
*BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*
Yeah... this is a good start...
posted by Talez at 6:16 PM on February 13, 2016
Cruz is totally selling me on a liberal justice.
posted by octothorpe at 6:16 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 6:16 PM on February 13, 2016
so take one conservative off we should get one conservative back
Yes, of course you have a right to your majority! This is full-on party messaging, today would be my least favorite day to be a major politician, but that's why I'm not a politician.
posted by rhizome at 6:17 PM on February 13, 2016
Yes, of course you have a right to your majority! This is full-on party messaging, today would be my least favorite day to be a major politician, but that's why I'm not a politician.
posted by rhizome at 6:17 PM on February 13, 2016
"It's been over 80 years since a lame duck president appointed"
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. A president is considered "lame duck" after the election where they are replaced.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:18 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. A president is considered "lame duck" after the election where they are replaced.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:18 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'd love to see people cheering for the claim that the Iran deal is a disgrace be asked to describe the Iran deal, live, on national television.
posted by Justinian at 6:18 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:18 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'd love to see people cheering for the claim that the Iran deal is a disgrace be asked to describe the Iran deal, live, on national television.
"Well I know we won't know if we can make sand glow in the dark that's for sure"
posted by Talez at 6:19 PM on February 13, 2016
"Well I know we won't know if we can make sand glow in the dark that's for sure"
posted by Talez at 6:19 PM on February 13, 2016
Oh my god, what's the robot version of crack cocaine?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump is gonna say that this moderator is mean.
posted by futz at 6:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:20 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
OVERCLOCKING
posted by Artw at 6:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Marco Rubio is the father of children.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:21 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
OMG, Carson backpedaling on his wrong answer is delicious.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:22 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by triggerfinger at 6:22 PM on February 13, 2016
Oh my god, what's the robot version of crack cocaine?
They overclocked his CPU, but without adequate water cooling he'll overheat and crash.
posted by bluecore at 6:22 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
They overclocked his CPU, but without adequate water cooling he'll overheat and crash.
posted by bluecore at 6:22 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind Donald Trump being asked to describe the Iran deal, live, on national television. 3-1 says he couldn't do it.
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Dr Carson, you had to learn things to be able to take those 2am phone calls"
"I'm a surgeon, a cutter, not a doctor, I don't actually need to learn anything"
posted by Talez at 6:23 PM on February 13, 2016
"I'm a surgeon, a cutter, not a doctor, I don't actually need to learn anything"
posted by Talez at 6:23 PM on February 13, 2016
You still aren't a politician trumpy.
Oh look, he's got Bette Davis eyes!
posted by teponaztli at 6:24 PM on February 13, 2016
Oh look, he's got Bette Davis eyes!
posted by teponaztli at 6:24 PM on February 13, 2016
Kasich wants a proxy war in Ukraine.
posted by peeedro at 6:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 6:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The rights of women kasich? That's rich.
posted by futz at 6:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by futz at 6:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Grand Old Party: Pragmatism? What the fuck is that?
posted by Talez at 6:25 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Talez at 6:25 PM on February 13, 2016
Is it just me or did Marco Rubio preternaturally prepared for his 3 foreign policy question ? Unlike doofus Jeb.
posted by y2karl at 6:25 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by y2karl at 6:25 PM on February 13, 2016
Did Jeb! just say "a nuk-u-lar weapon"?!??
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2016
Booing Trump?
posted by octothorpe at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2016
Jeb's take on foreign policy: Good people vs evil people and we need to back our good guys!
posted by Talez at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Talez at 6:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
ugh, I missed the opening, what did Carson say that he backpedalled on, I saw him saying something like "I know the president appoints justices, the left will try to distort what I said".
More bullet point recap, plz: did JEB! say that it's not right to replace Scalia with a liberal, that the 5-4 conservative majority should be basically enshrined into law?
posted by skewed at 6:27 PM on February 13, 2016
More bullet point recap, plz: did JEB! say that it's not right to replace Scalia with a liberal, that the 5-4 conservative majority should be basically enshrined into law?
posted by skewed at 6:27 PM on February 13, 2016
A proxy war in Ukraine will lead to total war. Kasich is so far out of the loop.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is off the rails.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is pathetic. Trump wants so badly to be a WINNER.
posted by futz at 6:28 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 6:28 PM on February 13, 2016
Pinko Trump should try to get his charm school tuition refunded.
posted by y2karl at 6:29 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by y2karl at 6:29 PM on February 13, 2016
The audience seems really stacked against Trump. And probably is.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 6:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
ARM THE KURDS! HOLY SHIT HE'S GOING TO CAUSE CIVIL WAR IN TURKEY AND IRAQ!
posted by Talez at 6:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Talez at 6:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
what did Carson say that he backpedalled on
The question was about whether Obama should wait to appoint a SC justice. He rambled something about the constitution.
posted by peeedro at 6:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The question was about whether Obama should wait to appoint a SC justice. He rambled something about the constitution.
posted by peeedro at 6:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
RNC picks the crowd.
That might backfire on them.
posted by octothorpe at 6:31 PM on February 13, 2016
That might backfire on them.
posted by octothorpe at 6:31 PM on February 13, 2016
Question was basically: Do you believe the Constitution gives President Obama the power to name a Supreme Court Judge?
Carson: The constitution doesn't address this
posted by triggerfinger at 6:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Carson: The constitution doesn't address this
posted by triggerfinger at 6:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
John Dickerson is rocking tonight.
posted by peeedro at 6:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 6:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stop saying things I agree with, Trump.
posted by octothorpe at 6:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Holy shit these people are absolutely fucking deluded about foreign policy.
posted by Talez at 6:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ooh. I am a self made business man who gets along with everyone. Such a mensch.
Is he going to answer the question?
He is going to go ballistic after this debate. Ballistic.
posted by futz at 6:33 PM on February 13, 2016
Is he going to answer the question?
He is going to go ballistic after this debate. Ballistic.
posted by futz at 6:33 PM on February 13, 2016
Bushes are popular in SC.
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:34 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:34 PM on February 13, 2016
Did Trump just say World Trade Center??
posted by Room 641-A at 6:34 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:34 PM on February 13, 2016
The crowd is such a stacked deck here, it's ridiculous.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:35 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by leotrotsky at 6:35 PM on February 13, 2016
Yep. The WTC came down during Bush's presidency which is totally correct. Nobody ever holds the Bush legacy to account over that.
posted by Talez at 6:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, at least, in regards to the invasion of Iraq, Trump and I are on the same page.
posted by y2karl at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by y2karl at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016
This is worse than a mob of 5th graders on the playground. It is soooo cringeworthy. Sorry the rest of the world!
posted by futz at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016
Yeah, but he "kept us safe".
posted by glhaynes at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by glhaynes at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Trump just blamed WTC attacks on GWB, right after calling the Iraq war a huge, huge mistake. This is getting fierce.
posted by skewed at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by skewed at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
This crowd is absolutely fucking staged. It's just obstructionist and antagonistic. Anyone who cheers about the public being fucking lied to by some of the most evil assholes ever to administer the US is batshit insane or bought.
posted by Talez at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:36 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, I just can't believe someone said it.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016
The crowd is such a stacked deck here, it's ridiculous.
This. This is going to backfire on them. Can you imagine a Democratic debate where the crowd booes every time Bernie opens his mouth?
Oh, shit. Donald just asked the Who kept us safe on 9/11 question!
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
This. This is going to backfire on them. Can you imagine a Democratic debate where the crowd booes every time Bernie opens his mouth?
Oh, shit. Donald just asked the Who kept us safe on 9/11 question!
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bush: "My mother is the strongest woman I know"
Trump: "She should be running"
Oof.
posted by TungstenChef at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
Trump: "She should be running"
Oof.
posted by TungstenChef at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
Is Trump channeling the ghost of Rand Paul? He's almost making me think he's the least terrible option up there, and I don't know how I feel about that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016
Are the Republicans really going to nominate someone who says that the Iraq was was a terrible mistake?
posted by octothorpe at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 6:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fuck this crowd is so idiotic.
posted by Talez at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm literally pulling for Trump here, crazy.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Legitimate question from Trump. How did he keep us safe? This is nuts.
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't believe this is what the republican party has devolved to. Crazy pants.
posted by futz at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, Jeb Bush Marco Rubio, Your Brother W. Did Not Keep Us Safe
posted by homunculus at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016
ech, JEB is trying to sound condescending and ironic, but he sounds like he's legitimately hurt
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
How did Trump become the reasonable one people? My world no longer makes sense.
posted by Justinian at 6:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
And Rubio seems to be running for Vice President under Jeb Bush.
Ben Carson is definitely not off his meds. And a master of details as always.
posted by y2karl at 6:39 PM on February 13, 2016
Ben Carson is definitely not off his meds. And a master of details as always.
posted by y2karl at 6:39 PM on February 13, 2016
Is Trump channeling the ghost of Rand Paul? He's almost making me think he's the least terrible option up there, and I don't know how I feel about that.
Kasich really had the best answer. Don't get involved when you don't have to. If you do have to, don't do it half assed.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on February 13, 2016
Kasich really had the best answer. Don't get involved when you don't have to. If you do have to, don't do it half assed.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on February 13, 2016
ech, JEB is trying to sound condescending and ironic, but he sounds like he's legitimately hurt
I very seriously think he teared up for a second.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:40 PM on February 13, 2016
I very seriously think he teared up for a second.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:40 PM on February 13, 2016
leotrotsky: “I'm literally pulling for Trump here”
that's... a mental image I could have done without
posted by koeselitz at 6:40 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
that's... a mental image I could have done without
posted by koeselitz at 6:40 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
oh shit, Trivago guy has his own facist regime now.
posted by pjenks at 6:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pjenks at 6:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does South Carolina have an open primary? I can't see Trump's truth telling on 9/11 earning him many republican votes, is he betting on Democrats coming to the polls for him?
posted by peeedro at 6:42 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:42 PM on February 13, 2016
This country has outstripped the ability of marijuana to make sense of it. No wonder it's been getting legalized.
posted by rhizome at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
So during a break like this, what happens, do all their handlers run on stage or are they left just standing there?
posted by futz at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2016
Money and how we'd spend it.
a.k.a "Who can fuck the poor in the most brutal way possible?"
posted by Talez at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2016
a.k.a "Who can fuck the poor in the most brutal way possible?"
posted by Talez at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2016
So during a break like this, what happens,
Need a good cut man...
posted by Trochanter at 6:44 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Need a good cut man...
posted by Trochanter at 6:44 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
So during a break like this what happens, do all their handlers run on stage or are they left just standing there?
Trump and Jeb shoot spitballs at each other.
posted by homunculus at 6:44 PM on February 13, 2016
Trump and Jeb shoot spitballs at each other.
posted by homunculus at 6:44 PM on February 13, 2016
But Trumpy, HOW will you do all that?
posted by futz at 6:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Moderator: "How would you actually do this?"
Trump: "It's tremendous! We'll make our economy great again!"
posted by homunculus at 6:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump: "It's tremendous! We'll make our economy great again!"
posted by homunculus at 6:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
So during a break like this what happens, do all their handlers run on stage or are they left just standing there?
IT runs in and reboots Rubio
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:46 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
IT runs in and reboots Rubio
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:46 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Does South Carolina have an open primary? I can't see Trump's truth telling on 9/11 earning him many republican votes, is he betting on Democrats coming to the polls for him?
It's been part of his anti-Jeb routine all along. The Republican base is no longer in love with W.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on February 13, 2016
It's been part of his anti-Jeb routine all along. The Republican base is no longer in love with W.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on February 13, 2016
YUR-UP?? ruh-roh.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:47 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:47 PM on February 13, 2016
If you abolish the IRS, who reads your stupid postcards, you cretin?
posted by leotrotsky at 6:47 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 6:47 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Grandpa Munster is yapping about job creators. I never want to hear that phrase again.
posted by futz at 6:48 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 6:48 PM on February 13, 2016
I wouldn't bet on that if I were Trump. According to 538 Bush's unfavorables were only 8% among Republicans as of a few months ago. 8%.
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on February 13, 2016
What Shakespeare story deals with Jeb getting beaten about the face and neck with a big "W?"
posted by rhizome at 6:48 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 6:48 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Someone tell Cruz a VAT is not a sales tax. It's a consumption tax.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by triggerfinger at 6:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio wants a tax credit for kids because companies get tax credits for their machines.
He. Thinks. Children. Are. Robots. Too.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
He. Thinks. Children. Are. Robots. Too.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
16% consumption (not a VAT) tax. So pay basically fuck the poor and now they pay minimum 16% tax.
posted by Talez at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Talez at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016
My mom told me the other night that she thinks Jeb is the cute one.
posted by rhizome at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by rhizome at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016
I'm just here to watch a trainwreck, I had no idea Cruz was a flat tax guy.
wow.
posted by butterstick at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016
wow.
posted by butterstick at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016
It's been part of his anti-Jeb routine all along. The Republican base is no longer in love with W.
You'd think so, but you 're wrong:
538:
You'd think so, but you 're wrong:
538:
According to an CBS News poll released in October, George W. Bush had a 67 percent favorable rating among Republicans. His unfavorable rating was just 8 percent.PPP:
George W. Bush had a 74/21 favorability with GOP voters nationally the last time we polled it, higher than anyone in this fieldposted by zombieflanders at 6:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kasich making the moral and fiscal case for expanded Medicaid. Boos in five... four...
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Governor Kasich, you actually tried to help people in Ohio, how do you defend that?
posted by octothorpe at 6:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
To answer my own question about open primaries, the South Carolina primary is open. Wikipedia has an example of Huckabee winning among republicans in 2008, but McCain won the state overall with the crossover vote.
posted by peeedro at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016
It sure seems to me that the GOP stacked the audience with anti-Trump folks. They must be running scared.
posted by Justinian at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
"We want to make everyone rise, except for women, fuck them"
posted by Talez at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Talez at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016
It's not Shakespeare, but I've been thinking of an old friend of mine who is the funniest person I've ever known. In college he wrote a short science fiction story about a giant, single-celled creature that attacks Earth. It's called Euglena!
I've been picturing Jeb! as an amorphous blob throughout the campaign.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been picturing Jeb! as an amorphous blob throughout the campaign.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
He. Thinks. Children. Are. Robots. Too.
Mars needs backpacks.
posted by y2karl at 6:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mars needs backpacks.
posted by y2karl at 6:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jeb: "Healthcare sounds good, but let's not forget that we can tie this to Obama."
posted by teponaztli at 6:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 6:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's been part of his anti-Jeb routine all along. The Republican base is no longer in love with W.
You'd think so, but you 're wrong:
I am firmly convinced that that is almost purely due to nostalgia for the days when republican views were supported by the president rather than anything to do with Bush. They miss the days when the president wasn't 'attacking' them with progress, not the man.
posted by neonrev at 6:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
You'd think so, but you 're wrong:
I am firmly convinced that that is almost purely due to nostalgia for the days when republican views were supported by the president rather than anything to do with Bush. They miss the days when the president wasn't 'attacking' them with progress, not the man.
posted by neonrev at 6:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
High taxes on capital gains. Fucking tax them as income. Problem solved.
posted by Talez at 6:55 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:55 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Someone tell Cruz a VAT is not a sales tax. It's a consumption tax.
What's the difference? Asking out of ignorance, so educate me.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:57 PM on February 13, 2016
What's the difference? Asking out of ignorance, so educate me.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:57 PM on February 13, 2016
Jeb!: Hedge fund managers? They're not rich; they work for the rich. Fuck'em. They can pay taxes just like all the other little people. Um... I mean like you guys!
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:58 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:58 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This break music is delightful, though. It sounds like something from a Japanese car commercial.
posted by teponaztli at 6:58 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 6:58 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh my god, what's the robot version of crack cocaine?
Marco, it's time for your Nuke.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:01 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Marco, it's time for your Nuke.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:01 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jeb!: Hedge fund managers? They're not rich; they work for the rich.
Wasn't that the entire theory of the Romney campaign? The 1% put up one of their star middle managers for a promotion.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:02 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wasn't that the entire theory of the Romney campaign? The 1% put up one of their star middle managers for a promotion.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:02 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
My partner pointed out that George Bluth tries to build a wall between the US and Mexico in Arrested Development.
posted by teponaztli at 7:04 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 7:04 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh, nice, the moderator used the term "illegals."
posted by teponaztli at 7:05 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 7:05 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Someone tell Cruz a VAT is not a sales tax. It's a consumption tax.
What's the difference? Asking out of ignorance, so educate me.
both sales and vat are taxes on consumption. they only apply when people are buying crap. so both sales and vat are kinds of consumption tax.
the difference between sales and vat is in the details of how it's worked out. sales is the simpler one: there's a percentage added to the sale. the problem with that is that often there are multiple steps involved. so a car manufacturer pays sales tax when it buys tyres from the tyre manufacturer. and then the customer pays sales tax again on the whole thing. so the tyres have been taxed twice. vat avoids this by only taxing the "extra value" added (it looks the same as sales tax to you, but the intermediates - the car manufacturer for example - get to reclaim vat).
posted by andrewcooke at 7:05 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's the difference? Asking out of ignorance, so educate me.
both sales and vat are taxes on consumption. they only apply when people are buying crap. so both sales and vat are kinds of consumption tax.
the difference between sales and vat is in the details of how it's worked out. sales is the simpler one: there's a percentage added to the sale. the problem with that is that often there are multiple steps involved. so a car manufacturer pays sales tax when it buys tyres from the tyre manufacturer. and then the customer pays sales tax again on the whole thing. so the tyres have been taxed twice. vat avoids this by only taxing the "extra value" added (it looks the same as sales tax to you, but the intermediates - the car manufacturer for example - get to reclaim vat).
posted by andrewcooke at 7:05 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ben Carson: "Look at my tax plan! Cato loves it! Wall Street Journal loves it!"
It's 14.6% flat tax and gets rid of taxes entirely on capital gains and dividends! No billionaire will ever pay tax EVER AGAIN! OF COURSE CATO AND WSJ LOVES IT! THEY LITERALLY FUCKING WROTE IT ON THEIR LETTER TO SANTA!
What's the difference? Asking out of ignorance, so educate me.
Sales tax gets applied on each transaction. So say there's a 10% sales tax. If I buy a $1.00 part I pay $1.10, the supplier remits 10 cents to the government. I then put that part in a $5 part. Then I sell it for $5.50 and remit 50 cents to the government. Total tax to the government: 60 cents.
VAT applies at each stage of buying and selling the parts but you get your input tax back. So if we have a same 10% VAT if I sell you a part for $1.10 you've paid 10 cents tax as input which gets remitted to the government. You then take that part and add it to a $5 device and then sell it. You take in 50 cents of tax, you've already paid 10 cents so you only remit 40 cents. Total tax to the government: 50 cents.
posted by Talez at 7:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's 14.6% flat tax and gets rid of taxes entirely on capital gains and dividends! No billionaire will ever pay tax EVER AGAIN! OF COURSE CATO AND WSJ LOVES IT! THEY LITERALLY FUCKING WROTE IT ON THEIR LETTER TO SANTA!
What's the difference? Asking out of ignorance, so educate me.
Sales tax gets applied on each transaction. So say there's a 10% sales tax. If I buy a $1.00 part I pay $1.10, the supplier remits 10 cents to the government. I then put that part in a $5 part. Then I sell it for $5.50 and remit 50 cents to the government. Total tax to the government: 60 cents.
VAT applies at each stage of buying and selling the parts but you get your input tax back. So if we have a same 10% VAT if I sell you a part for $1.10 you've paid 10 cents tax as input which gets remitted to the government. You then take that part and add it to a $5 device and then sell it. You take in 50 cents of tax, you've already paid 10 cents so you only remit 40 cents. Total tax to the government: 50 cents.
posted by Talez at 7:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
What's with the moo-ing sounds?
posted by benito.strauss at 7:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 7:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is very very concerned with being treated right. Like a child would. He brings it up all the time. It is yuuugly tremendously important to him.
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on February 13, 2016
The crowd at this debate sounds like a high school pep rally.
posted by teponaztli at 7:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 7:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ooooooo, "he doesn't speak Spanish".
posted by Justinian at 7:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:07 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
What's with the moo-ing sounds?
They're saying Moo-urns.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
They're saying Moo-urns.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
never thought I'd see an argument about who speaks Spanish on a Republican debate. Apparently JEB speaks quite well.
posted by skewed at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by skewed at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are three men who speak Spanish on stage... that's kinda amazing.
posted by peeedro at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I just had an idea for a Rubio campaign ad: Marco singing "Lies" to Ted Cruz.
posted by homunculus at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by homunculus at 7:09 PM on February 13, 2016
What is with all the screaming from the audience? Is it pro rubio? Anti cruz?
posted by futz at 7:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is Trump attacking Jeb instead of Cruz or Rubio?
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Someone tell Cruz a VAT is not a sales tax. It's a consumption tax.
Sales tax and VAT are both forms of consumption tax.
posted by JackFlash at 7:11 PM on February 13, 2016
Sales tax and VAT are both forms of consumption tax.
posted by JackFlash at 7:11 PM on February 13, 2016
guardian says some of the screaming is "cruuuuuuz".
and it's en llamas.
posted by andrewcooke at 7:11 PM on February 13, 2016
and it's en llamas.
posted by andrewcooke at 7:11 PM on February 13, 2016
Pro-establishment. The state party ditched the usual lottery for tickets and handed them out to the longest-serving party workers.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Rhaomi at 7:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why do they keep letting Trump steamroll over every other sentence?
posted by Room 641-A at 7:12 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 7:12 PM on February 13, 2016
Kasich going for the sounds-reasonable-but-is-actually-batshit vote!
posted by Justinian at 7:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:12 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jesus Christ, sucking eject Trump and Bush already. This hurts.
posted by charred husk at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by charred husk at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
If not for the horrifying thought of any one of them actually being president, this debate would be super entertaining. We're like two steps away from someone yelling "this Sunday, I will prove you wrong, and I will claim the championship title!"
posted by teponaztli at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump's flaming out. He looks bad compared to Jeb, ffs.
posted by ctmf at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's been part of his anti-Jeb routine all along. The Republican base is no longer in love with W.
You'd think so, but you 're wrong:
This is a situation where polls are not telling you the whole story. They remember him as the guy who made liberals super angry, but he has been invisible for years now. If he becomes visible, the base that is currently furious with the establishment will remember he is pure 100% establishment. There are reasons Trump is the frontrunner right now and the guy with Bush in his name is a joke.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016
You'd think so, but you 're wrong:
This is a situation where polls are not telling you the whole story. They remember him as the guy who made liberals super angry, but he has been invisible for years now. If he becomes visible, the base that is currently furious with the establishment will remember he is pure 100% establishment. There are reasons Trump is the frontrunner right now and the guy with Bush in his name is a joke.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:13 PM on February 13, 2016
I keep forgetting Carson is there.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is Trump attacking Jeb instead of Cruz or Rubio?
I'll bet he considers them to be more fragile than Bush. He's whack-a-moling Bush whenever Jeb thinks he has that one last chance. Rubio and Cruz can be broken at any moment in the future.
posted by pjenks at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016
I'll bet he considers them to be more fragile than Bush. He's whack-a-moling Bush whenever Jeb thinks he has that one last chance. Rubio and Cruz can be broken at any moment in the future.
posted by pjenks at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016
A value-added tax (VAT) or goods and services tax (GST) is a popular way of implementing a consumption tax in Europe, Japan, and many other countries. It differs from the sales tax in that taxes are applied to the difference between the seller-purchased price and the resale price. This is accomplished by taking full tax on all sales, but refunding the tax difference to the sellers.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
First of all, please go to my website because I am falling asleep.
posted by y2karl at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 7:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'll bet Matt Taibbi is very drunk right now.
posted by homunculus at 7:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:15 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Carson: These regulatory agencies just run around enforcing regulations all day.
Uh, yes. That is their job, yes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
Uh, yes. That is their job, yes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
Why is Trump attacking Jeb instead of Cruz or Rubio?
Because he's a classic bully and he's picking on the guy who can't beat him. Then he never loses!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because he's a classic bully and he's picking on the guy who can't beat him. Then he never loses!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carson looks to strip all regulation. All regulation.
Madness.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016
Madness.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016
Trump's flaming out. He looks bad compared to Jeb, ffs.
Except that he's participated in the only memorable/sound-bite moments. I don't think his long silent moments during the "substantive" discussions hurt him at all with the general voting public.
posted by pjenks at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016
Except that he's participated in the only memorable/sound-bite moments. I don't think his long silent moments during the "substantive" discussions hurt him at all with the general voting public.
posted by pjenks at 7:16 PM on February 13, 2016
$100 underwear is gonna be a thing.
posted by futz at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
SAKHGLKASHGLKAHSKLGANSKL CRUZ YOU FUCKING IDIOT WE'VE GUTTED TAXES OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING STUPID?!??!?
posted by Talez at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Talez at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2016
Ted Cruz's Father: Living the Canadian Dream.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 7:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's amazing how these guys try to spin obamacare as being bad for working class people.
posted by zug at 7:18 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by zug at 7:18 PM on February 13, 2016
I can't watch anymore. I'm sorry. This debate is just, evil. Evil, lies, mistruths and greed distilled into its purest form and then cheered on by what remains of our body politic.
This is a fucking embarrassment to the United States. Modern conservatism is a fucking embarrassment to the United States.
posted by Talez at 7:19 PM on February 13, 2016 [28 favorites]
This is a fucking embarrassment to the United States. Modern conservatism is a fucking embarrassment to the United States.
posted by Talez at 7:19 PM on February 13, 2016 [28 favorites]
Yeah I wonder what kind of a bill Ted's parents got from the hospital for his delivery?
No wait, I don't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:19 PM on February 13, 2016
No wait, I don't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:19 PM on February 13, 2016
Kind of funny for Trump to be positioning himself as a man for the working people, considering his tag line for years was the executive "you're fired!"
posted by teponaztli at 7:20 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 7:20 PM on February 13, 2016
Are they doing something weird with the lighting on Trump, or his face really the exact shade of red as the backdrop behind him?
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:22 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:22 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jeb!Care!
posted by Room 641-A at 7:22 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 7:22 PM on February 13, 2016
Just to rectify any cognitive dissonance, the Peace Center, where the debate is taking place, has nothing to do with peace.
posted by pjenks at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pjenks at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
So... according to this debate, Trump is pro-worker, anti-free trade, pro-social security, and calling out BS about terrorism and war... probably to the left of Hillary on about half the issues right about now.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
LOL Trumpy, Atlantic City is probably not a town you want to make an example of
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do most Americans care about eminent domain at this point in time or is it a dog whistle for the militia types?
posted by Room 641-A at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2016
Is Strassel not asking many questions or am I not paying attention?
posted by futz at 7:26 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 7:26 PM on February 13, 2016
"I like Donald, he's an excellent entertainer" - sick burn
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Does Jeb know that private companies own most of the power lines and utility lines?
posted by peeedro at 7:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 7:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, I've lost interest in wasting my time with this, but I can say that it certainly highlights the differences between this debate and the one the other night.
posted by teponaztli at 7:27 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 7:27 PM on February 13, 2016
I can't believe Trump never called Christie a fat fuck. This is GOPWWF.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:27 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump is defending planned parenthood.... wow.
posted by zug at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zug at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
[…] probably to the left of Hillary on about half the issues right about now.
Now you're going to get people mad that you are calling her a fascist and saying she's not left enough.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016
Now you're going to get people mad that you are calling her a fascist and saying she's not left enough.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016
Moderator: "I'm gonna turn this car around!"
posted by homunculus at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is the most bizarre debate ever.
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Planned Parenthood does wonderful things.
posted by box at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump sticking up for Planned Parenthood? Is this Bizarro World??
posted by triggerfinger at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:28 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I will turn this car around!
posted by leotrotsky at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by leotrotsky at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
do you think trump has decided he's won the nomination and is now aiming at the presidency? (hence moving left)
posted by andrewcooke at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by andrewcooke at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Reagan pulled down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands.
posted by homunculus at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:29 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is a embarrassment for CBS. Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I usually take perverse delight in debate fireworks, but this is fucking awful.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Rhaomi at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016
Trump has been socially liberal in the past. Probably still is.
posted by futz at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio: "Oh, sorry, I tuned out for a second there."
posted by glhaynes at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by glhaynes at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love John Dickerson so much.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly think Trump is doing really well right now in terms of improving his chances at the Republican nomination. And I don't think he's doing harm to his chances in the general. Kinda scary.
posted by skewed at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by skewed at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm fully in the perverse delight camp, myself.
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ben Carson got called a pedophile and still can't get a word in to reply.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Do most Americans care about eminent domain at this point in time or is it a dog whistle for the militia types?
Huge issue in Iowa where we are about to get a pipeline no one here wants. They are already building it and it hasn't even gotten approval yet. Bakken pipeline. So I care very much. Some of the dirtiest oil out there will cross Iowa and we'll get dick for it.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Huge issue in Iowa where we are about to get a pipeline no one here wants. They are already building it and it hasn't even gotten approval yet. Bakken pipeline. So I care very much. Some of the dirtiest oil out there will cross Iowa and we'll get dick for it.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:32 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is a embarrassment for CBS. Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave.
Get me a roll of copper wire and some magnets and we could power the world.
posted by Talez at 7:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Get me a roll of copper wire and some magnets and we could power the world.
posted by Talez at 7:33 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Does Carson not understand that presidents kinda spend a lot of time doing political stuff?
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016
@ggreenwald: Most Jerry Springer shows were more orderly and dignified and respectful than this debate. This is awesome.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Mr. Average: worst. superhero. ever.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by leotrotsky at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ben Carson is literally wrong about everything.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
They are being politically incorrect of their own volition. Lol.
posted by futz at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 7:34 PM on February 13, 2016
I think the tenor of this debate is appropriate to the participants.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 7:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
That question was a trap- "Say something offensive" - and he did well to avoid it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The Democrat's favorite Republican," only if people continue to delude themselves about Kasich's destruction of health care for Ohio's women.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 7:35 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Carson: People need to know that I am so high right now.
Huge issue in Iowa where we are about to get a pipeline no one here wants. They are already building it and it hasn't even gotten approval yet. Bakken pipeline. So I care very much. Some of the dirtiest oil out there will cross Iowa and we'll get dick for it.
Right, right. I always think of those No Income Tax guys. Two birds, etc.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:37 PM on February 13, 2016
Huge issue in Iowa where we are about to get a pipeline no one here wants. They are already building it and it hasn't even gotten approval yet. Bakken pipeline. So I care very much. Some of the dirtiest oil out there will cross Iowa and we'll get dick for it.
Right, right. I always think of those No Income Tax guys. Two birds, etc.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:37 PM on February 13, 2016
Trump's 50s-era joke about his wife didn't land.
posted by teponaztli at 7:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 7:37 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dammit! I said I was going to stop watching this.
posted by teponaztli at 7:38 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 7:38 PM on February 13, 2016
I'm surprised Trump's not pointing to Scalia as a role model for... colorful behavior.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Rhaomi at 7:38 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The Democrat's favorite Republican," only if people continue to delude themselves about Kasich's destruction of health care for Ohio's women.
Someone's gotta be the best Republican, still not sure why it wouldn't be Kasich. I mean, Jeb Bush is probably second best, and he's Jeb fucking Bush.
posted by skewed at 7:38 PM on February 13, 2016
Someone's gotta be the best Republican, still not sure why it wouldn't be Kasich. I mean, Jeb Bush is probably second best, and he's Jeb fucking Bush.
posted by skewed at 7:38 PM on February 13, 2016
Ben Carson is literally wrong about everything.
His policies are one step removed from making The Purge a reality.
His policies are one step removed from making The Purge a reality.
Give Medicare beneficiaries a fixed contribution to buy the health insurance they actually want and need.
Modernize Medicare to keep pace with medical advances by gradually increasing the eligibility age (by 2 months each year) until it reaches age 70.posted by Talez at 7:39 PM on February 13, 2016
"Mr. Trump, people want you to cut out the profanity."
"They should go fuck themselves."
posted by leotrotsky at 7:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
"They should go fuck themselves."
posted by leotrotsky at 7:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm surprised Trump's not pointing to Scalia as a role model for... colorful behavior.
Or George Patton.
posted by peeedro at 7:40 PM on February 13, 2016
Or George Patton.
posted by peeedro at 7:40 PM on February 13, 2016
$500 car payment?!
posted by charred husk at 7:40 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by charred husk at 7:40 PM on February 13, 2016
Trump's White House tapes would rival LBJ's.
posted by futz at 7:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
How many times did Trump's companies file for bankruptcy again?
posted by triggerfinger at 7:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:41 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
How many times did Trump's companies file for bankruptcy again?
That would be four, I believe.
posted by Trochanter at 7:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
That would be four, I believe.
posted by Trochanter at 7:42 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
He raised taxes, Marco.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:43 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by benito.strauss at 7:43 PM on February 13, 2016
Rubio/ZombieReagan 2016
posted by leotrotsky at 7:43 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by leotrotsky at 7:43 PM on February 13, 2016
So Regan inherits the previous presidents problems but Obama doesn't? Mmmkay.
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on February 13, 2016
Rubio seems like the kind of guy who would become a lifelong right-winger after his Democratic girlfriend dumped him Sophmore year.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:44 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:44 PM on February 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ronald Reagan isn't always going to be here to be that big toe for us.
posted by rhizome at 7:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 7:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Room 641-A: Because he didn't want to do pot.
posted by rhizome at 7:46 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:46 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
That would be four, I believe.
Well, that would explain why he's so upset about Florida's debt. He must have learned some important lessons!
posted by triggerfinger at 7:46 PM on February 13, 2016
Well, that would explain why he's so upset about Florida's debt. He must have learned some important lessons!
posted by triggerfinger at 7:46 PM on February 13, 2016
35 years ago was February 1981. Reagan was President.
Off-by-one error. DEBUG.
posted by davidjmcgee at 7:46 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Off-by-one error. DEBUG.
posted by davidjmcgee at 7:46 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I thought my generation was the first one not expected to exceed their parents.
posted by rhizome at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought that the repubs had distanced themselves from Reagan?
Is he praising Stalin?!?
posted by futz at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016
Is he praising Stalin?!?
posted by futz at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016
Carson / Stalin 2016
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm starting to think Ben Carson isn't great at closing statements.
posted by glhaynes at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by glhaynes at 7:49 PM on February 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
You're a liar. No, you're a Fucking Liar. Speak softly but zzzzzzzzzzzz.... And telling kids to stay off drugs. Joseph Stalin says... I just pulled this out of my ass.
posted by y2karl at 7:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 7:50 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think I've ever heard the word "beholden" so much in any previous election.
posted by Miko at 7:50 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Miko at 7:50 PM on February 13, 2016
my mellow is beharshed.
posted by rhizome at 7:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
All that is solid melts into air.
posted by homunculus at 7:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
marco: go fuck yourself on "wrong is now considered right." May your political career end this February.
posted by pjenks at 7:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by pjenks at 7:51 PM on February 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Life beings at cumception." — Marco Rubio
posted by glhaynes at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by glhaynes at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nice PNAC shoutout.
posted by rhizome at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ben Carson doesn't even pass the Snopes test.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ugh, don't give Trump the last word, DONT DO IT
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:52 PM on February 13, 2016
Ted Cruz: Vote Snake Eyes or Die.
posted by y2karl at 7:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 7:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is inside out upside down bizarro world. These bufoons are a laughing stock...except that they are not to half the country.
I weep.
posted by futz at 7:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I weep.
posted by futz at 7:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bush and Kasich are the only ones who isn't a nasty little shit.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 7:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Your daughters don't want to look you in the eyes either, Ted.
posted by Miko at 7:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Miko at 7:54 PM on February 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bush and Kasich are the only ones who isn't a nasty little shit.
Tell that to Michael Schiavo.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:55 PM on February 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
Tell that to Michael Schiavo.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:55 PM on February 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
Oh, you misunderstand me. They're big assholes. I'm just referring to style.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by benito.strauss at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016
Kasich may not be a nasty shit personally but his policies are nasty shit.
Reagan would have, by all accounts, given you the shirt off his back. He also presided over the destruction of the social safety net and the beginning of the War on Drugs. LBJ was, by all accounts, a nasty, personally racist, shitpile. He also presided over the expansion of the social safety net and Civil Rights.
Don't be fooled; it's policies that matter.
posted by Justinian at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [34 favorites]
Reagan would have, by all accounts, given you the shirt off his back. He also presided over the destruction of the social safety net and the beginning of the War on Drugs. LBJ was, by all accounts, a nasty, personally racist, shitpile. He also presided over the expansion of the social safety net and Civil Rights.
Don't be fooled; it's policies that matter.
posted by Justinian at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [34 favorites]
People will remember Trump calling Ted Cruz "a nasty, nasty man" and "the biggest liar on this stage." Ted Cruz is hoping to hold the "CONSERVATIVE" flag, and attacked that goal tenaciously and with some clear strategies in mind – for example, he managed to wheedle Trump into saying "Planned Parenthood has done some wonderful things" on stage. Cruz is hoping and praying that the terror some conservatives have of "Republicans in name only" will overcome everything else. His hopes are stupid, though. Most Americans – even conservatives – don't give a crap about things like the conservative identity politics behind questions like 'are you really a conservative?' They might care that Donald Trump seemed to say something nice about Planned Parenthood – but given the stuff he's already said (and the fact that he said that nice stuff about PP for years) it's unlikely. Trumps flashy words are just flashier. "HE'S A NASTY, NASTY MAN" is more attention-getting than "YOU SAID PLANNED PARENTHOOD DID SOME WONDERFUL THINGS," which is already obviously a politician-y statement.
I feel like Trump won this one, but I guess we'll see. Ted Cruz has proven that he's happy to play the Trump game – but he's very bad at it.
posted by koeselitz at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like Trump won this one, but I guess we'll see. Ted Cruz has proven that he's happy to play the Trump game – but he's very bad at it.
posted by koeselitz at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Good debate discussion, everyone. I'm glad we can at least all still agree that Team GOP is bananapants.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:57 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, if you barely scratch the surface you'll find a nasty little shit. Don't be fooled.
posted by futz at 7:58 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by futz at 7:58 PM on February 13, 2016
To those who stuck it out, a big round of thanks. Truly an eye opening event... and such low, smoldering mendacity. The stakes are in sharp relief.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:06 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
My biggest regret, having watched this debate through the medium of Mefi'a interpretive dance, is that Hunter S Thompson died too soon
posted by Devonian at 8:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Devonian at 8:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
Can anyone point to (recent) polling numbers indicating what percentage of undecideds watch these primary debates? I know that whoever wins the nom will pivot centerward, and I wonder how easy that will be to get away with.
posted by axiom at 8:08 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by axiom at 8:08 PM on February 13, 2016
On CNN, kasich is basically saying that he was the good boy of the bunch tonight.
And is doubling down on planned parenthood saying that PP has been discredited.
And Trump is saying that he, Trump upholds the bible. Oh my. And he's being a crybaby about Bush taking out $20 million in attack ads on him waaaaaah.
posted by futz at 8:12 PM on February 13, 2016
And is doubling down on planned parenthood saying that PP has been discredited.
And Trump is saying that he, Trump upholds the bible. Oh my. And he's being a crybaby about Bush taking out $20 million in attack ads on him waaaaaah.
posted by futz at 8:12 PM on February 13, 2016
Kasich may not be a nasty shit personally but his policies are nasty shit.
Oh, but he is, he's just better at hiding it while running for office. From a profile in The Atlantic last year:
Oh, but he is, he's just better at hiding it while running for office. From a profile in The Atlantic last year:
The thing about John Kasich is, he’s kind of a jerk.posted by peeedro at 8:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
Lobbyists in Columbus warn their clients before meeting the governor not to take it personally if he berates them. A top Ohio Republican donor once publicly vowed not to give Kasich a penny after finding him to be “unpleasantly arrogant.” As a congressman, Kasich sometimes lashed out at constituents—one who called him a “redneck” in a 1985 letter got a reply recommending he “enroll in a remedial course on protocol”—and when Kasich was thrown out of a Grateful Dead concert for trying to join the band onstage, he allegedly threatened to use his clout to have the band banned from D.C. As I was writing this article, Kasich’s press secretary, Rob Nichols, helpfully emailed me the thesaurus entry for “prickly,” sensing that I would need it.
I spent several days with Kasich in Ohio in February, and during that time he told me, repeatedly, that he did not read The Atlantic—and his wife didn’t, either. He said that my job, writing about politics and politicians, was “really a dumb thing to do.” Later, he singled me out in a meeting of cabinet officials to upbraid me for what he considered a stupid question in one of our interviews. At a Kasich press conference I attended at a charter school in Cleveland, he interrupted several speakers, wandered off to rummage on a nearby teacher’s desk as he was being introduced, and gleefully insulted the Cleveland Browns, to a smattering of boos.
The debate tonight is streaming on Youtube for those of you without access to PBS.
What? We were trying to get streaming going, but even googling it didn't give us YouTube. And our PBS had some woman in yoga pants doing something not debating.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:18 PM on February 13, 2016
What? We were trying to get streaming going, but even googling it didn't give us YouTube. And our PBS had some woman in yoga pants doing something not debating.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:18 PM on February 13, 2016
Yeah, we got it on CBS. We just had trouble moving to tablet when we left the bedroom.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:21 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:21 PM on February 13, 2016
Kasich widely expected to sign a bill targeting Ohio's Planned Parenthood clinics from funding for HIV prevention, and efforts to address domestic violence and infant mortality.
posted by mostly vowels at 8:23 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 8:23 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
and when Kasich was thrown out of a Grateful Dead concert for trying to join the band onstage,
wait go back one second
posted by Miko at 8:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
wait go back one second
posted by Miko at 8:24 PM on February 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
I just Googled "GOP debate livestream" in google News and got a link right to it. Well, the TV broadcast of it, which meant I got treated to some lovely pro-fracking ads.
posted by Miko at 8:25 PM on February 13, 2016
posted by Miko at 8:25 PM on February 13, 2016
WashPo: That time John Kasich got thrown offstage by the Grateful Dead
posted by peeedro at 8:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 8:31 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reince Priebus ✔ @Reince
Our well-qualified & experienced candidates continue to put forth serious solutions to restore prosperity & strength to America #GOPDebate
posted by Drinky Die at 8:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Our well-qualified & experienced candidates continue to put forth serious solutions to restore prosperity & strength to America #GOPDebate
posted by Drinky Die at 8:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
WashPo: That time John Kasich got thrown offstage by the Grateful Dead
posted by jason_steakums at 8:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
“If I’m the president, I’m going to — once and for all — try to reunite Pink Floyd to come together and play a couple songs,” Kasich said on CNN last week.is this real life
posted by jason_steakums at 8:45 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Metallica and Linkin Park are two of his favorite bands. He envies the lifestyle of Enrique Iglesias.
?!? brb, going to look up the lifestyle of Enrique Iglesias
posted by triggerfinger at 8:48 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
?!? brb, going to look up the lifestyle of Enrique Iglesias
posted by triggerfinger at 8:48 PM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
John Kasich: assholes like hippy shit too
posted by saul wright at 8:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by saul wright at 8:53 PM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Glenn Beck ✔ @glennbeck
Who would sit down and proudly tell their children "these are the best of America." Shameful. #GOPDebate
10:33 PM - 13 Feb 2016
Listening to Glenn Beck will keep you closer to reality than listening to the views of the Chair of the RNC.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Who would sit down and proudly tell their children "these are the best of America." Shameful. #GOPDebate
10:33 PM - 13 Feb 2016
Listening to Glenn Beck will keep you closer to reality than listening to the views of the Chair of the RNC.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:14 PM on February 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Reince Priebus ✔ @Reince
Our well-qualified & experienced candidates continue to put forth serious solutions to restore prosperity & strength to America #GOPDebate
Remember in the early days of the Iraq War when we could all unite in the comedy stylings of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf who would tell us things like "there are no American tanks in Baghdad" when CNN had a split-screen showing tanks rolling past the building he was speaking in? Everyone, including him, knew that everything he was saying was complete nonsense, but he had a job to do and so he was going to keep saying it.
Priebus has become that guy.
posted by zachlipton at 9:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
Our well-qualified & experienced candidates continue to put forth serious solutions to restore prosperity & strength to America #GOPDebate
Remember in the early days of the Iraq War when we could all unite in the comedy stylings of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf who would tell us things like "there are no American tanks in Baghdad" when CNN had a split-screen showing tanks rolling past the building he was speaking in? Everyone, including him, knew that everything he was saying was complete nonsense, but he had a job to do and so he was going to keep saying it.
Priebus has become that guy.
posted by zachlipton at 9:25 PM on February 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
Frank Luntz ✔ @FrankLuntz
Seriously, this is insane.
The GOP is destroying itself tonight, and they have no one to blame but themselves. #GOPDebate
10:31 PM - 13 Feb 2016
Frank Luntz ✔ @FrankLuntz
For the first time ever, a #GOPDebate audience booed more than they cheered.
This isn't just insane, this is suicidal. This is pathetic.
10:49 PM - 13 Feb 2016
David Frum ✔ @davidfrum
And the audience is joining in the bloodbath. Does this look to America like a party ready to govern anything?
10:30 PM - 13 Feb 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
Seriously, this is insane.
The GOP is destroying itself tonight, and they have no one to blame but themselves. #GOPDebate
10:31 PM - 13 Feb 2016
Frank Luntz ✔ @FrankLuntz
For the first time ever, a #GOPDebate audience booed more than they cheered.
This isn't just insane, this is suicidal. This is pathetic.
10:49 PM - 13 Feb 2016
David Frum ✔ @davidfrum
And the audience is joining in the bloodbath. Does this look to America like a party ready to govern anything?
10:30 PM - 13 Feb 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 PM on February 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It was an amazing debate. If the Democrats were engaged in skirmishes with the occasional subtle jab, and if the previous Republican debates have been World War I or II, this was thermonuclear. I have never seen as much personal attacks, as much high temperature attacks as we saw in this debate. And I'm not even sure you can judge the debate or who won or who lost on the actual sound bites,who won this exchange or that, it was the tone. I think that if you counted up the number of times the word lie and liar was employed, it would exceed the number of times it has been used in all previous debates.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:43 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:43 PM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
hey guys good news, I'm still concerned about David Brooks' well-being but at least I know he was okay as of Friday afternoon.
Listening to that, though, he is obviously still in a dangerously sad and disoriented place so please keep him in your thoughts as he goes through this season of grief for a party that is no longer with us.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Listening to that, though, he is obviously still in a dangerously sad and disoriented place so please keep him in your thoughts as he goes through this season of grief for a party that is no longer with us.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:08 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
John Kasich is one of those people so disgusted by gay and female clergy that he decamped from the Episcopal Church and joined a super conservative Anglican parish that technically belongs to the African church. As a happy queer female Episcopalian, I felt I needed to point this out.
posted by Biblio at 10:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by Biblio at 10:26 PM on February 13, 2016 [36 favorites]
Oh yeah I learned that as well the other day when I was wiki'ing him. Actually, according to Wikipedia he grew up Roman Catholic, wasn't particularly religious as an adult but then had a conversion moment and joined the ACNA ("Anglican Church in North America").
Let's be clear: this is a sect that broke away from the Episcopal Church because they couldn't stand the idea of accepting gays (and women clergy) SO much that they decided they literally couldn't pray next to people who were potentially okay with that. And it's not like he grew up in this church and that's where all his friends were or whatever, he deliberately decided to convert as an adult to this denomination.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:43 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's be clear: this is a sect that broke away from the Episcopal Church because they couldn't stand the idea of accepting gays (and women clergy) SO much that they decided they literally couldn't pray next to people who were potentially okay with that. And it's not like he grew up in this church and that's where all his friends were or whatever, he deliberately decided to convert as an adult to this denomination.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:43 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
When Frank Lutz can't spin something in favor of the Rs you are in deep shit. I just hope they keep doing things that will make Rs stay home on voting day.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:12 AM on February 14, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 12:12 AM on February 14, 2016
Rubio is so full of shit. If 9/11 happened during the Gore administration, Osama Bin Laden would be dead by that year's end, Iraq uninvaded and the world a few fractions of a degree cooler by now. Or so I would like to think.
posted by y2karl at 12:19 AM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 12:19 AM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is what has me laughing at what I think is the funniest thing that has possibly ever happened in American politics:
Donald Trump, in a state where he's polling higher than any other candidate by far and one that is traditionally friendly to the Bush Dynasty, gets on stage and proceeds to tell the audience -- an audience hand-picked, it is being reported, to be majority-composed of Bush and establishment-lane supporters -- that a) GWB's administration failed to protect America from Al Qaeda, b) was responsible for 9/11, c) made a categorical mistake in invading Iraq and d) lied about its justification for doing so.
That is spectacular.
I remember people making jokes last year about how Trump was maybe being secretly paid a few hundred million to utterly destroy the Republican party, and that was kinda funny, but goddamn if it doesn't suddenly seem plausible again.
Call Mexicans rapists? Republicans can take that. Insult and denigrate women? They can live with that. Suggest banning the 1.5+ billion members of the world's second-largest religion from entry to the US? Yeah, some of them at least can get behind that. All the other shit? Fresh tasty Trump meat!
But this? This is him, deliberately or not, declaring open warfare on the party he's ostensibly -- and successfully -- running to be the presidential candidate for. That's fucking hilarious.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:57 AM on February 14, 2016 [60 favorites]
Donald Trump, in a state where he's polling higher than any other candidate by far and one that is traditionally friendly to the Bush Dynasty, gets on stage and proceeds to tell the audience -- an audience hand-picked, it is being reported, to be majority-composed of Bush and establishment-lane supporters -- that a) GWB's administration failed to protect America from Al Qaeda, b) was responsible for 9/11, c) made a categorical mistake in invading Iraq and d) lied about its justification for doing so.
That is spectacular.
I remember people making jokes last year about how Trump was maybe being secretly paid a few hundred million to utterly destroy the Republican party, and that was kinda funny, but goddamn if it doesn't suddenly seem plausible again.
Call Mexicans rapists? Republicans can take that. Insult and denigrate women? They can live with that. Suggest banning the 1.5+ billion members of the world's second-largest religion from entry to the US? Yeah, some of them at least can get behind that. All the other shit? Fresh tasty Trump meat!
But this? This is him, deliberately or not, declaring open warfare on the party he's ostensibly -- and successfully -- running to be the presidential candidate for. That's fucking hilarious.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:57 AM on February 14, 2016 [60 favorites]
> "is this real life"
it isn't fantasy
caught in a landslide
no escape from reality
posted by kyrademon at 3:18 AM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
it isn't fantasy
caught in a landslide
no escape from reality
posted by kyrademon at 3:18 AM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's like some of us were discussing upthread, Trump got into the race because of his personal vendetta against Jeb!. It explains most of the highlights of last night's performance (which, btw, are these up on a streaming site yet? I missed the circus last night). Oh man, that sick burn, "maybe your mother should be running", I am cackling so much this morning. I have to see this.
posted by indubitable at 4:21 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 4:21 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Glenn Beck ✔ @glennbeck
Who would sit down and proudly tell their children "these are the best of America." Shameful. #GOPDebate
Well, Glenn, these are YOUR children. This is YOUR work. You and Rush and Rupert.
posted by Trochanter at 6:48 AM on February 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
Who would sit down and proudly tell their children "these are the best of America." Shameful. #GOPDebate
Well, Glenn, these are YOUR children. This is YOUR work. You and Rush and Rupert.
posted by Trochanter at 6:48 AM on February 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
i was just sad there were no conversations about killing baby Hilter
posted by angrycat at 7:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 7:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Donald Trump, in a state where he's polling higher than any other candidate by far and one that is traditionally friendly to the Bush Dynasty, gets on stage and proceeds to tell the audience -- an audience hand-picked, it is being reported, to be majority-composed of Bush and establishment-lane supporters -- that a) GWB's administration failed to protect America from Al Qaeda, b) was responsible for 9/11, c) made a categorical mistake in invading Iraq and d) lied about its justification for doing so.
That is spectacular.
No shit, for realz. I found myself in the very odd position of cheering for Donald Trump last night. It's like the big dark family secret no one talks about until a crazy drunk uncle just drops it in to his eulogy for granddad by mentioning his hidden second family or something.
The original sin of the Bush regime -- "ignoring" Bin Laden/AQ threats on purpose in hopes they'd get an attack that would be sufficient provocation for an invasion of Iraq, let's be real about the subtext here, or at best being so focused on Iraq that they missed the AQ threat, which I think is far too generous a reading -- is what caused the deaths of nearly 3000 people on one day. The subsequent Orwellian hat trick in which they converted that massive failure into blind nationalist militarism and the illusion of Bush as a "leader" who "kept us safe" -- was a Goebbels-level perversion of what remained of our democracy enabled by an utterly corrupt media establishment indebted to the revolving-door political/petroleum/defense industry cabal. As someone who marched in anti-Iraq-war protests and saw *millions* of Americans of my views demonized, ignored, and spat upon, only to never receive much in the way of even a revisionist sense of shame or apology from the media or the GOP or -- goddamit, establishment democrats like our current frontrunner, who enabled all of this horror that led to hundreds of thousands of more senseless deaths and a region destabilized for a generation (which her secretary of state turn did almost nothing to improve, I regret to conclude) -- NO, I'm not fucking over it. It isn't ancient history. It's why we are where we are and a lot of Americans of both right and left persuasions know or suspect that. We have thrown away trillions on that mistake, killed hundreds of thousands, tossed millions into abject terror and misery, perverted our political process, coarsened and cheapened our public discourse, and blown through a decade dealing with the blowback while ignoring the looming ecological catastrophe in our near future, or already here.
That fucking smirking chimp of an ex-president painting lovely little dog pictures in his Dallas mansion was the face of this destructive epoch. He may have been just a goofball useful idiot figurehead for the real power boys. But I will be damned if I can look at his brother's face and name on TV for four or eight more years, and many very right wing voices agree with that. Furthermore the problem with "Clinton" as his alternative is not that she reminds us of blowjobs in the oval office or the building out of the neoliberal prison state apparatus that happened under her husband's nearly as cynical but far less destructive stewardship, but that she reminds us of how most democrats were willing to go along with the lie in 2002-3, and then of the last eight years of trying to pick up pieces, mop up bloodstains, and "move on," while not having any sort of national accounting (beyond the election of Obama himself for voting against the war) for the damage George W. Bush and company did to this nation.
The reason most of us are dancing on Scalia's grave today is also because we remember him best for enabling all of this by blatantly politicizing the Supreme Court and choosing the unelected president who brought this country to the brink of ruin. Yeah he was a bigoted douchebag on everything else. But the decline of public respect for the judicial authority of the supreme court began accelerating in earnest with Bush v. Gore.
George W. Bush ruined everything he touched. And enough Republican-oriented voters seem to feel that needs to be said to give me an odd feeling of hope. I'm rooting for Trump to win the GOP primary. It will destroy that party and frankly, I don't think he'd be any more destructive to the country than anyone he is running against, and that he will be very easy for any democrat, including Sanders, to beat in the general.
posted by spitbull at 7:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [61 favorites]
That is spectacular.
No shit, for realz. I found myself in the very odd position of cheering for Donald Trump last night. It's like the big dark family secret no one talks about until a crazy drunk uncle just drops it in to his eulogy for granddad by mentioning his hidden second family or something.
The original sin of the Bush regime -- "ignoring" Bin Laden/AQ threats on purpose in hopes they'd get an attack that would be sufficient provocation for an invasion of Iraq, let's be real about the subtext here, or at best being so focused on Iraq that they missed the AQ threat, which I think is far too generous a reading -- is what caused the deaths of nearly 3000 people on one day. The subsequent Orwellian hat trick in which they converted that massive failure into blind nationalist militarism and the illusion of Bush as a "leader" who "kept us safe" -- was a Goebbels-level perversion of what remained of our democracy enabled by an utterly corrupt media establishment indebted to the revolving-door political/petroleum/defense industry cabal. As someone who marched in anti-Iraq-war protests and saw *millions* of Americans of my views demonized, ignored, and spat upon, only to never receive much in the way of even a revisionist sense of shame or apology from the media or the GOP or -- goddamit, establishment democrats like our current frontrunner, who enabled all of this horror that led to hundreds of thousands of more senseless deaths and a region destabilized for a generation (which her secretary of state turn did almost nothing to improve, I regret to conclude) -- NO, I'm not fucking over it. It isn't ancient history. It's why we are where we are and a lot of Americans of both right and left persuasions know or suspect that. We have thrown away trillions on that mistake, killed hundreds of thousands, tossed millions into abject terror and misery, perverted our political process, coarsened and cheapened our public discourse, and blown through a decade dealing with the blowback while ignoring the looming ecological catastrophe in our near future, or already here.
That fucking smirking chimp of an ex-president painting lovely little dog pictures in his Dallas mansion was the face of this destructive epoch. He may have been just a goofball useful idiot figurehead for the real power boys. But I will be damned if I can look at his brother's face and name on TV for four or eight more years, and many very right wing voices agree with that. Furthermore the problem with "Clinton" as his alternative is not that she reminds us of blowjobs in the oval office or the building out of the neoliberal prison state apparatus that happened under her husband's nearly as cynical but far less destructive stewardship, but that she reminds us of how most democrats were willing to go along with the lie in 2002-3, and then of the last eight years of trying to pick up pieces, mop up bloodstains, and "move on," while not having any sort of national accounting (beyond the election of Obama himself for voting against the war) for the damage George W. Bush and company did to this nation.
The reason most of us are dancing on Scalia's grave today is also because we remember him best for enabling all of this by blatantly politicizing the Supreme Court and choosing the unelected president who brought this country to the brink of ruin. Yeah he was a bigoted douchebag on everything else. But the decline of public respect for the judicial authority of the supreme court began accelerating in earnest with Bush v. Gore.
George W. Bush ruined everything he touched. And enough Republican-oriented voters seem to feel that needs to be said to give me an odd feeling of hope. I'm rooting for Trump to win the GOP primary. It will destroy that party and frankly, I don't think he'd be any more destructive to the country than anyone he is running against, and that he will be very easy for any democrat, including Sanders, to beat in the general.
posted by spitbull at 7:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [61 favorites]
And to add, if the Bush family had any shame or their money-masters had any smarts, they would have kept Jeb! out of this election. I now think Trump ran just because Bush was in it, and that it's personal. Instead, reaching once more for the power switch, they have managed to raise the subject, as Cheney once put it, Big Time.
I hope hope hope it comes down to Trump v. Bush.
posted by spitbull at 7:52 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hope hope hope it comes down to Trump v. Bush.
posted by spitbull at 7:52 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm rooting for Trump to win the GOP primary. It will destroy that party and frankly, I don't think he'd be any more destructive to the country than anyone he is running against, and that he will be very easy for any democrat, including Sanders, to beat in the general.
Don't count on it. I hope you're right, but I'm afraid that you're probably wrong and "easy to beat in the general" is nothing but wishful thinking.
Half a year ago, most Republicans voters would have discounted Trump as a clownish enternainer, not to be taken seriously. Now he is their frontrunner.
One reason he has managed to do so is by not articulating any particular policies in too much detail. While this may be true for most politicians running for office, Trump seems to be much more non-committal on most issues than anyone else in the race. And also flexible when it serves his purposes (I think he even said as much about himself). Sure, he says outrageous things, but would anyone be surprised if he reversed his stance on anything by 180 degrees if that seems to be more opportune at the time? And then deny that he ever said anything else. And call those who try to prove otherwise "liars."
So, it seems to be very, very easy for him to adjust and optimize his "positions" (if you can even call them that) in such a way that they have maximum appeal to voters. At the same time, he will set out to destroy whatever opponent is left, be it Sanders or Clinton. Arguments and truth won't matter at that point. What will matter is only who will be perceived as more easily identified with. While I'm sure that many on this list find Trump disgusting and will readily identify with Clinton or Sanders, don't underestimate the appeal of the sharp-witted billionaire with the hot model wife to large swaths of the population in both parties.
Like many highly functional psychopaths, Trump is extremely good at pulling people on his side and clobbering the competition. Case in point: Note how some in this thread already said that they find Trump's policy "positions" most agreeable among all GOP candidates. It's starting even here on MeFi!
And like other highly functional psychopaths, he is completely unhampered by "the truth", morals, convictions, policy positions or long-standing allegiances. In fact, this is one of his biggest advantages and he is using this advantage to full effect. It is also part of his mass appeal. (I have a feeling that some may react that the same is true for Clinton; I don't know if HRC is a psychopath; I doubt it and even if she is, she is definitely not as far on the spectrum as Trump.)
So while it's too early to call the election now, I think there is no doubt that he will win the GOP nomination, unless he's "cheated" out of it through some odd shenanigans at the convention or the like, and has a 50-60% chance of winning in the general. I think the greatest uncertainty lies not so much in whether he'll be palatable to the majority of voters, but rather on what effect it might have not to have a good groundgame while essentially running against both parties.
It doesn't really matter if he's up against Clinton or Sanders, because the tactics that he'll employ (i.e. the road to winning) will be more or less the same: exploit every weakness of the opponent, define your own version of the truth, never admit anything, etc. etc. Looking at it that way, maybe Sanders is the easier victim to pick on, because he seems to be more entrenched in his own frame of reference, i.e. stronger in his convictions, which will make him an easier target.
posted by sour cream at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't count on it. I hope you're right, but I'm afraid that you're probably wrong and "easy to beat in the general" is nothing but wishful thinking.
Half a year ago, most Republicans voters would have discounted Trump as a clownish enternainer, not to be taken seriously. Now he is their frontrunner.
One reason he has managed to do so is by not articulating any particular policies in too much detail. While this may be true for most politicians running for office, Trump seems to be much more non-committal on most issues than anyone else in the race. And also flexible when it serves his purposes (I think he even said as much about himself). Sure, he says outrageous things, but would anyone be surprised if he reversed his stance on anything by 180 degrees if that seems to be more opportune at the time? And then deny that he ever said anything else. And call those who try to prove otherwise "liars."
So, it seems to be very, very easy for him to adjust and optimize his "positions" (if you can even call them that) in such a way that they have maximum appeal to voters. At the same time, he will set out to destroy whatever opponent is left, be it Sanders or Clinton. Arguments and truth won't matter at that point. What will matter is only who will be perceived as more easily identified with. While I'm sure that many on this list find Trump disgusting and will readily identify with Clinton or Sanders, don't underestimate the appeal of the sharp-witted billionaire with the hot model wife to large swaths of the population in both parties.
Like many highly functional psychopaths, Trump is extremely good at pulling people on his side and clobbering the competition. Case in point: Note how some in this thread already said that they find Trump's policy "positions" most agreeable among all GOP candidates. It's starting even here on MeFi!
And like other highly functional psychopaths, he is completely unhampered by "the truth", morals, convictions, policy positions or long-standing allegiances. In fact, this is one of his biggest advantages and he is using this advantage to full effect. It is also part of his mass appeal. (I have a feeling that some may react that the same is true for Clinton; I don't know if HRC is a psychopath; I doubt it and even if she is, she is definitely not as far on the spectrum as Trump.)
So while it's too early to call the election now, I think there is no doubt that he will win the GOP nomination, unless he's "cheated" out of it through some odd shenanigans at the convention or the like, and has a 50-60% chance of winning in the general. I think the greatest uncertainty lies not so much in whether he'll be palatable to the majority of voters, but rather on what effect it might have not to have a good groundgame while essentially running against both parties.
It doesn't really matter if he's up against Clinton or Sanders, because the tactics that he'll employ (i.e. the road to winning) will be more or less the same: exploit every weakness of the opponent, define your own version of the truth, never admit anything, etc. etc. Looking at it that way, maybe Sanders is the easier victim to pick on, because he seems to be more entrenched in his own frame of reference, i.e. stronger in his convictions, which will make him an easier target.
posted by sour cream at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
exploit every weakness of the opponent, define your own version of the truth, never admit anything, etc. etc.
As opposed to some other election strategy than what is always used?
posted by phearlez at 8:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
As opposed to some other election strategy than what is always used?
posted by phearlez at 8:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
As opposed to some other election strategy than what is always used?
"exploit every weakness of the opponent": Remember how in one of the first debates, Sanders dismissed the allegations against Clinton regarding the email affair? What a missed opportunity to pound on his opponent!
"never admit anything": Remember how Rubio admitted that he failed in the debate, apologized and said that it will never happen again?
Both are rank amateurs compared to Trump. The reason why Trump doesn't pick on Rubio that much is probably because he doesn't even view him as competition.
Anyway, while it is fashionable to paint every politician as cynical and immoral, I think it's safe to say that "exploit every weakness of the opponent, define your own version of the truth, never admit anything, etc. etc." is probably not Sanders' election strategy. Which incidentally is one of the reasons why he would probably lose against Trump if it should come to that.
posted by sour cream at 8:56 AM on February 14, 2016
"exploit every weakness of the opponent": Remember how in one of the first debates, Sanders dismissed the allegations against Clinton regarding the email affair? What a missed opportunity to pound on his opponent!
"never admit anything": Remember how Rubio admitted that he failed in the debate, apologized and said that it will never happen again?
Both are rank amateurs compared to Trump. The reason why Trump doesn't pick on Rubio that much is probably because he doesn't even view him as competition.
Anyway, while it is fashionable to paint every politician as cynical and immoral, I think it's safe to say that "exploit every weakness of the opponent, define your own version of the truth, never admit anything, etc. etc." is probably not Sanders' election strategy. Which incidentally is one of the reasons why he would probably lose against Trump if it should come to that.
posted by sour cream at 8:56 AM on February 14, 2016
maybe Sanders is the easier victim to pick on, because he seems to be more entrenched in his own frame of reference, i.e. stronger in his convictions, which will make him an easier target.
I totally disagree. Sanders is a tough old New York Jew, and his performance against Clinton (and her's against him) is really making me think that Clinton would get steamrolled by Trump. Sanders is ornery and loud, which is what his supporters love. Clinton is calculating and not very good at emotions. Trump v Clinton, I truly think, would be a disaster for the democrats. Trump v Sanders? I think that would be a lot of yelling and maybe a walk-out or two. Trump v Sanders might actually put an end to the concept of debates, because they'd be liable to just start yelling at each other.
The democratic debates have shown me not that Sanders can hold his own, but that Clinton can't.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 8:59 AM on February 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
I totally disagree. Sanders is a tough old New York Jew, and his performance against Clinton (and her's against him) is really making me think that Clinton would get steamrolled by Trump. Sanders is ornery and loud, which is what his supporters love. Clinton is calculating and not very good at emotions. Trump v Clinton, I truly think, would be a disaster for the democrats. Trump v Sanders? I think that would be a lot of yelling and maybe a walk-out or two. Trump v Sanders might actually put an end to the concept of debates, because they'd be liable to just start yelling at each other.
The democratic debates have shown me not that Sanders can hold his own, but that Clinton can't.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 8:59 AM on February 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sanders is ornery and loud, which is what his supporters love.
Then this is what Trump will use to his advantage: "@RealDonaldTrump: Dopey Bernie Sanders still ornery and loud. He has zero cred- what a disaster!"
The difference is that Sanders has convictions and fights for those. Trump doesn't fight for his convicions. His strategy is to take everyone out and be the only one left standing on the battle field.
posted by sour cream at 9:07 AM on February 14, 2016
Then this is what Trump will use to his advantage: "@RealDonaldTrump: Dopey Bernie Sanders still ornery and loud. He has zero cred- what a disaster!"
The difference is that Sanders has convictions and fights for those. Trump doesn't fight for his convicions. His strategy is to take everyone out and be the only one left standing on the battle field.
posted by sour cream at 9:07 AM on February 14, 2016
I see Trump winning as a possibility, but one I can stomach a lot more easily than President Cruz, frankly.
posted by spitbull at 9:11 AM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 9:11 AM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders is ornery and loud, which is what his supporters love. Clinton is calculating and not very good at emotions.
I think she can take him. I think she would be elated to have an opponent where she could be as ornery as she wants. This is a woman who answered "Republicans" when asked what enemy she was proudest of making.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:12 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think she can take him. I think she would be elated to have an opponent where she could be as ornery as she wants. This is a woman who answered "Republicans" when asked what enemy she was proudest of making.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:12 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Idle thoughts have led me to a scenario where Trump adopts all of Sanders' positions and speaks more quietly than Sanders, with projected emotion and empathy, talking about the plight of the dying white middle-aged former worker.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:18 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:18 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
With Trump staking out his position against the Iraq War in contrast to the rest of the GOP candidates, I think Clinton will have a tough time explaining her vote should he win the nomination. It'll be just like Kerry trying to do the "I was for it before I was against it" thing. Any of the other Republicans would still defend the war and not attack her on it, but Trump definitely will. I'd rather the Democrats not be in the position of being the ones who supported that mess.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:18 AM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:18 AM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah that was a brilliant move. Trump going anti-war - anti-Bush - is an incredible tactical move and will pay huge dividends over the course of the general election.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:25 AM on February 14, 2016
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:25 AM on February 14, 2016
Trump has the nomination in the bag, and knows it.
Clinton appears to be doing the same, and is being chided for it. Why? I'm genuinely interested.
posted by schmod at 9:38 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton appears to be doing the same, and is being chided for it. Why? I'm genuinely interested.
posted by schmod at 9:38 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because Republicans fight to win, and Democrats create consensus. These are two totally different mindsets, it'd be like asking why scientists don't read horoscopes.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:46 AM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ralston Reports: Team Clinton growing nervous about Nevada
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:48 AM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:48 AM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
maybe Sanders is the easier victim to pick on, because he seems to be more entrenched in his own frame of reference, i.e. stronger in his convictions, which will make him an easier target.
I also disagree. Sanders' strength of conviction is not a weakness; it is his strength, and what sets him apart from all the other politicians, including Trump. Trump's persona during his entire public life has been built on bullshit, and everyone knows it. He's better at bullshit than any of the Republican bullshit artists, and better than Clinton, too. If he has to face a no-bullshit guy like Sanders, he's at a real disadvantage. It's that lack of bullshit that appeals to people, not ornery loudness, although I appreciate that Sanders does not let himself be cowed like Dukakis or Kerry.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:57 AM on February 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
I also disagree. Sanders' strength of conviction is not a weakness; it is his strength, and what sets him apart from all the other politicians, including Trump. Trump's persona during his entire public life has been built on bullshit, and everyone knows it. He's better at bullshit than any of the Republican bullshit artists, and better than Clinton, too. If he has to face a no-bullshit guy like Sanders, he's at a real disadvantage. It's that lack of bullshit that appeals to people, not ornery loudness, although I appreciate that Sanders does not let himself be cowed like Dukakis or Kerry.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:57 AM on February 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Trump's persona during his entire public life has been built on bullshit, and everyone knows it.
It's a little disingenuous to say that -- if "everyone knows it," he wouldn't be winning, would he?
posted by tzikeh at 9:59 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's a little disingenuous to say that -- if "everyone knows it," he wouldn't be winning, would he?
posted by tzikeh at 9:59 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump has the nomination in the bag, and knows it.
Clinton appears to be doing the same, and is being chided for it. Why? I'm genuinely interested.
Because people do perceive Trump as having it in the bag, and while Clinton man, it's not a forgone conclusion yet. So she's proudly standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:00 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton appears to be doing the same, and is being chided for it. Why? I'm genuinely interested.
Because people do perceive Trump as having it in the bag, and while Clinton man, it's not a forgone conclusion yet. So she's proudly standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:00 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, Bill, just no.
Where are the videos of Sanders saying incredibly stupid shit? I mean, there are tons of Bill and Hillary spouting off and looking like dumbasses. Why are none of Sanders surfacing?
Also, I thought that video of Bill was going to be from 1993 or something. Nope.
How embarrassing. How terribly embarrassing.
I thought talking about Bill as the "first black president" was both sorta funny, but mostly sad back when people were first saying this shit (while he was in office). I remember thinking, that it was funny because you can't get much whiter than an Arkansas good old boy, and sad because it did indeed look like this was the closest to a black president that we were gonna get.
I thought maybe we could put this schtick to bed once we had a real black president.
The Clintons just can't help their own narrative. A vote for Hillary is more and more seeming like a vote for the past.
Hilary 2016: Make America Great Again!
posted by cjorgensen at 10:06 AM on February 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
Where are the videos of Sanders saying incredibly stupid shit? I mean, there are tons of Bill and Hillary spouting off and looking like dumbasses. Why are none of Sanders surfacing?
Also, I thought that video of Bill was going to be from 1993 or something. Nope.
How embarrassing. How terribly embarrassing.
I thought talking about Bill as the "first black president" was both sorta funny, but mostly sad back when people were first saying this shit (while he was in office). I remember thinking, that it was funny because you can't get much whiter than an Arkansas good old boy, and sad because it did indeed look like this was the closest to a black president that we were gonna get.
I thought maybe we could put this schtick to bed once we had a real black president.
The Clintons just can't help their own narrative. A vote for Hillary is more and more seeming like a vote for the past.
Hilary 2016: Make America Great Again!
posted by cjorgensen at 10:06 AM on February 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
I kinda feel like you can rip up any predictions you had about this election at this point. The Scalia thing shakes everything up too much.
I think the party who unites around their candidate first and communicates to the entire country, not just the people who usually pay attention, what the stakes are at this point is going to win the election. I think it's shifted advantages away from the populists. Fantasies about walls and mass deportation are going to pale compared to fear of a liberal Court. Electability will be mattering more.
Or none of that, I have no idea, it's an earthquake and we are still feeling the aftershocks.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:08 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the party who unites around their candidate first and communicates to the entire country, not just the people who usually pay attention, what the stakes are at this point is going to win the election. I think it's shifted advantages away from the populists. Fantasies about walls and mass deportation are going to pale compared to fear of a liberal Court. Electability will be mattering more.
Or none of that, I have no idea, it's an earthquake and we are still feeling the aftershocks.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:08 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, Clintons panicy shitshow of a campaign is not acting as if she has won. Acting as if it's outrageous that she's not already won by default, perhaps, but right now it's all about attacking Sanders and the notion of progress.
posted by Artw at 10:10 AM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:10 AM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
if "everyone knows it," he wouldn't be winning, would he?
Yes, because the Repub voters are being presented with a reality-TV level bullshit exhibition, and Trump is a master at that. So they choose him, because he's the most entertaining. If any of the others were grounded in reality, they would beat him, but they have been pandering to the Tea Party so long that they can't be real any more.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:10 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, because the Repub voters are being presented with a reality-TV level bullshit exhibition, and Trump is a master at that. So they choose him, because he's the most entertaining. If any of the others were grounded in reality, they would beat him, but they have been pandering to the Tea Party so long that they can't be real any more.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:10 AM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
> I think the party who unites around their candidate first and communicates to the entire country, not just the people who usually pay attention, what the stakes are at this point is going to win the election.
I agree with this:
The Scalia vacancy complicates 2016 for the Republicans much more than the Democrats. The GOP maneuvering we're seeing is damage control. source
On the Dem side it's a free play square. The campaigns can't fuck it up unless they say something stupid like the nomination should wait. The President can't fuck it up unless he puts forward someone obviously not qualified. It's really only a hot potato for the GOP. Which is why they were calling for him to wait and saying they would block it no matter who was put forth, then they don't have to say they are against that person. They can say they were against any appointment. You'll also see a mixed and hypocritical and obstructionist message from the GOP. It's gonna hurt them. It hurts them if they allow a liberal nomination. It hurts them if they obstruct.
Of course, some individuals will do fine with the obstruction, but the party as a whole will only continue to be seen as the party of no.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:17 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree with this:
The Scalia vacancy complicates 2016 for the Republicans much more than the Democrats. The GOP maneuvering we're seeing is damage control. source
On the Dem side it's a free play square. The campaigns can't fuck it up unless they say something stupid like the nomination should wait. The President can't fuck it up unless he puts forward someone obviously not qualified. It's really only a hot potato for the GOP. Which is why they were calling for him to wait and saying they would block it no matter who was put forth, then they don't have to say they are against that person. They can say they were against any appointment. You'll also see a mixed and hypocritical and obstructionist message from the GOP. It's gonna hurt them. It hurts them if they allow a liberal nomination. It hurts them if they obstruct.
Of course, some individuals will do fine with the obstruction, but the party as a whole will only continue to be seen as the party of no.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:17 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump has the nomination in the bag, and knows it. Clinton appears to be doing the same, and is being chided for it. Why? I'm genuinely interested.
Hillary came out acting as the inevitable nominee, and she most likely was, so any criticisms back then would be totally unwarranted, yes. But based on events that have already happened, Clinton and Sanders appear to be very close while her numbers are trending down while Bernie's are trending up. The answer to your question really depends on who the detractors are.
I could ask the same question, I suppose. Trump came out of nowhere, was dismissed as a joke and unelectable, but his continuing strength in the polls is seen as a game-changer. Sanders has taken the same route but is still dismissed as unelectable, unpopular with [demographic], and a silly pipe dream for college students.
But really, it's pointless to compare what's happening in the Dem race to anything remotely related to the shit-show that is the Repubs.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:17 AM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary came out acting as the inevitable nominee, and she most likely was, so any criticisms back then would be totally unwarranted, yes. But based on events that have already happened, Clinton and Sanders appear to be very close while her numbers are trending down while Bernie's are trending up. The answer to your question really depends on who the detractors are.
I could ask the same question, I suppose. Trump came out of nowhere, was dismissed as a joke and unelectable, but his continuing strength in the polls is seen as a game-changer. Sanders has taken the same route but is still dismissed as unelectable, unpopular with [demographic], and a silly pipe dream for college students.
But really, it's pointless to compare what's happening in the Dem race to anything remotely related to the shit-show that is the Repubs.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:17 AM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sanders has beliefs. Trump has none.
posted by schmod at 10:21 AM on February 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by schmod at 10:21 AM on February 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders has beliefs. Trump has none.
AH YO YO YO YO WHAT TIME IS IT? HAMILTON-TAKES-OVER-ANOTHER-MEFI-THREAD TIME!
posted by tzikeh at 10:25 AM on February 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
AH YO YO YO YO WHAT TIME IS IT? HAMILTON-TAKES-OVER-ANOTHER-MEFI-THREAD TIME!
posted by tzikeh at 10:25 AM on February 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
The wanton-prediction thing that gets me is imagining nominee Trump explaining how the advice and criticism he gave on "The Apprentice" doesn't reflect what would be his governing style. Think of all the supercuts.
posted by rhizome at 11:47 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 11:47 AM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
EVERY time someone tries to move away from the substance of an issue, Bernie Sanders expertly pivots BACK to the issue. He's a grand-master of not getting derailed.
And in front of that, Trump is roadkill. Take Trump's recent denouncement of Iraq.
Here's Rep. Sanders denouncing it in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM
Whatever position Trump wants to take, Sanders was there first.
posted by mikelieman at 12:04 PM on February 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
And in front of that, Trump is roadkill. Take Trump's recent denouncement of Iraq.
Here's Rep. Sanders denouncing it in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM
Whatever position Trump wants to take, Sanders was there first.
posted by mikelieman at 12:04 PM on February 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
The National Review doesn't seem too happy about last night.
posted by octothorpe at 12:40 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:40 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's because the debate wasn't conservatism. It was reactionary populist appeals to fascism.
posted by Talez at 1:10 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Talez at 1:10 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh wow. They actually thought Trump and Kasich occasionally speaking like a liberal was the fail of the night.
Well, it's a good thing for them that near half the electorate is ready to embrace fascism as long as it's their fascism.
posted by Talez at 1:12 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, it's a good thing for them that near half the electorate is ready to embrace fascism as long as it's their fascism.
posted by Talez at 1:12 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It will be, um, interesting if the Republican nominee is someone who essentially said on national TV, "Bush lied and people died".
posted by octothorpe at 1:16 PM on February 14, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 1:16 PM on February 14, 2016
The National Review is just along for the ride at this point, only they don't realize it. Remember how effective their big anti-Trump issue was? Yeah. Anyway, I'd write a longer comment here but I keep getting bid up on the world's tiniest violin over on eBay.
posted by indubitable at 1:16 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:16 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
It will be far more interesting if the Republican nominee is someone who defended federal funding for Planned Parenthood on national TV.
posted by zachlipton at 1:19 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 1:19 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
MoJo: Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It's Personal. Very Personal.
The Clintons and the Kissingers regularly spend holidays together at a beachfront villa.
Do they not have a Kissinger containment plan?
posted by Room 641-A at 1:19 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Clintons and the Kissingers regularly spend holidays together at a beachfront villa.
Do they not have a Kissinger containment plan?
posted by Room 641-A at 1:19 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the Kissinger gap."
posted by rhizome at 1:33 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 1:33 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I didn't realize the de la Rentas were such power players to be hosting the Kissingers every year. Pity, now I'll have to get rid of all my Oscar de la Renta ball gowns.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:46 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 1:46 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I finally watched most of the debate from last night. Sheesh. What a shit show. Mrs. Gofargogo, sat through most of it with her mouth wide open in shock. It's really hard to believe this is what we've come to in terms of potential candidates.
And what is it about the younger Bushes being so touchy about perceived slights to their family?
posted by gofargogo at 1:51 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
And what is it about the younger Bushes being so touchy about perceived slights to their family?
posted by gofargogo at 1:51 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
It will be, um, interesting if the Republican nominee is someone who essentially said on national TV, "Bush lied and people died".
To be fair of all the people on the stage, Trump probably lost the most friends, colleagues and acquaintances personally on 9/11.
posted by Talez at 1:57 PM on February 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
To be fair of all the people on the stage, Trump probably lost the most friends, colleagues and acquaintances personally on 9/11.
posted by Talez at 1:57 PM on February 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
It looked like a Ukrainian Parliament meeting. Very un-American of them.
And what is it about the younger Bushes being so touchy about perceived slights to their family?
There are some interesting family dynamics in the Bush family....
posted by Room 641-A at 2:29 PM on February 14, 2016
And what is it about the younger Bushes being so touchy about perceived slights to their family?
There are some interesting family dynamics in the Bush family....
posted by Room 641-A at 2:29 PM on February 14, 2016
> To be fair of all the people on the stage, Trump probably lost the most friends, colleagues and acquaintances personally on 9/11.
The Donald does not have friends; it has interests.
posted by bukvich at 2:55 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Donald does not have friends; it has interests.
posted by bukvich at 2:55 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It cracked me up when Jeb started off a debate response with "When I was born, I won the lottery..."-- I was like, ooh, is he going to discuss dynasticism and income inequality-- and instead it was the lead-in to an anecdote about Barbara's mothering skills.
posted by threeants at 2:55 PM on February 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by threeants at 2:55 PM on February 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm surprised that debate didn't turn into a fistfight.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:02 PM on February 14, 2016
posted by double block and bleed at 3:02 PM on February 14, 2016
By the way, sanders supporters: you can phonebank for bernie while sitting on your butts. I used google voice rather than my cell phone since it has limited minutes. I've never phone banked before and I was pretty nervous, but even the "hell no I'm not supporting Sanders" people were really nice.
posted by zug at 3:02 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zug at 3:02 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm surprised that debate didn't turn into a fistfight.
Only chance Jeb has to beat Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:06 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Only chance Jeb has to beat Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:06 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Really. If Jeb! had walked over and punched Trump, it would have been worth at least a 20 point jump in the polls.
posted by zachlipton at 3:22 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:22 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Woke up this morning and yep, bizarro world is still here. The fascist Republican frontrunner is reminding everyone that 9/11 was Bush's fault and the Iraq war was a disaster for the country, and meanwhile the leading Democratic frontrunner, a former Iraq war supporter, is embracing Henry Kissinger as an honored mentor, in order to beat back the Jewish socialist candidate who's close to overtaking her.
And Scalia is still dead.
America, fuck yeah.
posted by spitbull at 3:27 PM on February 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
And Scalia is still dead.
America, fuck yeah.
posted by spitbull at 3:27 PM on February 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
Really. If Jeb! had walked over and punched Trump, it would have been worth at least a 20 point jump in the polls.
Here's the exact moment way back when he should have punched him. Instead, later on in the debate Jeb is giving him five.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:29 PM on February 14, 2016
Here's the exact moment way back when he should have punched him. Instead, later on in the debate Jeb is giving him five.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:29 PM on February 14, 2016
It's really just a few mats and ropes away from a pro-wrestling match anyways... Why not bring a fist fight into it?
During the next election cycle, I'm expecting there to be food and beer vendors wandering amongst the crowd and a cage around the participants, as well as a running tally of "points" beneath each candidate to be awarded for "zingers". Bonus points to whoever smacks someone else with a folding podium.
I bet it would contain just as many facts and as much substance on policy, and probably get the voting base more energized than ever - seems like the logical conclusion the "Trump effect" would have on the debates.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:40 PM on February 14, 2016
During the next election cycle, I'm expecting there to be food and beer vendors wandering amongst the crowd and a cage around the participants, as well as a running tally of "points" beneath each candidate to be awarded for "zingers". Bonus points to whoever smacks someone else with a folding podium.
I bet it would contain just as many facts and as much substance on policy, and probably get the voting base more energized than ever - seems like the logical conclusion the "Trump effect" would have on the debates.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:40 PM on February 14, 2016
So is that video where Clinton talks about compromising with Republicans on a constitutional amendment banning abortion going to get any traction now that it's been overshadowed by Scalia dying? It was apparently on MSNBC, so maybe it's old news, but it's so shocking that I would have expected to have heard about it when it came out.
posted by indubitable at 3:52 PM on February 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 3:52 PM on February 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah I saw that, it's just a strategy to appeal to moderates without actually conceding any ground. Because she's talking specifically about late-term abortions which are already mostly illegal. So when she talks about a compromise which allows for procedures necessary for the health of the mother that isn't actually a compromise, it's enshrining exceptions to something that is already illegal.
posted by Justinian at 3:59 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:59 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whatever. I'm not comfortable with any candidate who is willing to make a Constitutional compromise on abortion in any way, shape, or form, and Planned Parenthood shouldn't be either. It's disgusting that she got their endorsement with something like that in her record. If they had video of Sanders saying the same, he'd be painted as a sworn enemy to feminists.
posted by dialetheia at 4:03 PM on February 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:03 PM on February 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
Yeah, it's time to shove the Overton Window the other way. Get the government out of regulating abortion any more than they regulate obesity.
posted by mikelieman at 4:07 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 4:07 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I expect the candidate endorsed by planned parenthood to be supporting free or low cost abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy without restriction.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:30 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 4:30 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
now that it's been overshadowed by Scalia dying
It's barely been 24 hours and it's the weekend, so people are just beavering away at the Internet while their kids are at soccer. It's not going to suck all the air out of the election campaigns. I expect after an aftershock rumble in the bizday newscycle tomorrow, the next we'll hear is funeral plans and some weeks after that a nominee. Scalia ain't derailing the campaign season, but it does add a large pinch of spice to the proceedings.
posted by rhizome at 4:36 PM on February 14, 2016
It's barely been 24 hours and it's the weekend, so people are just beavering away at the Internet while their kids are at soccer. It's not going to suck all the air out of the election campaigns. I expect after an aftershock rumble in the bizday newscycle tomorrow, the next we'll hear is funeral plans and some weeks after that a nominee. Scalia ain't derailing the campaign season, but it does add a large pinch of spice to the proceedings.
posted by rhizome at 4:36 PM on February 14, 2016
Really. If Jeb! had walked over and punched Trump, it would have been worth at least a 20 point jump in the polls.
YES. That debate was so insane. I see entirely the reason that duels used to exist. If Bush challenged Trump to a duel, to be broadcast on TV, he'd crush the polls (as long as he didn't die). Let's go Burr-Hamilton on this mofo.
posted by dis_integration at 5:25 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
YES. That debate was so insane. I see entirely the reason that duels used to exist. If Bush challenged Trump to a duel, to be broadcast on TV, he'd crush the polls (as long as he didn't die). Let's go Burr-Hamilton on this mofo.
posted by dis_integration at 5:25 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
And Hamiltoned.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:39 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:39 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, Bill, just no.
Not surprisingly, the NY Post (along with MSNBC) did some creative editing of Clinton's speech in order to portray his statements in the worst possible light.
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:56 PM on February 14, 2016
Not surprisingly, the NY Post (along with MSNBC) did some creative editing of Clinton's speech in order to portray his statements in the worst possible light.
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:56 PM on February 14, 2016
Agreed, that was a shitty portrayal and particularly not worthy of a generally even-handed journalist like Chris Hayes.
I don't know that MSNBC is particularly "in the bag" for one side or another, though. Rachel Maddow pointed out a couple days ago that she's received about equal numbers of angry SILENCED-ALL-MY-LIFE emails from Clinton and Sanders supporters, which sounds about right.
On a side-note, the NYT of course is both neoliberal and anti-Clinton so I've been amused to watch them try to figure out which side they hate less over the last couple weeks.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:41 PM on February 14, 2016
I don't know that MSNBC is particularly "in the bag" for one side or another, though. Rachel Maddow pointed out a couple days ago that she's received about equal numbers of angry SILENCED-ALL-MY-LIFE emails from Clinton and Sanders supporters, which sounds about right.
On a side-note, the NYT of course is both neoliberal and anti-Clinton so I've been amused to watch them try to figure out which side they hate less over the last couple weeks.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:41 PM on February 14, 2016
Not surprisingly, the NY Post (along with MSNBC) did some creative editing of Clinton's speech in order to portray his statements in the worst possible light.
That's not the clip Artw linked to. This is. I'd like to see how that one was deceptively edited.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:45 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's not the clip Artw linked to. This is. I'd like to see how that one was deceptively edited.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:45 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen said that while Clinton was, in fact, “not the first black president…he was a heck of a stand in.” So during his speech Clinton said
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The other thing I want to make a funny comment about is Steve Cohen’s remark that I was just a stand-in for the first black president…I’m happy to do that, but you know what else we learned from the human genome? We learned that unless your ancestors, every one of you, are 100%, 100% from sub-Saharan Africa, we are all mixed-race people.It seems like just an off the cuff reply to Cohen's weird intro. I feel like you really have to be hoping for Clinton to say something nasty to read it as a rebuke to Obama. It's just a touchy-feely "we're all one people" platitude.
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on February 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The part Tommy Christopher goes on about having been lopped off is no bargain either:
posted by Trochanter at 7:11 PM on February 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
We only had a Democratic Congress for two years. And then we lost it. And yet some of the loudest voices in my party said, it’s unbelievable, said “Well the only reason we had it for two years is that President Obama isn’t liberal enough!”Yeah, I believe it. Those first two years had sucked the life out of all the energy Obama rode in on. The left got apathetic and stayed home because they realized they were looking at the new boss same as the old boss.
Is there one soul in this crowd that believes that?
posted by Trochanter at 7:11 PM on February 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's just a touchy-feely "we're all one people" platitude.
Right, which undermines the idea that Obama should be recognized for his accomplishment as being the first black president. It is similar to Hillary at the debates where she was hanging her hat on Bernie's small contributions donors by trying to pretend she's part of that.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:18 PM on February 14, 2016
Right, which undermines the idea that Obama should be recognized for his accomplishment as being the first black president. It is similar to Hillary at the debates where she was hanging her hat on Bernie's small contributions donors by trying to pretend she's part of that.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:18 PM on February 14, 2016
It seems like just an off the cuff reply to Cohen's weird intro. I feel like you really have to be hoping for Clinton to say something nasty to read it as a rebuke to Obama. It's just a touchy-feely "we're all one people" platitude.
Eh, it feels a bit "all lives matter" to me. And so similar to what Meryl Streep said earlier this week in Berlin. Did the rich old white people get a memo of talking points this week or something?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:38 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Eh, it feels a bit "all lives matter" to me. And so similar to what Meryl Streep said earlier this week in Berlin. Did the rich old white people get a memo of talking points this week or something?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:38 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's not the clip Artw linked to. This is. I'd like to see how that one was deceptively edited.
It's the exact same speech in Memphis and it was obviously deceptively edited. Bill Clinton was praising Obama for his accomplishments in spite of an obstructionist Congress. "But the President has done a better job than he has gotten credit for. And don’t you forget it. Don’t you forget it! Don’t you forget it! " to wild applause.
posted by JackFlash at 7:38 PM on February 14, 2016
It's the exact same speech in Memphis and it was obviously deceptively edited. Bill Clinton was praising Obama for his accomplishments in spite of an obstructionist Congress. "But the President has done a better job than he has gotten credit for. And don’t you forget it. Don’t you forget it! Don’t you forget it! " to wild applause.
posted by JackFlash at 7:38 PM on February 14, 2016
Can anyone point to video clip that contains the opening remarks about the mixed race thing? Just from reading the text, it certainly seems to me like he was jokingly responding to the intro by Cohen, as alluded to by Justinian.
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:51 PM on February 14, 2016
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:51 PM on February 14, 2016
I can only find links to videos of Clinton's remarks, not Cohen's intro. The videos are generally posted by people with names like "Tea Partier".
posted by Justinian at 8:00 PM on February 14, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:00 PM on February 14, 2016
By the way, sanders supporters: you can phonebank for bernie while sitting on your butts. I used google voice rather than my cell phone since it has limited minutes. I've never phone banked before and I was pretty nervous, but even the "hell no I'm not supporting Sanders" people were really nice.
There are even things you can do at home without talking to people. There's a computer/data entry option on the volunteer sign up form. Most of these job don't require any real experience; it's things like data entry, various help and support roles, and monitoring the other end of the phone bank software. I think all the teams have shifts that you can claim if you have certain times you can work and with at least a few teams you can just jump on and lurk in case they need people.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:08 PM on February 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
There are even things you can do at home without talking to people. There's a computer/data entry option on the volunteer sign up form. Most of these job don't require any real experience; it's things like data entry, various help and support roles, and monitoring the other end of the phone bank software. I think all the teams have shifts that you can claim if you have certain times you can work and with at least a few teams you can just jump on and lurk in case they need people.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:08 PM on February 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
A Puppy Monkey Baby candidacy would only steal votes from Vermin Supreme.
posted by rhizome at 8:26 PM on February 14, 2016
posted by rhizome at 8:26 PM on February 14, 2016
Here's why one person is voting for Trump. The story of Eric Harwood:
Altogether, Harwood struck me as a basically kind and decent man. He’s been economically wrecked by so many of the trends that have hit working-class people in the country over the last few decades. He lost his home in the Great Recession. He has had lower-paying work for much of his life. And now he has a work-limiting disability that may soon cause him to become, in effect, homeless. He has experienced his latest setback as an abandonment of him by society and government institutions: he contributed in the labor force for 31 years and yet he can’t get the social benefits he is justly owed.posted by dialetheia at 8:38 PM on February 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
His concern about foreign aid, immigrants, and refugees, though misguided in my opinion, has a very clear connection to his economic situation. Put bluntly, he wonders why his country can somehow help these people while he drowns.
And he thinks that Donald Trump, a man who has built his public persona on aggressively firing people and not caring about others, is going to help him? Or does he just want to screw over foreign aid, immigrants, and refugees because if he's not getting anything (except, you know, the food stamps, Medicaid, and energy assistance he's already getting), nobody else should either?
posted by zachlipton at 9:02 PM on February 14, 2016
posted by zachlipton at 9:02 PM on February 14, 2016
So is that video where Clinton talks about compromising with Republicans on a constitutional amendment banning abortion going to get any traction now that it's been overshadowed by Scalia dying? It was apparently on MSNBC, so maybe it's old news, but it's so shocking that I would have expected to have heard about it when it came out.
She said this before the PP endorsement, which makes this even more puzzling, given the very harsh and personal interrogation that Cecile Richards received at the hands of the Republican House committee back in October. I do not understand why Richards would give Clinton her organization's approval after that kind of treatment and after Clinton indicated her desire to compromise with Republicans on abortion restrictions. The media and her supporters seem willing to give her every pass possible. It's insane.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:12 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
She said this before the PP endorsement, which makes this even more puzzling, given the very harsh and personal interrogation that Cecile Richards received at the hands of the Republican House committee back in October. I do not understand why Richards would give Clinton her organization's approval after that kind of treatment and after Clinton indicated her desire to compromise with Republicans on abortion restrictions. The media and her supporters seem willing to give her every pass possible. It's insane.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:12 PM on February 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
And he thinks that Donald Trump... is going to help him?
Yes. He's been repeatedly fucked over by his government and he's in pain and afraid for his family and he's angry. And he has a right to be.
The center isn't holding any more.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 PM on February 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes. He's been repeatedly fucked over by his government and he's in pain and afraid for his family and he's angry. And he has a right to be.
The center isn't holding any more.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 PM on February 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
And he thinks that Donald Trump, a man who has built his public persona on aggressively firing people and not caring about others, is going to help him?
Bernie is probably way ahead on strategy on this than I am, but this is likely not news to him and he will wipe any idea like this out of anybody's mind. Bernie knows how to help, and can potentially walk a guy like this over to someone who will actually help. If Trump wants to loop around to the left, Bernie can meet him halfway and then some.
posted by rhizome at 9:19 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie is probably way ahead on strategy on this than I am, but this is likely not news to him and he will wipe any idea like this out of anybody's mind. Bernie knows how to help, and can potentially walk a guy like this over to someone who will actually help. If Trump wants to loop around to the left, Bernie can meet him halfway and then some.
posted by rhizome at 9:19 PM on February 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
And he thinks that Donald Trump, a man who has built his public persona on aggressively firing people and not caring about others, is going to help him?
I think he does, because Trump seems to be some sort of "fighter" and isn't beholden to financial interests because he's not taking their money (you and I know this is silly given that Trump is corporate money, but Trump talks about it constantly). This is what he said about it in that interview I linked:
He doesn't talk about it in the interview, but I would bet almost anything, having talked to people who have fairly similar views here in Montana (but usually with guns instead of abortion as the biggest culture-war wedge), that he just doesn't trust the Democrats. The line I usually hear is something like "at least the Republicans are honest about trying to rip everyone off - the Democrats do the same thing but they lie and say they're on my side." To them, the Democrats look just the same but with a side of hypocrisy and betrayal. They aren't necessarily politically sophisticated enough to understand that it's the Republicans who block those sorts of programs that Democrats have tried to enact in the Obama era - they just see Democrats take power and do the opposite of what they said. They see Obamacare go through and barely affect their health care situation (23% of my state still doesn't have health insurance). I honestly wouldn't really blame this guy too much for not trusting Democrats after Bill Clinton got elected by promising to help middle- and working-class people, then enacted NAFTA and dismantled welfare. Running Hillary Clinton, someone who this guy probably wouldn't trust to take his trash out, just compounds that problem. He is never going to trust her and he won't vote for her. Honestly, her nomination is insult to injury to poor people who feel that their jobs were outsourced because of NAFTA.
I think that's one reason why Bernie Sanders is finally capturing some of the working-class less-educated white vote this time around - they're finally hurting badly enough to see past some of the wedge issues, he seems trustworthy, and he is strongly against trade deals.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 PM on February 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
I think he does, because Trump seems to be some sort of "fighter" and isn't beholden to financial interests because he's not taking their money (you and I know this is silly given that Trump is corporate money, but Trump talks about it constantly). This is what he said about it in that interview I linked:
Near the end of our conversation, I asked Harwood about his politics, since they make an appearance in his YouTube videos. He explained that he is an independent but that he leans conservative. When asked what his main issues are, he talked at length about the bank bailout. In his view, the bailout was an incredible mistake. The money that went to the banks should have been given out to the people more generally, who then could have used it to pay off their loans (and thus save the banks) and to pump up demand more generally. He explained further that the bank bailout is just one part of a broader problem with the way the government spends money. Specifically, he thinks it spends too much money on foreign aid, refugees, and immigrants, when it should be spending it on struggling veterans, seniors, needy children, and those who cannot work. He also confirmed that he is, at least in some respects, a social conservative and that he believes abortion is murder. In the 2016 campaign, he says he wants a Trump and Cruz ticket and he doesn’t care who leads it.I couldn't tell you how much of a dealbreaker the abortion part is, but if he could only realize it, he's actually at least 75% of the way to being a Sanders voter - he's angry about the bailout and thinks we should be spending that money on "struggling veterans, seniors, needy children, and those who cannot work."
He doesn't talk about it in the interview, but I would bet almost anything, having talked to people who have fairly similar views here in Montana (but usually with guns instead of abortion as the biggest culture-war wedge), that he just doesn't trust the Democrats. The line I usually hear is something like "at least the Republicans are honest about trying to rip everyone off - the Democrats do the same thing but they lie and say they're on my side." To them, the Democrats look just the same but with a side of hypocrisy and betrayal. They aren't necessarily politically sophisticated enough to understand that it's the Republicans who block those sorts of programs that Democrats have tried to enact in the Obama era - they just see Democrats take power and do the opposite of what they said. They see Obamacare go through and barely affect their health care situation (23% of my state still doesn't have health insurance). I honestly wouldn't really blame this guy too much for not trusting Democrats after Bill Clinton got elected by promising to help middle- and working-class people, then enacted NAFTA and dismantled welfare. Running Hillary Clinton, someone who this guy probably wouldn't trust to take his trash out, just compounds that problem. He is never going to trust her and he won't vote for her. Honestly, her nomination is insult to injury to poor people who feel that their jobs were outsourced because of NAFTA.
I think that's one reason why Bernie Sanders is finally capturing some of the working-class less-educated white vote this time around - they're finally hurting badly enough to see past some of the wedge issues, he seems trustworthy, and he is strongly against trade deals.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 PM on February 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
And he thinks that Donald Trump, a man who has built his public persona on aggressively firing people and not caring about others, is going to help him?
Trump is a populist, and he's tapping into people's anger. He isn't even trying to say "I can help you"; his message is "it's those guys' fault."
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:32 PM on February 14, 2016
Trump is a populist, and he's tapping into people's anger. He isn't even trying to say "I can help you"; his message is "it's those guys' fault."
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:32 PM on February 14, 2016
The interview dialetheia quotes above--and her excellent comment on it--really reinforces why I believe that Sanders is the best candidate to win the general election: he has real crossover appeal, and his primary message is on point and timely, and will resonate with many. Trump has the emotional appeal right, but has no substance or consistency in his message (or history) to back it up. Sanders can exploit those weaknesses exactly, because he has such similar emotional appeal.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:17 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 10:17 PM on February 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is Ted Cruz's tax postcard.
Funny thing is it looks a lot like my 1040EZ. Once you add in explanations his form would be just as long as mine.
posted by johnpowell at 12:05 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Funny thing is it looks a lot like my 1040EZ. Once you add in explanations his form would be just as long as mine.
posted by johnpowell at 12:05 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay I was wrong, turns out Trump still has this in the bag.
Washington and Lee University students who have correctly picked the Republican presidential nominee at a mock convention since 1948 are predicting Donald Trump will be the party’s pick this year.
By a better than 2-1 ratio, Trump topped his nearest competitor, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, during the mock convention at the school’s Lexington campus. The billionaire businessman snared 1,320 student delegates to Cruz’ 652.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:07 AM on February 15, 2016
Washington and Lee University students who have correctly picked the Republican presidential nominee at a mock convention since 1948 are predicting Donald Trump will be the party’s pick this year.
By a better than 2-1 ratio, Trump topped his nearest competitor, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, during the mock convention at the school’s Lexington campus. The billionaire businessman snared 1,320 student delegates to Cruz’ 652.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:07 AM on February 15, 2016
I think Trump will be the nominee and I think he is enough of a wild card that there is a nonzero chance he will do something totally bonkers like quit in a huff in September and endorse Bernie because someone in the RNC said something mean to him.
posted by ian1977 at 12:27 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 12:27 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there a financial disclosure step? IIRC, that was the exit strategy of Howard Stern in the NY Governor's race
posted by mikelieman at 1:07 AM on February 15, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 1:07 AM on February 15, 2016
It cracked me up when Jeb started off a debate response with "When I was born, I won the lottery..."
Yeah, someone should have interrupted him: "That golden spoon of yours, that's actually our line, Jeb. You are making our fucking point."
posted by sour cream at 1:18 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, someone should have interrupted him: "That golden spoon of yours, that's actually our line, Jeb. You are making our fucking point."
posted by sour cream at 1:18 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there a financial disclosure step? IIRC, that was the exit strategy of Howard Stern in the NY Governor's race
Already done. It was a strong early signal he was really serious about this.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:02 AM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Already done. It was a strong early signal he was really serious about this.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:02 AM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren Rips Into Republicans For Pledging To Block Supreme Court Process
Elizabeth Warren
@SenWarren
Abandoning their Senate duties would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that – empty talk.
6:45am - 14 Feb 16
posted by Room 641-A at 5:51 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Elizabeth Warren
@SenWarren
Abandoning their Senate duties would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that – empty talk.
6:45am - 14 Feb 16
posted by Room 641-A at 5:51 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton, Shifting Line of Attack, Paints Bernie Sanders as a One-Issue Candidate (NYT)
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”
posted by Room 641-A at 6:00 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”
posted by Room 641-A at 6:00 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep. Really looking forwards hearing her plan to end sexism.
posted by Artw at 6:06 AM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:06 AM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I guess she hasn't really worded it so those are her issues either, so it could be she's counting on people not noting one is a bigger number than zero.
posted by Artw at 6:40 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:40 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep. Really looking forwards hearing her plan to end sexism.
I thought she was the plan: More like her become CEO's, get the respect of Wall Street, take the presidency. Likewise, Bernie's plan is similar: Become the message candidate by being the charming and lovable uncle they never knew, address any past issues with Marxism or Zionism later, during the general election. The problem is that his supporters seem to think we live in a left-leaning country while ironically holding the view that Democrats are too right wing.
posted by Brian B. at 7:01 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought she was the plan: More like her become CEO's, get the respect of Wall Street, take the presidency. Likewise, Bernie's plan is similar: Become the message candidate by being the charming and lovable uncle they never knew, address any past issues with Marxism or Zionism later, during the general election. The problem is that his supporters seem to think we live in a left-leaning country while ironically holding the view that Democrats are too right wing.
posted by Brian B. at 7:01 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders
Political and social change emanate from persistent pressure for a just world, not settling for what is “realistic” before even getting to the negotiating table.posted by syzygy at 7:03 AM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
...
On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.
I guess she hasn't really worded it so those are her issues either, so it could be she's counting on people not noting one is a bigger number than zero.
She is using these issues to attack her opponent, which is even worse than not addressing them. The empress has no clothes!
> Hillary Clinton, Shifting Line of Attack, Paints Bernie Sanders as a One-Issue Candidate
posted by cjorgensen at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
She is using these issues to attack her opponent, which is even worse than not addressing them. The empress has no clothes!
> Hillary Clinton, Shifting Line of Attack, Paints Bernie Sanders as a One-Issue Candidate
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow," Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, "would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?," she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. "Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?"Maybe I missed it, but where was Hillary Clinton's solutions to these issues? Other problems breaking up the big banks won't solve: Crime, war, disease, and global warming. I can't wait to hear her plans to end all the above! On the other hand, breaking up the big banks does solve the problems of big banks. One problem down, now we just need to look at those other pesky ones she has no plan for.
At each question, the crowd called back with a resounding no.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Breaking up the banks, auditing the DoD, taxing the rich... call it "trickle down" socialism.
posted by Trochanter at 8:26 AM on February 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 8:26 AM on February 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Much of Bernie's campaign merits remark but the very heart of it is almost redundantly self-evident in the struggle of popular support to confront the boundaries we have established for its efficacy. His message is not "elect me," it is "elect us, the working class, and let us attempt to fix what the powerful and methods of power have broken." As his campaign has encountered orthogonal concerns ala. Black Lives Matter, it has risen to the challenge of incorporation, adding those voices to the platform. But it has refused to echo the elite. It is a people's movement, for and by. To decry Bernie the individual is difficult because he has been contesting elite power his entire life, but to decry his support and its correlative implications is worse than difficult.
Clinton's campaign is couched in paternalism, echoing "Hillary knows best so put her in charge." So we have exhaustively considered which candidate 'knows best' because we are still operating in the frame of mind that Hillary's campaign is designed for and by. But our duty as citizens is to elect a representative. Our duty is to amplify our own voice, because (as we awaken again to the reality of,) it will not be heard besides.
If we believe as I think we must, American or otherwise, that a democratic system should supersede the individual egos by which it is comprised, we must commit a fair and well evidenced attention to the will of the people for whom these elections are being undertaken. If we dismiss the throngs of people showing up to Trump rallies on basis of our judgement of their character for example, we ignore at our peril the fundamental nature of democracy, which is that people who do not find representation in their leaders will look elsewhere for leadership.
We are chasing the wind to evaluate whether Hillary Clinton is morally and ethically sufficient. She is not the question. The question is who desires her leadership. And the question is to the integrity of our process, which we are seeing very clearly to prejudice grassroots action along all vectors. Why is this? Because the system Hillary Clinton wants to represent does not trust its constituency. How do we earn its trust? By doing exactly what Bernie Sanders is doing: returning the favor.
posted by an animate objects at 9:23 AM on February 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
Clinton's campaign is couched in paternalism, echoing "Hillary knows best so put her in charge." So we have exhaustively considered which candidate 'knows best' because we are still operating in the frame of mind that Hillary's campaign is designed for and by. But our duty as citizens is to elect a representative. Our duty is to amplify our own voice, because (as we awaken again to the reality of,) it will not be heard besides.
If we believe as I think we must, American or otherwise, that a democratic system should supersede the individual egos by which it is comprised, we must commit a fair and well evidenced attention to the will of the people for whom these elections are being undertaken. If we dismiss the throngs of people showing up to Trump rallies on basis of our judgement of their character for example, we ignore at our peril the fundamental nature of democracy, which is that people who do not find representation in their leaders will look elsewhere for leadership.
We are chasing the wind to evaluate whether Hillary Clinton is morally and ethically sufficient. She is not the question. The question is who desires her leadership. And the question is to the integrity of our process, which we are seeing very clearly to prejudice grassroots action along all vectors. Why is this? Because the system Hillary Clinton wants to represent does not trust its constituency. How do we earn its trust? By doing exactly what Bernie Sanders is doing: returning the favor.
posted by an animate objects at 9:23 AM on February 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
The problem is that his supporters seem to think we live in a left-leaning country while ironically holding the view that Democrats are too right wing.
How far left has America moved?:
How far left has America moved?:
From the earliest days of Barack Obama’s presidency, a comforting assumption developed among much of the center-right political world. The thinking went like this: President Obama was far more liberal than the majority of the country. But given his extraordinary political talents, the fatigue of the George W. Bush years, the economic crisis and the excitement of electing the first African-American president, the country picked him not because of his ideology but in spite of it. ...posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
But so far into the 2016 election, conservatives are on the run. Democrats are battling over who can really move the country left. And the leading Republican candidate is a man who has previously praised Canada’s single-payer health care system and described himself as “very pro-choice.”
This starts to paint a very different picture of the direction of the country. Instead of President Obama representing a quirky left shift engendered by his charisma, Iraq and the Great Recession, what if he turned out to have been a transitional figure to a considerably more leftward tilt? What if in 10 or 20 years we look back on the Obama years and they seem as conservative as the 1992 “Different Kind of Democrat” years do now?
Hillary Clinton, Shifting Line of Attack, Paints Bernie Sanders as a One-Issue Candidate
"The economy is just a single issue, let's talk about something else, stupid."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:46 AM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
"The economy is just a single issue, let's talk about something else, stupid."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:46 AM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
Oh, hey:
New Hampshire Republican Party launches online petition supporting … Bernie Sandersposted by Kirth Gerson at 10:09 AM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
NHGOP says Democratic superdelegates should back first-in-nation primary winner
The NHGOP petition says, “Even though we vehemently disagree with Senator Sanders on his radical socialist agenda, we stand with his supporters who want their voices to be heard.”
It struck me the other day that if the Democratic Party were really concerned with electability -- that is, ability to win the general election -- then it would not run primaries or caucuses in states that are not at least potential wins for a Democrat in the general election. (Or it would strongly weight the delegates for the various states on the basis of likelihood that the state goes to the Democratic candidate in the general election.) I submit that if Sanders wins overall in the states that Obama carried in the general election in 2012, then it would be a deeply strange argument to say that Clinton is more electable on the basis of her having won primaries in states that no Democratic candidate has any hope of winning in the general election: states like South Carolina, Alabama, and Oklahoma. The votes are not in for very many of those states, so we'll see what things look like in a couple of weeks. But it seems to me that the result in Nevada will be much more informative with respect to general electability than will the result in South Carolina.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:11 AM on February 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:11 AM on February 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
It struck me the other day that if the Democratic Party were really concerned with electability -- that is, ability to win the general election -- then it would not run primaries or caucuses in states that are not at least potential wins for a Democrat in the general election.
I totally agree! It's one of many reasons why I find this focus on South Carolina as THE Decisive Primary for Democrats to be kind of strange (though I definitely understand the importance of demonstrating a diverse coalition). It makes sense for Republicans, but not for us.
It seems especially strange given that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are all swing states. For all the talk about how white it is, New Hampshire should be one of our very first swing state pickups - if our nominee can't win there, we are usually in trouble.
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 AM on February 15, 2016
I totally agree! It's one of many reasons why I find this focus on South Carolina as THE Decisive Primary for Democrats to be kind of strange (though I definitely understand the importance of demonstrating a diverse coalition). It makes sense for Republicans, but not for us.
It seems especially strange given that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are all swing states. For all the talk about how white it is, New Hampshire should be one of our very first swing state pickups - if our nominee can't win there, we are usually in trouble.
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 AM on February 15, 2016
Revisiting that comment about constitutional compromise on abortion from Clinton linked above just got me mad all over again. How dare she tell Democrats that a fight on health care policy supported by the majority of Americans would be too costly and divisive, while saying she'd be up for any constitutional action on abortion whatsoever, even late-term? Is that not going to be divisive and cost political capital somehow? And if she does want to start a constitutional abortion negotiation, THAT'S the negotiating position she starts from? We'd end up losing half our reproductive rights by the time we were done.
This is what it comes down to for me: she's willing to open the Pandora's box of constitutional abortion compromise just to gain another millimeter with moderates like David Brooks (and lest you think that was outdated, that was from September 2015) but she is unwilling to open the same Pandora's box to fight for health care, college, or minimum wage. That is not leadership.
posted by dialetheia at 10:23 AM on February 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is what it comes down to for me: she's willing to open the Pandora's box of constitutional abortion compromise just to gain another millimeter with moderates like David Brooks (and lest you think that was outdated, that was from September 2015) but she is unwilling to open the same Pandora's box to fight for health care, college, or minimum wage. That is not leadership.
posted by dialetheia at 10:23 AM on February 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
People who don't 'see race' are erasing black people and their contributions
posted by Artw at 10:27 AM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:27 AM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe I missed it, but where was Hillary Clinton's solutions to these issues? Other problems breaking up the big banks won't solve: Crime, war, disease, and global warming.
I'll forgive her baroque equivocation because while breaking up the banks wouldn't help the Cubs win the World Series, it certainly wouldn't do nothing.
So, Hillary, you're right: it wouldn't do those things, but what things would it do? Let's talk about that for a sec.
posted by rhizome at 10:35 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll forgive her baroque equivocation because while breaking up the banks wouldn't help the Cubs win the World Series, it certainly wouldn't do nothing.
So, Hillary, you're right: it wouldn't do those things, but what things would it do? Let's talk about that for a sec.
posted by rhizome at 10:35 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, but if you are going to use that to attack your opponent I assume it's because you got something in your bag to address those. Otherwise, it's "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat?"
posted by cjorgensen at 10:42 AM on February 15, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 10:42 AM on February 15, 2016
I think it leaves her wide-open for the question. I now have to wonder if that's the goal, or if it's a mistake, or it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things because nobody's going to pick up the angle. I doubt she's trying to motivate reporters to ask Bernie, because he's already got solutions.
posted by rhizome at 10:45 AM on February 15, 2016
posted by rhizome at 10:45 AM on February 15, 2016
Which is why her attacks keep backfiring. I seriously think she came into this campaign thinking it would be a game of checkers, and all she needed to do was get on piece all the way down the board, only to find out Sanders is playing chess.
I'm trying hard to find one attack she's made that has stuck or made Sanders look bad. Many have made him look better.
All this one does is make Hillary look like a stalwart defender of the banks.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:58 AM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm trying hard to find one attack she's made that has stuck or made Sanders look bad. Many have made him look better.
All this one does is make Hillary look like a stalwart defender of the banks.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:58 AM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Here's How Clinton And Sanders Would Improve Criminal Justice
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on February 15, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on February 15, 2016
It seems especially strange given that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are all swing states. For all the talk about how white it is
Harry Reid allies to Team Clinton: Don't slam Nevada's caucus
Her campaign's attempt to downgrade expectations backfires in the pivotal caucus state.
I think all these missteps point to the campaign not ever considering there would be any real challenge. It's as if they didn't even do their own opposition research and now they're really playing catch up. Her youth problem isn't new:
In Clinton vs. Obama, Age Is One of the Greatest Predictors
Jay Leno recently made fun of a commercial for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she referred to playing pinochle as a child at her grandfather’s lake house in Pennsylvania.
“Pinochle?” Mr. Leno said quizzically to his late-night audience. “Well, that’ll help with the young voters, huh? I mean, come on. What kids aren’t playing pinochle now?
How could they be so unprepared?
posted by Room 641-A at 11:10 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Harry Reid allies to Team Clinton: Don't slam Nevada's caucus
Her campaign's attempt to downgrade expectations backfires in the pivotal caucus state.
I think all these missteps point to the campaign not ever considering there would be any real challenge. It's as if they didn't even do their own opposition research and now they're really playing catch up. Her youth problem isn't new:
In Clinton vs. Obama, Age Is One of the Greatest Predictors
Jay Leno recently made fun of a commercial for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she referred to playing pinochle as a child at her grandfather’s lake house in Pennsylvania.
“Pinochle?” Mr. Leno said quizzically to his late-night audience. “Well, that’ll help with the young voters, huh? I mean, come on. What kids aren’t playing pinochle now?
How could they be so unprepared?
posted by Room 641-A at 11:10 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
In fairness, no young people watch Jay Leno.
posted by Artw at 11:14 AM on February 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:14 AM on February 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
I don't think it's lack of preparation, it's that she's caught between the rock of party elitism and the hard place of being out of touch. Pinochle satisfies the "Hillary's keeping it real" angle, but that reveals the out of touchness at the same time. This carries across her campaign.
posted by rhizome at 11:15 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 11:15 AM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
If maybe she could have left the banks thing as an implication it would have worked better, or given the impression she actually gives a damn about those other things. Basically her campaign badly needs some demonstration of intent on her part towards doing something worthwhile, and without that she can wear a backwards baseball cap whilst pulling skateboard tricks all she likes and not get anywhere.
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on February 15, 2016
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on February 15, 2016
I like pinochle from playing it with my grandparents, I haven't found anyone to play with me in ages except my grandmother and mom.
That pinochle ad and NYT article are from 2008; Jay Leno doesn't have a show.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:47 AM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
That pinochle ad and NYT article are from 2008; Jay Leno doesn't have a show.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:47 AM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Pinochle satisfies the "Hillary's keeping it real" angle, but that reveals the out of touchness at the same time.
Yes, she is truly a monster for reminiscing about playing an old-timey card game with her grandfather. I'm sure Bernie Sanders only ever did totes cool shit as a child in the 1940s, like parkour or collecting Pokemon.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:52 AM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, she is truly a monster for reminiscing about playing an old-timey card game with her grandfather. I'm sure Bernie Sanders only ever did totes cool shit as a child in the 1940s, like parkour or collecting Pokemon.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:52 AM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
She can wear a backwards baseball cap whilst pulling skateboard tricks all she likes and not get anywhere.
'That's very, um, rad of you.'
posted by box at 11:53 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
'That's very, um, rad of you.'
posted by box at 11:53 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not sure why the pinochle thing is coming up again. It was eight years ago and did a lot to distinguish HRC from Obama, who is a generation younger. Sanders is the same age as she is.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
She has a Gameboy now.
posted by Artw at 11:57 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:57 AM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
But seriously, it matters exactly not-one-fuck compared to her campaign that offers somewhat dubious "electability" and nothing else bar a commitment to not change anything too much.
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Link dump:
- How Hillary and Bill Clinton Parlayed Decades of Public Service into Vast Wealth
- Hillary Clinton brought this on herself: How a Democratic primary coronation turned into a war
- The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders
...Jay Leno doesn't have a show.
Well, I guess that would go towards explaining, to some extent, why young people aren't watching him.
But he does have a lot of cars.
Oh, right, young people just call Uber anymore...
posted by y2karl at 12:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, I guess that would go towards explaining, to some extent, why young people aren't watching him.
But he does have a lot of cars.
Oh, right, young people just call Uber anymore...
posted by y2karl at 12:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
We now join the U.S. class war already in progress: "Class is back. Arguably, for the first time since the New Deal, class is the dominant political issue. Virtually every candidate has tried appealing to class concerns, particularly those in the stressed middle and lower income groups. But the clear beneficiaries have been Trump on the right and Sanders on the left."
posted by dialetheia at 12:36 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 12:36 PM on February 15, 2016
It’s Their Party - "A generation ago, socialists and civil rights activists tried to transform the Democratic Party. Why did they fail?"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2016
Yes, she is truly a monster
I'm not saying that at all, but I realize the 2008ness softens my point.
posted by rhizome at 1:00 PM on February 15, 2016
I'm not saying that at all, but I realize the 2008ness softens my point.
posted by rhizome at 1:00 PM on February 15, 2016
"A generation ago..."
To be sure, people who could vote in 1964 are at least two generations previous.
posted by rhizome at 1:02 PM on February 15, 2016
To be sure, people who could vote in 1964 are at least two generations previous.
posted by rhizome at 1:02 PM on February 15, 2016
Class is back
Class has been back, it's just that the parties have been telling us that we aren't one of their rich friends because we aren't trying hard enough. Rich people started it by killing the social safety net and taking all the money.
posted by rhizome at 1:04 PM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Class has been back, it's just that the parties have been telling us that we aren't one of their rich friends because we aren't trying hard enough. Rich people started it by killing the social safety net and taking all the money.
posted by rhizome at 1:04 PM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not sure why the pinochle thing is coming up again. It was eight years ago and did a lot to distinguish HRC from Obama, who is a generation younger. Sanders is the same age as she is..
Because she is repeating the exact same mistakes as she did last time, and I stated my surprise: How could they be so unprepared? And that means I called her a monster? Okay.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:05 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because she is repeating the exact same mistakes as she did last time, and I stated my surprise: How could they be so unprepared? And that means I called her a monster? Okay.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:05 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think you called her a monster.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:07 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:07 PM on February 15, 2016
No, you didn't that was a cut & paste error, sorry. This is the comment:
Atom Eyes: Yes, she is truly a monster for reminiscing about playing an old-timey card game with her grandfather. I'm sure Bernie Sanders only ever did totes cool shit as a child in the 1940s, like parkour or collecting Pokemon.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:10 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Atom Eyes: Yes, she is truly a monster for reminiscing about playing an old-timey card game with her grandfather. I'm sure Bernie Sanders only ever did totes cool shit as a child in the 1940s, like parkour or collecting Pokemon.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:10 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, people are defending pinochle, but am I wrong that she is not repeating the same mistake she made last time? Does she not have a problem with attracting young voters? Was there something inaccurate about my comment? Because that's actually a conversation I'd like to have.
Believe me, I play canasta, this has nothing to do with olde timey card games that no one under 60 knows about.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Believe me, I play canasta, this has nothing to do with olde timey card games that no one under 60 knows about.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Superdelegates Might Not Save Hillary Clinton
Here's the thing, if Superdelegates actually do decide this thing I think it would be the end of the Democratic party for decades to come. Like it or not, the youth vote is going to Sanders. If that vote is disenfranchised by having the election stolen, I doubt they would ever come back. I know I'd bail. You would never get me to vote for another Democrat again. Ever. I'd be done.
This isn't to say I'd vote GOP, but I'd believe the system broken beyond repair, and I'd just never participate again.
Like I said, if I had to shove my chips in right now I'd bet Hillary. I think Sanders has too much of an uphill fight ahead of him, but if he did manage to win the state delegates only to have the party overrule the will of the people I think there would be chaos.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:18 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's the thing, if Superdelegates actually do decide this thing I think it would be the end of the Democratic party for decades to come. Like it or not, the youth vote is going to Sanders. If that vote is disenfranchised by having the election stolen, I doubt they would ever come back. I know I'd bail. You would never get me to vote for another Democrat again. Ever. I'd be done.
This isn't to say I'd vote GOP, but I'd believe the system broken beyond repair, and I'd just never participate again.
Like I said, if I had to shove my chips in right now I'd bet Hillary. I think Sanders has too much of an uphill fight ahead of him, but if he did manage to win the state delegates only to have the party overrule the will of the people I think there would be chaos.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:18 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
am I wrong that she is not repeating the same mistake she made last time?
That may very well be the case with regard to her overall campaign strategy, but I don't agree that the Pinochle anecdote was ever damning evidence of anything, other than the hackiness of Jay Leno's material. (For the record, I don't think anyone here was literally saying she is a monstrous person because of an innocuous story about a card game.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:37 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
That may very well be the case with regard to her overall campaign strategy, but I don't agree that the Pinochle anecdote was ever damning evidence of anything, other than the hackiness of Jay Leno's material. (For the record, I don't think anyone here was literally saying she is a monstrous person because of an innocuous story about a card game.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:37 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
That may very well be the case with regard to her overall campaign strategy,
Right. And I linked to a relevant article to back up my comment. And then I copied the opening graphs to give people an idea of what was behind the link. If you know of a better way I'm happy to hear it.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:41 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right. And I linked to a relevant article to back up my comment. And then I copied the opening graphs to give people an idea of what was behind the link. If you know of a better way I'm happy to hear it.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:41 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The generation that plays "F2P" app store games has no standing to criticize Pinochle.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:42 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:42 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary's campaign is trying to sell the false idea that Nevada is good for Bernie because it's as white as Iowa
Just a month or two back she was saying she'd do better there because she had a lock on the black and latino vote, now she's moderating expectations.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:42 PM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just a month or two back she was saying she'd do better there because she had a lock on the black and latino vote, now she's moderating expectations.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:42 PM on February 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
To be sure, people voted in 1964 are at least two generations back.
Well, for the record, and with Postroad aside, there are few here who could make that claim.
Whew, missed the cut on that one! So, I'm not my own great-grandpa after all...
posted by y2karl at 1:48 PM on February 15, 2016
Well, for the record, and with Postroad aside, there are few here who could make that claim.
Whew, missed the cut on that one! So, I'm not my own great-grandpa after all...
posted by y2karl at 1:48 PM on February 15, 2016
Room 641-A, I wasn't even responding to you in my initial comment. But I think this is probably a de-rail that is better off dropped at this point.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:55 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:55 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eight years later, Bill Clinton is causing headaches for his wife again (WaPo)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:00 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:00 PM on February 15, 2016
"Yo kids, are you ready to Krush some Kandy?"
posted by Artw at 2:03 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 2:03 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can someone please explain to me why Capeheart is STILL trying to make this a thing? And why is WaPo letting him?
posted by Drinky Die at 2:09 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:09 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be sure, people voted in 1964 are at least two generations back.
You talk like there's some sort of generation besides Boomers and Milennials, and that's just crazy talk.
posted by Miko at 2:12 PM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
You talk like there's some sort of generation besides Boomers and Milennials, and that's just crazy talk.
posted by Miko at 2:12 PM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
Has anybody else heard that Trump is running as revenge for Jeb!'s involvement in the Telemundo/Miss America thing?
posted by rhizome at 2:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 2:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can someone please explain to me why Capeheart is STILL trying to make this a thing? And why is WaPo letting him?
I believe the technical term is ratfucking. I would LOVE to know who changed the captions on those photos back in January, and whose 'testimony' convinced them to do so. Capehart should at least be reprimanded for his treatment of this story - he filed the original, written with a tone of total shaming certainty, before even trying to speak to the photographer, and the original captions, contact sheets, and photographer's word count for an order of magnitude more than the other ridiculous hearsay he's reporting. I would feel remiss in not pointing out that Capehart's partner, Nick Schmit, has been a Clinton aide since 2004 and appears to still be associated with the Clinton Foundation. What a smear job. I shouldn't be surprised - this is just my daily reminder that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos.
posted by dialetheia at 2:30 PM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
I believe the technical term is ratfucking. I would LOVE to know who changed the captions on those photos back in January, and whose 'testimony' convinced them to do so. Capehart should at least be reprimanded for his treatment of this story - he filed the original, written with a tone of total shaming certainty, before even trying to speak to the photographer, and the original captions, contact sheets, and photographer's word count for an order of magnitude more than the other ridiculous hearsay he's reporting. I would feel remiss in not pointing out that Capehart's partner, Nick Schmit, has been a Clinton aide since 2004 and appears to still be associated with the Clinton Foundation. What a smear job. I shouldn't be surprised - this is just my daily reminder that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos.
posted by dialetheia at 2:30 PM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
"Yo kids, are you ready to Krush some Kandy?"
You are so out of touch. Everyone knows it X-TREME candyXcrush.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2016
You are so out of touch. Everyone knows it X-TREME candyXcrush.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2016
Young Latinos Power Both Democrats in Nevada Caucus Campaign
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on February 15, 2016
Can someone please explain to me why Capeheart is STILL trying to make this a thing?
Dunno, but now there's #RetractCapehart
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:44 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dunno, but now there's #RetractCapehart
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:44 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Drinkie Die: Can someone please explain to me why Capeheart is STILL trying to make this a thing?
No, and it's such a bizarre hill to die on! Before the photographer came forward with the contact sheets the case was more ambiguous and Capehart's argument was at least plausible, even though his tone was pretty aggressive.
But now it just looks silly. Here's a good photo comparison analysis I found on Twitter that, taken along with the photographer's explanation of the sequence of the chronology of his shots, makes it pretty clear that there was a gap in the people seated on the floor while the speaker was standing; someone dressed exactly like the speaker and with his same physical features and appearance sat down in that gap; and everyone seems to agree that the close-ups of the seated man show him to be Bernie Sanders.
Capehart's best response to the new photographic evidence is that... a few people who knew Rappaport and/or were at that CORE meeting say the speaker in the photographs was Rappaport instead of Bernie, based on 50+ year old recollections and observations about the "curvature of [the speaker's] spine," "the angle of his body," his gestures, and the shape of his earlobes??
Several of the sources in Capehart's update seem eager to credit Rappaport because they want his role in the movement to be remembered/not erased, which is understandable. But I don't think anyone has denied that Rappaport was active in that movement and may have even been at that same meeting! It's just that, absent any photos of him wearing the exact same outfit as Bernie was photographed wearing at that same meeting, it seems kind of ridiculous at this point to argue conclusively that it was him... which Capehart does throughout the follow-up, referring to the subject of the original photograph not using a neutral term like "the speaker" that would allow for a difference of opinions but straight up continuing to call him Rappaport (e.g., "[Stark] is the African American student with the glasses and hair parted on the side gazing up at Rappaport.")
I don't attribute any kind of conspiracy to the actions of Rappaport's ex-wife, his roommate, etc. for their beliefs, but Capehart's handling of this unfolding story has been super questionable.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:56 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, and it's such a bizarre hill to die on! Before the photographer came forward with the contact sheets the case was more ambiguous and Capehart's argument was at least plausible, even though his tone was pretty aggressive.
But now it just looks silly. Here's a good photo comparison analysis I found on Twitter that, taken along with the photographer's explanation of the sequence of the chronology of his shots, makes it pretty clear that there was a gap in the people seated on the floor while the speaker was standing; someone dressed exactly like the speaker and with his same physical features and appearance sat down in that gap; and everyone seems to agree that the close-ups of the seated man show him to be Bernie Sanders.
Capehart's best response to the new photographic evidence is that... a few people who knew Rappaport and/or were at that CORE meeting say the speaker in the photographs was Rappaport instead of Bernie, based on 50+ year old recollections and observations about the "curvature of [the speaker's] spine," "the angle of his body," his gestures, and the shape of his earlobes??
Several of the sources in Capehart's update seem eager to credit Rappaport because they want his role in the movement to be remembered/not erased, which is understandable. But I don't think anyone has denied that Rappaport was active in that movement and may have even been at that same meeting! It's just that, absent any photos of him wearing the exact same outfit as Bernie was photographed wearing at that same meeting, it seems kind of ridiculous at this point to argue conclusively that it was him... which Capehart does throughout the follow-up, referring to the subject of the original photograph not using a neutral term like "the speaker" that would allow for a difference of opinions but straight up continuing to call him Rappaport (e.g., "[Stark] is the African American student with the glasses and hair parted on the side gazing up at Rappaport.")
I don't attribute any kind of conspiracy to the actions of Rappaport's ex-wife, his roommate, etc. for their beliefs, but Capehart's handling of this unfolding story has been super questionable.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:56 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm sure Bernie Sanders only ever did totes cool shit as a child in the 1940s, like parkour or collecting Pokemon.
Millennial here. I played cribbage with my family all the time growing up. Also wasted lots of time playing euchre in university. I'm still not voting for Clinton in the primary, and it's more because I disagree with her politics than her choice of card games.
Maybe, just maybe, young people are tilting toward Sanders not because he's totes cool but because we agree with his policies and believe his candidacy is the best chance we have for progressive action in the next four or eight years.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:00 PM on February 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
Millennial here. I played cribbage with my family all the time growing up. Also wasted lots of time playing euchre in university. I'm still not voting for Clinton in the primary, and it's more because I disagree with her politics than her choice of card games.
Maybe, just maybe, young people are tilting toward Sanders not because he's totes cool but because we agree with his policies and believe his candidacy is the best chance we have for progressive action in the next four or eight years.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:00 PM on February 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
Maybe Sanders needs to work out some Senior Citizen voter outreach where he focuses on communicating just how good he is at making the young people respect their elders.
Need to stage an incident where he is doing some canvassing and he successfully chases some teenagers off a voter's lawn.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:02 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Need to stage an incident where he is doing some canvassing and he successfully chases some teenagers off a voter's lawn.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:02 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would not surprise me if Bernie played a mean game of pinochle.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:04 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by double block and bleed at 3:04 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would not surprise me if Bernie played a mean game of pinochle.
Nah. He'd keep trying to redistribute the points.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Nah. He'd keep trying to redistribute the points.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
The article linked above, "We now join the class war already in progress," is really worth reading. This is one of my favorite snippets:
Tech also leans strongly toward cultural progressivism—support for gay marriage, abortion rights, and unrestricted immigration—and sympathy for the administration’s initiatives on climate change. They are not too concerned about higher energy prices for the middle and working classes, or their negative impact on basic industries. Climate change politics not only allows Silicon Valley and its Wall Street supports to feel better about themselves. It has also allowed venture firms and tech companies to profiteer on subsidies.
But class issues muck up this alliance of manna and idealism. Despite their hip and cool image, the tech oligarchs remain very much ruthless capitalists when it comes to preserving and expanding their wealth.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:14 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tech also leans strongly toward cultural progressivism—support for gay marriage, abortion rights, and unrestricted immigration—and sympathy for the administration’s initiatives on climate change. They are not too concerned about higher energy prices for the middle and working classes, or their negative impact on basic industries. Climate change politics not only allows Silicon Valley and its Wall Street supports to feel better about themselves. It has also allowed venture firms and tech companies to profiteer on subsidies.
But class issues muck up this alliance of manna and idealism. Despite their hip and cool image, the tech oligarchs remain very much ruthless capitalists when it comes to preserving and expanding their wealth.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:14 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sure Bernie Sanders only ever did totes cool shit as a child in the 1940s, like parkour or collecting Pokemon.
I see where you're coming from, but this misses the point. The appealing thing is that Sanders doesn't try to do any of that stuff to appeal to Millenials. He just talks about policy that we tend to agree with and treats us like we are adults with functioning brains. He campaigns with famous people, but even they mostly talk about policy - like, Killer Mike is a celebrity endorser, but he spends most of his time talking about how he thinks Sanders' vision aligns with MLK's.
It's Clinton's transparently empty identity-based appeals that fall flat (stuff like having Lena Dunham run her Instagram feed, for example).
posted by dialetheia at 3:15 PM on February 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
I see where you're coming from, but this misses the point. The appealing thing is that Sanders doesn't try to do any of that stuff to appeal to Millenials. He just talks about policy that we tend to agree with and treats us like we are adults with functioning brains. He campaigns with famous people, but even they mostly talk about policy - like, Killer Mike is a celebrity endorser, but he spends most of his time talking about how he thinks Sanders' vision aligns with MLK's.
It's Clinton's transparently empty identity-based appeals that fall flat (stuff like having Lena Dunham run her Instagram feed, for example).
posted by dialetheia at 3:15 PM on February 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
Chelsea Clinton: Bernie Sanders’ plan to end mass incarceration is ‘worrying'
posted by futz at 3:34 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 3:34 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Chelsea Clinton: Bernie Sanders’ plan to end mass incarceration is ‘worrying'
Chelsea should be worried. That would hurt the money train her mom gets coming in from private prison industry lobbyists.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:45 PM on February 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
Chelsea should be worried. That would hurt the money train her mom gets coming in from private prison industry lobbyists.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:45 PM on February 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
The super predators must be contained!
posted by Artw at 3:54 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:54 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Class is back. Arguably, for the first time since the New Deal
people who know my posting history won't be surprised that I think80% [edit: 50%, the rest is network effects of wealth vs. positive feedback effects of poverty] of our "class problem" is renters vs. owners.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3tkn
shows real per-capita housing costs have tripled since 1960.
Bobo Brooks slamming Bernie this weekend alleged higher taxes on the middle class will reduce our purchasing power , but what few people (if anyone) understand/believe is that all taxes come out of rents.
Don't know if it's $1 for $1, but I do think that's why the high-tax / high-service nordic states are livable.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:55 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
people who know my posting history won't be surprised that I think
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3tkn
shows real per-capita housing costs have tripled since 1960.
Bobo Brooks slamming Bernie this weekend alleged higher taxes on the middle class will reduce our purchasing power , but what few people (if anyone) understand/believe is that all taxes come out of rents.
Don't know if it's $1 for $1, but I do think that's why the high-tax / high-service nordic states are livable.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:55 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I follow a British econ guy called Land&Liberty (@Land_Liberty) and that's pretty much his whole deal.
posted by Trochanter at 5:02 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 5:02 PM on February 15, 2016
Bernie Sanders fans at massive Denver rally: ‘Bern the Caucus’
The crowd was a mix of young and old, families with kids, punks, hippies, black, white and Latino. Some were dressed in suits, others in black fishnets or North Face vests. They waved signs reading “Bern down Wall Street” and “Bern the Caucus.”posted by audi alteram partem at 5:20 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
One of the thousands in line was tatted-up Denver business owner Jordan Weinstein, 41, who wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the logo for the old-school punk band Black Flag but with “Bernie Sanders” replacing the name.
A registered socialist when he was 18 and living in Illinois, Weinstein said he’d begrudgingly switched from being an unaffiliated voter to a registered Democrat in Colorado — one of the 3,000-plus Coloradans to do so in the months before the Jan. 4 deadline.
Explain?
Yeah, I feel like a few of those words are being used in strictly technical senses.
posted by rhizome at 5:21 PM on February 15, 2016
Yeah, I feel like a few of those words are being used in strictly technical senses.
posted by rhizome at 5:21 PM on February 15, 2016
One of the thousands in line was tatted-up Denver business owner Jordan Weinstein, 41, who wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the logo for the old-school punk band Black Flag but with “Bernie Sanders” replacing the name.
Pepsi Blue, take me away.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:25 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Pepsi Blue, take me away.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:25 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary Clinton barks like a dog to slam Republicans
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chelsea Clinton: Bernie Sanders’ plan to end mass incarceration is ‘worrying'
Who's worried, our betters?
posted by rhizome at 5:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Who's worried, our betters?
posted by rhizome at 5:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Who's worried, our betters?
Our worsers if we're being honest.
:)
posted by futz at 5:33 PM on February 15, 2016
Our worsers if we're being honest.
:)
posted by futz at 5:33 PM on February 15, 2016
Who's worried, our betters?
The Clinton Family constituency.
posted by mikelieman at 5:34 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Clinton Family constituency.
posted by mikelieman at 5:34 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I gotta admit I was pretty confident about the upcoming election before this thread. But now I'm not so sure. My hope is that it is not reflective of most Democrats. I don't think it is but who knows.
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Chris Hayes just apologized for MSNBC creatively cutting the bill clinton video from the hillary rally mentioned upthread.
can you imagine fox news doing that?
posted by futz at 5:41 PM on February 15, 2016
can you imagine fox news doing that?
posted by futz at 5:41 PM on February 15, 2016
I gotta admit I was pretty confident about the upcoming election before this thread. But now I'm not so sure.
You aren't confident in Clinton being the nominee, or you aren't confident about Democrats winning in November? If the latter, I recommend watching the most recent Republican debate, where you can actually watch their coalition shatter in real-time. It was like that Simpsons episode where you can pinpoint the exact moment when Ralph Wiggum's heart breaks when Lisa rejects him.
That isn't to say that they won't still have a lot of money and power behind them - it still won't be easy, of course - but it's not exactly like they're threatening to run JFK against us over there. As far as your little dig about this thread not being representative, well, right back at you I guess.
posted by dialetheia at 5:44 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
You aren't confident in Clinton being the nominee, or you aren't confident about Democrats winning in November? If the latter, I recommend watching the most recent Republican debate, where you can actually watch their coalition shatter in real-time. It was like that Simpsons episode where you can pinpoint the exact moment when Ralph Wiggum's heart breaks when Lisa rejects him.
That isn't to say that they won't still have a lot of money and power behind them - it still won't be easy, of course - but it's not exactly like they're threatening to run JFK against us over there. As far as your little dig about this thread not being representative, well, right back at you I guess.
posted by dialetheia at 5:44 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
(in 6 days we now have 200 more comments than the iowa caucus post. on preview...201)
posted by futz at 6:00 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:00 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nothing about this election has been sure, the Republicans have always been within striking distance assuming they truly unite around their nominee. But yeah, the chaos level is vastly increased thanks to the Supreme Court situation. I would urge anybody concerned about the implications of the result of this election to contribute as much energy as you can spare to winning this.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:34 PM on February 15, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:34 PM on February 15, 2016
Can we get back to politics, please? (Great job, @HamiltonMusical.) #Grammys
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:36 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:36 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
You aren't confident in Clinton being the nominee, or you aren't confident about Democrats winning in November?
Democrats in November. The level of infighting here is beyond even what I remember in 2008, though I could be remembering with rose colored glasses. Probably am.
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Democrats in November. The level of infighting here is beyond even what I remember in 2008, though I could be remembering with rose colored glasses. Probably am.
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rose glasses. Go back and look at her attacks on Obama.
This said, Clinton is imploding. Predictable. Just taking longer than it should. Nevada and Sc better break her way, and no scandals can solidify, or she's done.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:44 PM on February 15, 2016
This said, Clinton is imploding. Predictable. Just taking longer than it should. Nevada and Sc better break her way, and no scandals can solidify, or she's done.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:44 PM on February 15, 2016
... I was actually talking about the attacks on Clinton, not the attacks on Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
(From supporters of Sanders, not from the candidate himself who has almost entirely taken the high road.)
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Democrats in November.
Well, Trump is floating a third party run since the RNC isn't "treating him fairly" so the Rs may be actually split for the general election. I can't actually picture Trump dropping out of the race ever, so if he doesn't get the nomination, I think it's pretty likely he will run 3rd party.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:49 PM on February 15, 2016
Well, Trump is floating a third party run since the RNC isn't "treating him fairly" so the Rs may be actually split for the general election. I can't actually picture Trump dropping out of the race ever, so if he doesn't get the nomination, I think it's pretty likely he will run 3rd party.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:49 PM on February 15, 2016
I guess we should think hard about Clinton's electability before we nominate her, then, if she's vulnerable to so many attacks.
posted by dialetheia at 6:52 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:52 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Because every attack you hear now, we'd hear at 100x volume in the general election. You think Democrats are being mean about the open FBI and State investigations? You think progressives are the only ones who have a lot of hard grudges built up against Clinton over the years? You'd still hear all the same attacks from the left, they'd just be used to depress turnout. The attacks from the right on the same issues will be vicious. Did you see Trump call Bill Clinton a rapist? It's going to be a really fun election defending them against all these attacks.
She's a not-ideal candidate in many ways, and the fact that she's our only other choice for nominee is a function of the DNC pushing every other "serious" candidate out of the race because it was her turn. If the DNC hadn't discouraged everyone else from running, maybe we'd have a different situation. If she's such a flawed candidate that people prefer Bernie Sanders, then maybe they should have let other serious candidates run.
posted by dialetheia at 6:57 PM on February 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
She's a not-ideal candidate in many ways, and the fact that she's our only other choice for nominee is a function of the DNC pushing every other "serious" candidate out of the race because it was her turn. If the DNC hadn't discouraged everyone else from running, maybe we'd have a different situation. If she's such a flawed candidate that people prefer Bernie Sanders, then maybe they should have let other serious candidates run.
posted by dialetheia at 6:57 PM on February 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
If this is her tougest week on the campaign trail then it would be shocking, Especially since most of her setbacks have been of her own devising.
posted by Artw at 6:57 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:57 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
By the time the nomination is decided, it's pretty much too late for anything but a spite 3rd party run for Trump. Ballot access and sore loser laws make it difficult to be anything but a write in candidate at that point. Trump's campaign has been well run and professional, I don't think they are in this for a stunt, they are going for the nomination.
... I was actually talking about the attacks on Clinton, not the attacks on Sanders.
(From supporters of Sanders, not from the candidate himself who has almost entirely taken the high road.)
It's consistently amusing how there is just nothing negative to say about Bernie so there is just reach after reach to criticize rando internet people. I get the feeling that no matter how jaded the oppo research mercenary she sends to find the dirt on him, they just end up quitting to join his campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:03 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
... I was actually talking about the attacks on Clinton, not the attacks on Sanders.
(From supporters of Sanders, not from the candidate himself who has almost entirely taken the high road.)
It's consistently amusing how there is just nothing negative to say about Bernie so there is just reach after reach to criticize rando internet people. I get the feeling that no matter how jaded the oppo research mercenary she sends to find the dirt on him, they just end up quitting to join his campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:03 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
On a totally different note, one possible driver of the huge age divide I haven't seen mentioned much is Social Security. Conventional wisdom is that it's just an issue for older voters, but I actually think Sanders' commitment to strengthening and expanding Social Security is an underrated part of his appeal to Millenials. My whole life, people on both sides of the aisle have told me that there wouldn't be Social Security available for me by the time I got older. Nobody ever seemed to see that as much of a problem, just as one of those "tough facts of life" they were letting me in on. Whenever we talked about Social Security, the framing is always relentlessly right-wing - we need to reduce our entitlements, reform the entire program, privatize, it's hopeless, "not politically possible," etc.
When I heard Sanders argue with conviction about saving and expanding Social Security so that it would continue to benefit everyone long into the future, I literally teared up. My whole life I've been paying into Social Security with absolutely no expectation that any of it would be there for me when I get older and need it. Why shouldn't I throw myself 100% behind one of the first candidates in my lifetime who makes a full-throated argument for saving it, expanding it, and making sure that it's still solvent when I'll need it? And why the hell don't all Democrats support raising the Social Security income cap? It's ludicrous that nothing above $118k is assessed Social Security taxed at all, and it's ludicrous that no Democrats have gone to bat hard for changing that. It's especially ludicrous that Hillary Clinton won't say she'll do it even now, even knowing full well that she'd just change her mind on it later anyway.
If you think about it, young people really have the most vested interest in making sure health care costs don't spiral completely out of control as the boomers age - we're actually the ones who will be paying for it through our Social Security and Medicare taxes, with nothing to show for it when we're finally ready to "retire" (or whatever the equivalent will be in the nightmare gig economy we've inherited, that is).
posted by dialetheia at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [27 favorites]
When I heard Sanders argue with conviction about saving and expanding Social Security so that it would continue to benefit everyone long into the future, I literally teared up. My whole life I've been paying into Social Security with absolutely no expectation that any of it would be there for me when I get older and need it. Why shouldn't I throw myself 100% behind one of the first candidates in my lifetime who makes a full-throated argument for saving it, expanding it, and making sure that it's still solvent when I'll need it? And why the hell don't all Democrats support raising the Social Security income cap? It's ludicrous that nothing above $118k is assessed Social Security taxed at all, and it's ludicrous that no Democrats have gone to bat hard for changing that. It's especially ludicrous that Hillary Clinton won't say she'll do it even now, even knowing full well that she'd just change her mind on it later anyway.
If you think about it, young people really have the most vested interest in making sure health care costs don't spiral completely out of control as the boomers age - we're actually the ones who will be paying for it through our Social Security and Medicare taxes, with nothing to show for it when we're finally ready to "retire" (or whatever the equivalent will be in the nightmare gig economy we've inherited, that is).
posted by dialetheia at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [27 favorites]
(From supporters of Sanders, not from the candidate himself who has almost entirely taken the high road.)
I guess he's above using his kids to launch attacks.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I guess he's above using his kids to launch attacks.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Now I'm worried about a situation where Bernie gets the nod, Trump runs 3rd party, Cruz is the Republican nominee, and Bloomberg jumps into the ring. At which point we have a messy 4-way election, where no one gets enough electoral votes, and the House picks Cruz.
posted by fings at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by fings at 7:07 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
If she's such a flawed candidate that people prefer Bernie Sanders, then maybe they should have let other serious candidates run.
The reason Sanders isn't facing attacks is that that Republicans want him to win. Because they think it'll be an easier election. They may be wrong about that. I'm assuming you think they are. But Sanders isn't being attacked not because he is an untouchable and non-controversial candidate but because Clinton is the frontrunner and the one the Republicans think is a tougher opponent.
If nothing else they worry far more about the downballot races against Clinton. She is a monster fundraiser for the party. Sanders, on the other hand, raises almost nothing for the establishment. Again, you might think that's actually a plus in his column. But it's certainly a difference between them.
posted by Justinian at 7:12 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The reason Sanders isn't facing attacks is that that Republicans want him to win. Because they think it'll be an easier election. They may be wrong about that. I'm assuming you think they are. But Sanders isn't being attacked not because he is an untouchable and non-controversial candidate but because Clinton is the frontrunner and the one the Republicans think is a tougher opponent.
If nothing else they worry far more about the downballot races against Clinton. She is a monster fundraiser for the party. Sanders, on the other hand, raises almost nothing for the establishment. Again, you might think that's actually a plus in his column. But it's certainly a difference between them.
posted by Justinian at 7:12 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
From 2005, The Atlantic - Countdown to a Meltdown: America's coming economic crisis. A look back from the election of 2016 (previously)
I link since it speculates in 2005 what the economic conditions and history of 2016 will look like, and we're uniquely able to assess the quality of prognostication.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:16 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I link since it speculates in 2005 what the economic conditions and history of 2016 will look like, and we're uniquely able to assess the quality of prognostication.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:16 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The scenario painted by fings above would literally be the end of the Republic. Cruz is a Christian fundamentalist and a fascist...
I have no faith whatsoever in Ted Cruz's ability to prevent an escalation of one of the many current conflicts in the Middle East that will involve the Russian Federation.
That is a "GAME OVER" possibility that we on the left will have to do everything in our power to prevent.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no faith whatsoever in Ted Cruz's ability to prevent an escalation of one of the many current conflicts in the Middle East that will involve the Russian Federation.
That is a "GAME OVER" possibility that we on the left will have to do everything in our power to prevent.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
explain
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/ATCOR.html
Cut taxes, rents go up. Raise taxes, rents go down. (same for mortgages)
basically the price of housing is driven by disposable incomes, and housing is eating us alive.
Real estate in general, as commercial rents are another a parasitical tap on the productive economy.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:19 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/ATCOR.html
Cut taxes, rents go up. Raise taxes, rents go down. (same for mortgages)
basically the price of housing is driven by disposable incomes, and housing is eating us alive.
Real estate in general, as commercial rents are another a parasitical tap on the productive economy.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:19 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
My whole life I've been paying into Social Security with absolutely no expectation that any of it would be there for me when I get older and need it.
One of the more disgusting standard Baby Boomer Republican dogmas is the one that goes "Social Security will be broke and you'll never get any of it, and we're going to make sure of that!"
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:20 PM on February 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
One of the more disgusting standard Baby Boomer Republican dogmas is the one that goes "Social Security will be broke and you'll never get any of it, and we're going to make sure of that!"
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:20 PM on February 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
But Sanders isn't being attacked not because he is an untouchable and non-controversial candidate but because Clinton is the frontrunner and the one the Republicans think is a tougher opponent.
Isn't the simpler explanation that the Republicans are too caught up in internecine strife to really sink their teeth in to Sanders? And Sanders is new, while they give a 2day seminar on Clinton bashing every new Congress.
posted by dis_integration at 7:23 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Isn't the simpler explanation that the Republicans are too caught up in internecine strife to really sink their teeth in to Sanders? And Sanders is new, while they give a 2day seminar on Clinton bashing every new Congress.
posted by dis_integration at 7:23 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually think Sanders' commitment to strengthening and expanding Social Security is an underrated part of his appeal to Millenials. My whole life, people on both sides of the aisle have told me that there wouldn't be Social Security available for me by the time I got older.
Well, this. But also, our mothers and fathers are either retiring soon or have recently retired, and are relying on Social Security to keep them housed and fed, since their homes are underwater and what meager 401(k) savings they had were destroyed in the recession.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:27 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, this. But also, our mothers and fathers are either retiring soon or have recently retired, and are relying on Social Security to keep them housed and fed, since their homes are underwater and what meager 401(k) savings they had were destroyed in the recession.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:27 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
My whole life, people on both sides of the aisle have told me that there wouldn't be Social Security available for me by the time I got older
This "aisle" separates Dems from GOP, not conservatives from liberals (i.e. there are plenty of center-right Dems in the party)
The stupid thing is since 1983 FICA payers have been made to over-contribute around $1.5T into SSA, this surplus going into "special" US Treasuries. Another $1T of accrued interest has been added to this account, making the Social Security Trust Fund aka SSTF the largest sovereign wealth fund on the planet.
This is money the rich -- those making over the FICA cap -- owe the FICA payers of 1983-2010, and as such we actually need to start cashing out these bonds in the trust fund. Conservatives will lie about this being a catastrophe -- that s their nature -- but it is just the other end of the "Greenspan Deal" being exercised.
You will not see this analysis the corporate press, outside of maybe Krugman, if we're lucky, but even his visibility isn't worth a whole lot in our so very corrupt system.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
This "aisle" separates Dems from GOP, not conservatives from liberals (i.e. there are plenty of center-right Dems in the party)
The stupid thing is since 1983 FICA payers have been made to over-contribute around $1.5T into SSA, this surplus going into "special" US Treasuries. Another $1T of accrued interest has been added to this account, making the Social Security Trust Fund aka SSTF the largest sovereign wealth fund on the planet.
This is money the rich -- those making over the FICA cap -- owe the FICA payers of 1983-2010, and as such we actually need to start cashing out these bonds in the trust fund. Conservatives will lie about this being a catastrophe -- that s their nature -- but it is just the other end of the "Greenspan Deal" being exercised.
You will not see this analysis the corporate press, outside of maybe Krugman, if we're lucky, but even his visibility isn't worth a whole lot in our so very corrupt system.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:29 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Isn't the simpler explanation that the Republicans are too caught up in internecine strife to really sink their teeth in to Sanders? And Sanders is new, while they give a 2day seminar on Clinton bashing every new Congress.
That's possible too, sure, but it doesn't matter; they aren't attacking Sanders not because they can't but because they have other reasons not to do so. What those reasons are isn't necessarily the point.
posted by Justinian at 7:30 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's possible too, sure, but it doesn't matter; they aren't attacking Sanders not because they can't but because they have other reasons not to do so. What those reasons are isn't necessarily the point.
posted by Justinian at 7:30 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think both are true (they're focused on each other, and when they look across the aisle they're going to attack the frontrunner instead of the challenger).
Trump is really throwing a wrench in the Republicans' typical playbook though. They just don't know what the hell to do with him and I don't think they're paying attention to November yet.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:36 PM on February 15, 2016
Trump is really throwing a wrench in the Republicans' typical playbook though. They just don't know what the hell to do with him and I don't think they're paying attention to November yet.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:36 PM on February 15, 2016
Candidates may not be attacking him yet, but the media are.
Conservative magazine The National Review has been attacking Sanders since he declared. They published a hit piece on him in July (July 6 cover story) that was pretty vicious. Since then, columnists like Mona Charon and Charles Krauthammer have been publishing regular screeds against socialism, populism and anything else they feel threatened by thanks to the Sanders candidacy. In the last 4 weeks, they've upped the frequency and sarcasm of their pieces. Which is probably an indication that they're getting worried he might actually win the nomination.
That French piece is the most disingenuous piece of crap, by the way. He's smart enough to know that what Sanders is proposing is not $14 trillion in new tax cuts, but mostly just repurposing already-existing funding. And since he's smart enough to know it, he's lying by omission to his readers. Apparently his article can't stand on its own. He has to lie to make it seem credible.
Their coverage of Trump is following a similar arc.
posted by zarq at 7:48 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Conservative magazine The National Review has been attacking Sanders since he declared. They published a hit piece on him in July (July 6 cover story) that was pretty vicious. Since then, columnists like Mona Charon and Charles Krauthammer have been publishing regular screeds against socialism, populism and anything else they feel threatened by thanks to the Sanders candidacy. In the last 4 weeks, they've upped the frequency and sarcasm of their pieces. Which is probably an indication that they're getting worried he might actually win the nomination.
That French piece is the most disingenuous piece of crap, by the way. He's smart enough to know that what Sanders is proposing is not $14 trillion in new tax cuts, but mostly just repurposing already-existing funding. And since he's smart enough to know it, he's lying by omission to his readers. Apparently his article can't stand on its own. He has to lie to make it seem credible.
Their coverage of Trump is following a similar arc.
posted by zarq at 7:48 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has anybody else heard that Trump is running as revenge for Jeb!'s involvement in the Telemundo/Miss America thing?
Yes, I mentioned that upthread a few days ago, and there was a bit of follow-up comment here and here. It's the motivation that makes the most sense, given what I've seen from Trump for the past 20 years or so.
posted by LooseFilter at 8:01 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, I mentioned that upthread a few days ago, and there was a bit of follow-up comment here and here. It's the motivation that makes the most sense, given what I've seen from Trump for the past 20 years or so.
posted by LooseFilter at 8:01 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
That French piece is the most disingenuous piece of crap, by the way.
That is exactly how they'll go at him, though. And I notice Krugman's helping out.
posted by Trochanter at 8:10 PM on February 15, 2016
That is exactly how they'll go at him, though. And I notice Krugman's helping out.
posted by Trochanter at 8:10 PM on February 15, 2016
Oh sure, the lazy National Review hit pieces on aging hippie Vermont socialists write themselves.
However, I don't think that the Republican establishment (including NR) has thought very hard, yet, about what it would look like to run a campaign against an avowed anti-establishment, openly left-wing and (for lack of a better word) un-slick Democratic candidate. A lot of their culture war rhetoric is just not going to stick well if Sanders is the nominee.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:19 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
However, I don't think that the Republican establishment (including NR) has thought very hard, yet, about what it would look like to run a campaign against an avowed anti-establishment, openly left-wing and (for lack of a better word) un-slick Democratic candidate. A lot of their culture war rhetoric is just not going to stick well if Sanders is the nominee.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:19 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
A lot of registered Democrats still don't know who Sanders is. I bet a lot of Republican voters have never heard of him. So it's easier to just attack Clinton (who they know and hate) than to explain who Bernie Sanders is, what his positions are, and why he's horrible. It's much simpler to just be like "and Hillary Clinton is the worst, amirite???"
posted by melissasaurus at 8:24 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 8:24 PM on February 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fallows' Atlantic piece from 2005 was a fun read.
He mentions "the 1890s, the 1930s, the 1970s" as bad times, but the 70s were rather good -- +20 million jobs were added that decade. The Ford recession and the 1980 recession came at bad timing for the sitting president, but that was largely the Fed's doing, putting the shiv into the economy by raising rates well above core inflation.
Volcker kept at it through 1982, making the "double dip" recession particularly brutal.
$6T of bad lending went out during the Bush Boom, and the epicness of the Fed's stick-saves 2009-2012 were unforeseeable in 2005.
Here in 2016, oil is in fact 30 euros to the barrel:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3tqT
but not due to peak oil & a crashed dollar!
As for his general thesis, that he is still right keeps me up at night:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm
ooh, here's a comment of mine on the 2007 thread talking about the 2005 piece:
http://www.metafilter.com/66856/Countdown-to-a-Meltdown#1925260
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:25 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
He mentions "the 1890s, the 1930s, the 1970s" as bad times, but the 70s were rather good -- +20 million jobs were added that decade. The Ford recession and the 1980 recession came at bad timing for the sitting president, but that was largely the Fed's doing, putting the shiv into the economy by raising rates well above core inflation.
Volcker kept at it through 1982, making the "double dip" recession particularly brutal.
$6T of bad lending went out during the Bush Boom, and the epicness of the Fed's stick-saves 2009-2012 were unforeseeable in 2005.
Here in 2016, oil is in fact 30 euros to the barrel:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3tqT
but not due to peak oil & a crashed dollar!
As for his general thesis, that he is still right keeps me up at night:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm
ooh, here's a comment of mine on the 2007 thread talking about the 2005 piece:
http://www.metafilter.com/66856/Countdown-to-a-Meltdown#1925260
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:25 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is exactly how they'll go at him, though.
What exactly is the line of attack, though? "Bernie Sanders says his economic plan will raise incomes X amount, but we think that's an unrealistically high estimate!"
I know the good intellectuals over at National Review can come up with better angles than that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:32 PM on February 15, 2016
What exactly is the line of attack, though? "Bernie Sanders says his economic plan will raise incomes X amount, but we think that's an unrealistically high estimate!"
I know the good intellectuals over at National Review can come up with better angles than that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:32 PM on February 15, 2016
Their attacks are trivial. "Bernie Sanders will raise your taxes." "Bernie Sanders is a socialist." And so on. Yeah, yeah, yeah you'll save more on health savi(zzzzsnore).
Doesn't matter. The soundbite is easier to digest than an explanation of offsetting savings and so on.
posted by Justinian at 8:42 PM on February 15, 2016
Doesn't matter. The soundbite is easier to digest than an explanation of offsetting savings and so on.
posted by Justinian at 8:42 PM on February 15, 2016
Now I'm worried about a situation where Bernie gets the nod, Trump runs 3rd party, Cruz is the Republican nominee, and Bloomberg jumps into the ring. At which point we have a messy 4-way election, where no one gets enough electoral votes, and the House picks Cruz.
Let's modify the above scenario slightly. HRC's a likelier nominee. A defeated Bernie would not go third party. But what if his supporters, angry at the party machinery (in a situation where it's superdelegate DNC chicanery that causes Clinton to win), go ahead and begin a massive write-in campaign for him? Let's say the grassroots groups that's sprung up to support the Sanders campaign continues to march on without him. Rejecting a handpicked Hillary by the DNC, it's mass movements against the machine. Sherman pledges and all that, but why would populist Sanders reject a mandate from the people- if he can get one?
The War of the Five POTUS ends up in the House... who picks the unlikeliest of humbled princelings, Jeb. Having been thoroughly thrashed and humiliated to an inch of his life on the campaign trail, he ends up being Congress' pliant creature for the next news cycle. And then the other candidates' campaigns start weaponizing...
posted by Apocryphon at 8:48 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's modify the above scenario slightly. HRC's a likelier nominee. A defeated Bernie would not go third party. But what if his supporters, angry at the party machinery (in a situation where it's superdelegate DNC chicanery that causes Clinton to win), go ahead and begin a massive write-in campaign for him? Let's say the grassroots groups that's sprung up to support the Sanders campaign continues to march on without him. Rejecting a handpicked Hillary by the DNC, it's mass movements against the machine. Sherman pledges and all that, but why would populist Sanders reject a mandate from the people- if he can get one?
The War of the Five POTUS ends up in the House... who picks the unlikeliest of humbled princelings, Jeb. Having been thoroughly thrashed and humiliated to an inch of his life on the campaign trail, he ends up being Congress' pliant creature for the next news cycle. And then the other candidates' campaigns start weaponizing...
posted by Apocryphon at 8:48 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Bernie Sanders will raise your taxes." "Bernie Sanders is a socialist."
Which is what they've said about every other Democratic candidate (as long as I've been alive, anyway). Sometimes it works and sometimes it don't.
There hasn't been a candidate, however, whose response would be "Yes, I'll raise taxes and here's how I'll do it and here's what the benefits will be." "Yes, I'm a socialist and here's what I mean by that."
I'm not saying whether it would work for him, just that it's a different tack that I don't think the Republicans are ready for.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:56 PM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
Which is what they've said about every other Democratic candidate (as long as I've been alive, anyway). Sometimes it works and sometimes it don't.
There hasn't been a candidate, however, whose response would be "Yes, I'll raise taxes and here's how I'll do it and here's what the benefits will be." "Yes, I'm a socialist and here's what I mean by that."
I'm not saying whether it would work for him, just that it's a different tack that I don't think the Republicans are ready for.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:56 PM on February 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
I have to say, this election is way livelier than the original MeFi election thread made it seem. Peek back to previously for the low, low expectations then of a rubber-stamp race centered around Hillary's inevitability.
As with the new Mad Max movie, my expectations are very low.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2015 [10 favorites +] [!]
Even more retrospectacularly hilarious.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:56 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
As with the new Mad Max movie, my expectations are very low.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2015 [10 favorites +] [!]
Even more retrospectacularly hilarious.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:56 PM on February 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
oh god from that thread:
ctrl+f "Trump"
"the clown car follows close behind [Rubio] with Cruz, Trump, Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and other no-hopers waiting for their turn to scream at the Values Voter Summit"
"pure joke candidates who will be winnowed out early (Santorum, Trump, Carson, etc.)"
*sob*
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
ctrl+f "Trump"
"the clown car follows close behind [Rubio] with Cruz, Trump, Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and other no-hopers waiting for their turn to scream at the Values Voter Summit"
"pure joke candidates who will be winnowed out early (Santorum, Trump, Carson, etc.)"
*sob*
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
haha remember when the biggest debate was over whether the Hillary logo sucked
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:08 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:08 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
And when enough people ate Chipotle for there to be a controversy involving HRC.
We are literally living in a sensationalist speculative fiction future written by someone who read that thread and got bored.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:11 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
We are literally living in a sensationalist speculative fiction future written by someone who read that thread and got bored.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:11 PM on February 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
What exactly is the line of attack, though? "Bernie Sanders says his economic plan will raise incomes X amount, but we think that's an unrealistically high estimate!"
No, the attack is he'll bring on the apocalypse.
posted by Trochanter at 9:13 PM on February 15, 2016
No, the attack is he'll bring on the apocalypse.
posted by Trochanter at 9:13 PM on February 15, 2016
In the general election, it is not going to matter what the attacks from the Republicans look like except insofar as it drives turnout. The general election will be decided by voter turnout. Match-up considerations are interesting in theory, but I personally don't think they will matter in practice. If that's right, then there are essentially two questions for Democrats. First, which of Clinton or Sanders do you think will drive greater Democratic turnout in the states that Obama won in 2012 (and to a lesser extent, in the states that Obama won in 2008)? Second, which of Clinton or Sanders do you think will drive greater Republican turnout in those same states?
Overall turnout tends to favor Democrats, especially in the Obama states. If Democratic turnout is large in the Obama states, then the Democrats will win. The slimmest margins for Obama in 2012 were in Florida (0.6), Ohio (1.9), and Virginia (3.0). But he didn't need to win any of them in order to win the election. See the beautiful chart in this 538 piece. The only way the Democrats lose in 2016 is if they have poor turnout in New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, while the Republicans have relatively good turnout in those states. Republicans are unlikely to win states that are bluer than New Hampshire, and Democrats are unlikely to win states that are redder than North Carolina (which went for Romney by 2.2 in 2012). That means, basically, Democrats holding serve from 2012 or maybe picking up North Carolina.
Looking again at the electoral map, I want to reiterate how odd it is that the Democratic Party might nominate someone based on how they perform in primaries conducted in states like South Carolina (10.6 for Romney), Texas (15.8 for Romney), Alabama (22.2 for Romney), and Oklahoma (33.5 for Romney). No Democrat is going to win those states. Suppose Clinton crushes Sanders in the primaries in those states. So what? That doesn't make Clinton more electable in the general. It just means she'll lose by a slightly smaller margin in those states. The important questions are: First, whether Clinton or Sanders will drive turnout in competitive states, like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. And second, whether Clinton or Sanders will drive enough turnout in less competitive blue states, like New York, California, and Illinois to guarantee a margin in favor of the Democratic candidate.
So, again, if I were the DNC trying to figure out which candidate to nominate, I would be looking at how the candidates did in potential battleground states and basically ignoring how they did in the other states. The DNC won't do that, of course. But I think we can make predictions about general electability by paying attention to how the candidates do in those primaries. Again, we haven't seen the results of primaries in Wisconsin (April 5), Nevada (Feb. 20), Pennsylvania (April 26 -- what were they thinking??), Colorado (March 1), Virginia (March 1), Ohio (March 15), Florida (March 15), or North Carolina (March 15). And maybe the primary race will be over before all of those are actually contested. But those are the states I am looking to in order to decide whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. If Clinton loses those states to Sanders (which might happen but still seems unlikely to me) and wins all of the Southern states (as basically everyone expects her to do), then the DNC will probably (paradoxically) end up nominating the less electable candidate. If Clinton wins those states, then the DNC will probably end up nominating the more electable candidate. Either way, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election. I really, really, really, really hope it is Sanders. But if it's not Sanders, then I really, really, really, really, really hope that Clinton wins the battleground states in the primary, which would give me more confidence that she will actually win the general election.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
Overall turnout tends to favor Democrats, especially in the Obama states. If Democratic turnout is large in the Obama states, then the Democrats will win. The slimmest margins for Obama in 2012 were in Florida (0.6), Ohio (1.9), and Virginia (3.0). But he didn't need to win any of them in order to win the election. See the beautiful chart in this 538 piece. The only way the Democrats lose in 2016 is if they have poor turnout in New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, while the Republicans have relatively good turnout in those states. Republicans are unlikely to win states that are bluer than New Hampshire, and Democrats are unlikely to win states that are redder than North Carolina (which went for Romney by 2.2 in 2012). That means, basically, Democrats holding serve from 2012 or maybe picking up North Carolina.
Looking again at the electoral map, I want to reiterate how odd it is that the Democratic Party might nominate someone based on how they perform in primaries conducted in states like South Carolina (10.6 for Romney), Texas (15.8 for Romney), Alabama (22.2 for Romney), and Oklahoma (33.5 for Romney). No Democrat is going to win those states. Suppose Clinton crushes Sanders in the primaries in those states. So what? That doesn't make Clinton more electable in the general. It just means she'll lose by a slightly smaller margin in those states. The important questions are: First, whether Clinton or Sanders will drive turnout in competitive states, like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. And second, whether Clinton or Sanders will drive enough turnout in less competitive blue states, like New York, California, and Illinois to guarantee a margin in favor of the Democratic candidate.
So, again, if I were the DNC trying to figure out which candidate to nominate, I would be looking at how the candidates did in potential battleground states and basically ignoring how they did in the other states. The DNC won't do that, of course. But I think we can make predictions about general electability by paying attention to how the candidates do in those primaries. Again, we haven't seen the results of primaries in Wisconsin (April 5), Nevada (Feb. 20), Pennsylvania (April 26 -- what were they thinking??), Colorado (March 1), Virginia (March 1), Ohio (March 15), Florida (March 15), or North Carolina (March 15). And maybe the primary race will be over before all of those are actually contested. But those are the states I am looking to in order to decide whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. If Clinton loses those states to Sanders (which might happen but still seems unlikely to me) and wins all of the Southern states (as basically everyone expects her to do), then the DNC will probably (paradoxically) end up nominating the less electable candidate. If Clinton wins those states, then the DNC will probably end up nominating the more electable candidate. Either way, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election. I really, really, really, really hope it is Sanders. But if it's not Sanders, then I really, really, really, really, really hope that Clinton wins the battleground states in the primary, which would give me more confidence that she will actually win the general election.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:17 PM on February 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
Rereading a bit of that first Clinton thread, it's really striking how unenthusiastic people generally were. I mean, we literally went straight to the Supreme Court/strategic voting argument, which is usually a terrible sign for the nominee because if there was anything better to say, we'd be talking about that instead. It should be called the Kerry/Gore effect or something because it is the main thing I remember about both of their campaigns - the best thing anyone could say was "they aren't the other guys, and the other guys will fuck everything up." Which isn't wrong, but it isn't exactly a good sign, either.
Between the general lack of enthusiasm, the many dejected comments about Elizabeth Warren not running, and this astute comment from kliuless, I should have guessed there would be an opening for somebody like Bernie Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 PM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Between the general lack of enthusiasm, the many dejected comments about Elizabeth Warren not running, and this astute comment from kliuless, I should have guessed there would be an opening for somebody like Bernie Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 PM on February 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh my god, I just realized that if Trump is the nominee against Clinton, he's going to own her on her Iraq vote just like he did to all his fellow Republicans at the last debate. I hadn't quite put that together yet.
posted by dialetheia at 9:55 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:55 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Between that and her being the pro-life candidate it's going to be really weird.
posted by Artw at 10:31 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:31 PM on February 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I imagine her walking around all the time like "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" in her head.
posted by rhizome at 10:43 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 10:43 PM on February 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I imagine her walking around all the time like "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK" in her head.
Thinks Bernie, "What the hell were they thinking? New Coke? Corporate hacks! New Coke."
posted by an animate objects at 11:06 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thinks Bernie, "What the hell were they thinking? New Coke? Corporate hacks! New Coke."
posted by an animate objects at 11:06 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh my god, I just realized that if Trump is the nominee against Clinton, he's going to own her on her Iraq vote just like he did to all his fellow Republicans at the last debate. I hadn't quite put that together yet.
I think the best aspect is that Bernie correctly performed due diligence and is on record opposing it. What else you got Donald? How do you think a populist contest between a real-estate executive whose brand is affluence, and Bernie "Such A Mensch!" Sanders is going to play out? Gotta get more popcorn...
posted by mikelieman at 1:55 AM on February 16, 2016
I think the best aspect is that Bernie correctly performed due diligence and is on record opposing it. What else you got Donald? How do you think a populist contest between a real-estate executive whose brand is affluence, and Bernie "Such A Mensch!" Sanders is going to play out? Gotta get more popcorn...
posted by mikelieman at 1:55 AM on February 16, 2016
Gefilte-fish-Gate is not going away!
Latest Batch of Emails: Update on Hillary’s Gefilte Fish
What did Hillary know, and when did she know it? Is she in the pocket of Big Chrain? We demand transcripts of the Seder, as well as a picture of Hillary eating a mouthful of jellied carp.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:29 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Latest Batch of Emails: Update on Hillary’s Gefilte Fish
What did Hillary know, and when did she know it? Is she in the pocket of Big Chrain? We demand transcripts of the Seder, as well as a picture of Hillary eating a mouthful of jellied carp.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:29 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Metafilter Politics: Kill ur mobile browser
posted by indubitable at 4:04 AM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 4:04 AM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Post debate polling in South Carolina:
posted by Drinky Die at 4:07 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Behind Trump, who has 35 percent support in a new poll, U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are tied for second place — at 18 percent each, according to a Public Policy Polling survey released exclusively Monday to The State.I am thankful for Jeb bringing Dubya with him to SC. It gave Trump the opportunity to denounce his horrible record and now Trump is going to win, showing that even Republicans can't defend that record anymore.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich is in fourth at 10 percent support, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, tied with 7 percent support each.
-
In the Democratic race, frontrunner Hillary Clinton still holds a double-digit lead — 55-34 — over U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, according to a separate poll of 525 likely Democratic primary voters.
Sanders and Clinton are tied among white S.C. voters, the poll said. But Clinton has a strong lead among African-American voters, expected to make up more than half of Democratic primary voters. Among those voters, 63 percent said they back Clinton compared to 23 percent for Sanders.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:07 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
What exactly is the line of attack, though?
Chelsea Clinton: Bernie Sanders’ plan to end mass incarceration is ‘worrying'
They're just throwing everything at him and trying to see what sticks. But that in an of itself bespeaks a lack of strategy.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:43 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Chelsea Clinton: Bernie Sanders’ plan to end mass incarceration is ‘worrying'
They're just throwing everything at him and trying to see what sticks. But that in an of itself bespeaks a lack of strategy.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:43 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been assuming Hillary was against the death penalty, but no. That's a genuine surprise.
Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty
posted by Room 641-A at 4:52 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty
posted by Room 641-A at 4:52 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Donald Trump Goes Full Radical Left Winger Over 9/11 During GOP Debate
Borrowing leftist talking points to bash Bush.
There are commenters at Red State who appear to be stroking out. I believe I am going to listen to Limbaugh's radio show today.
posted by bukvich at 5:40 AM on February 16, 2016
Borrowing leftist talking points to bash Bush.
There are commenters at Red State who appear to be stroking out. I believe I am going to listen to Limbaugh's radio show today.
posted by bukvich at 5:40 AM on February 16, 2016
Red State has always been anti-Trump. Rush not quite so much.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:59 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 5:59 AM on February 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty
given the institiuional racism involved that is "interesting".
posted by andrewcooke at 6:03 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
given the institiuional racism involved that is "interesting".
posted by andrewcooke at 6:03 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
given the institiuional racism involved that is "interesting".
It's a focus-grouped/polled answer, aimed at the general election. I mean, check out the gallup poll. By approving of it, but making it "rare", you can spin yourself to both sides. Its another one of those moments where I have literally no idea what HRC really thinks.
posted by dis_integration at 6:08 AM on February 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
It's a focus-grouped/polled answer, aimed at the general election. I mean, check out the gallup poll. By approving of it, but making it "rare", you can spin yourself to both sides. Its another one of those moments where I have literally no idea what HRC really thinks.
posted by dis_integration at 6:08 AM on February 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I don't believe this is news. Clinton has repeatedly said she doesn't want to abolish the death penalty. At this point, I think some media is just making up the news.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:38 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:38 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
roomthreeseventeen, the media has nothing to do with this story, not this this time. Her position is something I just saw mentioned as an aside somewhere else, and as I said, it was news to me. The article is clearly from last year and is her first official statement on the subject in the campaign. I'm not sure why this is being interpreted as the media re-hashing the position.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:57 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:57 AM on February 16, 2016
She has said it several times in debates in the past few weeks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:00 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:00 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
(in 6 days we now have 200 more comments than the iowa caucus post. on preview...201)
This also was a defect debate thread and the proxy ding dong Scalia is dead thread, so comparing apples and Trumps.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:09 AM on February 16, 2016
This also was a defect debate thread and the proxy ding dong Scalia is dead thread, so comparing apples and Trumps.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:09 AM on February 16, 2016
Probably meta but it would be really cool to have a political section on metafilter. Politifilter? This site has better, more interesting, more nuanced analysis from all you guys then the other dedicated political blogs that I've seen anyway.
posted by ian1977 at 7:21 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:21 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
*breaks out in hives*
posted by cortex at 7:31 AM on February 16, 2016 [41 favorites]
posted by cortex at 7:31 AM on February 16, 2016 [41 favorites]
(in 6 days we now have 200 more comments than the iowa caucus post. on preview...201)
Can anything touch the three or four chapter Oregon standoff threads?
She has said it several times in debates in the past few weeks.
Then it is my fault for not being better informed about her position on the death penalty, and for assuming she would be 100% against it.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:31 AM on February 16, 2016
Can anything touch the three or four chapter Oregon standoff threads?
She has said it several times in debates in the past few weeks.
Then it is my fault for not being better informed about her position on the death penalty, and for assuming she would be 100% against it.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:31 AM on February 16, 2016
I'll moderate it, Cortex. Totally fair and balanced, I promise.
(I'm just gonna set up a script to auto-delete any comment with the word "Nader" in it.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:34 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
(I'm just gonna set up a script to auto-delete any comment with the word "Nader" in it.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:34 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
A place for horse races... how about Haymaker.metafilter.com?
posted by Apocryphon at 7:37 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 7:37 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
You could make it so users could see the site in either bernfilter or hillfilter mode. User will only see comments that speak highly of their preferred candidate. All criticism of republicans would remain intact. Pure harmony.
posted by ian1977 at 7:45 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 7:45 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
So Hillary isn't absolutely opposed to the death penalty, isn't absolutely opposed to restricting access to abortion, is pro-big bank, pro-mass incarceration, pro-Iraq war, pro-Patriot Act, thinks Snowden needs to "face the music," admires and considers Kissinger a mentor, is no longer in favor of universal one payer healthcare, thinks the government needs to break encryption, and bangs the 9/11 drum with the best of 'em. Tell me again how she's to the left of the moderate Democrats
posted by cjorgensen at 7:48 AM on February 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:48 AM on February 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Maybe let's leave the meta sidebar at this point?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:51 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:51 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been assuming Hillary was against the death penalty, but no. That's a genuine surprise.
Totally unsurprising to me. Being against it is still a "fringe" position within the Democratic party and within the US in general. One of the ways that we are more "right wing" as a nation is a focus on punitive and exploitative treatment of criminals, as opposed to rehabilitation and reintegration.
Thankfully, mass incarceration has entered the public dialogue, and it's becoming a general position of the Democratic party that prisons are indeed overpopulated - the focus has been on institutionalized racism and it's role in the prison system, as well as those who have commit minor drug offenses (which goes hand in hand with acceptance and legalization of Cannabis in particular.) The death penalty, however, is something that can still be very divisive within the party.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:59 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Totally unsurprising to me. Being against it is still a "fringe" position within the Democratic party and within the US in general. One of the ways that we are more "right wing" as a nation is a focus on punitive and exploitative treatment of criminals, as opposed to rehabilitation and reintegration.
Thankfully, mass incarceration has entered the public dialogue, and it's becoming a general position of the Democratic party that prisons are indeed overpopulated - the focus has been on institutionalized racism and it's role in the prison system, as well as those who have commit minor drug offenses (which goes hand in hand with acceptance and legalization of Cannabis in particular.) The death penalty, however, is something that can still be very divisive within the party.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:59 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton's dog bark anecdote showed humor and warmth in her voice. The headlines did not prepare me for that.
A friend who grew up near Burlington, when I mentioned last year that I was supporting Bernie, said that he always enjoyed the humor that Sanders exhibited when he spoke. I see that regularly in his campaign.
Does Trump have the ability to connect like this? Has he demonstrated it in the campaign or his previous media appearances? I've only seen some debate appearances and tuned him out otherwise (though I suppose now is a good time to start learning more about this likely general election candidate).
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:29 AM on February 16, 2016
A friend who grew up near Burlington, when I mentioned last year that I was supporting Bernie, said that he always enjoyed the humor that Sanders exhibited when he spoke. I see that regularly in his campaign.
Does Trump have the ability to connect like this? Has he demonstrated it in the campaign or his previous media appearances? I've only seen some debate appearances and tuned him out otherwise (though I suppose now is a good time to start learning more about this likely general election candidate).
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:29 AM on February 16, 2016
I think Trump does have an ability to do that, for some people. If he was a crazy barstool liberal attack dog I think we'd probably like him. He's fearless in what he says and I think that allows him to connect with the 'America fuck yeah!' part of people's brains.
posted by ian1977 at 8:43 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 8:43 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton's dog bark anecdote showed humor and warmth in her voice. The headlines did not prepare me for that.
See also: The Dean Scream.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:47 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
See also: The Dean Scream.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:47 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah I winced when I heard that dog bark. That is conservative talk radio gold there.
posted by ian1977 at 8:49 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 8:49 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the ways that we are more "right wing" as a nation is a focus on punitive and exploitative treatment of criminals, as opposed to rehabilitation and reintegration.
In fairness, capital punishment remains significantly popular even in places that don't have it; either majorities or large minorities routinely support it. Places where it's clearly unpopular (like less than a third support it) seem to be pretty rare.
Tell me again how she's to the left of the moderate Democrats
That's been done many times already, but maybe it will sink in this time:
Her dw-nominate score was the 11th-leftmost in the 110th Senate. Nominate looks at everyone's entire voting records and pieces through who agrees with whom and which senators disagree with which other senators and how often and estimates an ideal point, the point where that senator stands on the issues, from that voting record.
We could quibble about the nature of the dimension that it recovers; people like me do this over beer for fun because dorks. We could likewise argue about whether any of the various nominates are better than Bayesian estimators like ideal. But what these scores tell us, absolutely and incontrovertibly and with no doubt, is that ten senators voted less like Republicans do than Clinton did, while 38 Democratic senators voted more like Republicans than she did. That's how they're constructed, by looking at which legislators vote with and against which other legislators, and how often, and under what circumstances.
You're still welcome to think her record is not liberal enough, but the only senators we can actually be really confident are actually to the left of Clinton -- who vote consistently more opposite the Republicans -- are Sanders and, if you use an "if you are drunk and don't have your glasses on" standard maybe Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
In fairness, capital punishment remains significantly popular even in places that don't have it; either majorities or large minorities routinely support it. Places where it's clearly unpopular (like less than a third support it) seem to be pretty rare.
Tell me again how she's to the left of the moderate Democrats
That's been done many times already, but maybe it will sink in this time:
Her dw-nominate score was the 11th-leftmost in the 110th Senate. Nominate looks at everyone's entire voting records and pieces through who agrees with whom and which senators disagree with which other senators and how often and estimates an ideal point, the point where that senator stands on the issues, from that voting record.
We could quibble about the nature of the dimension that it recovers; people like me do this over beer for fun because dorks. We could likewise argue about whether any of the various nominates are better than Bayesian estimators like ideal. But what these scores tell us, absolutely and incontrovertibly and with no doubt, is that ten senators voted less like Republicans do than Clinton did, while 38 Democratic senators voted more like Republicans than she did. That's how they're constructed, by looking at which legislators vote with and against which other legislators, and how often, and under what circumstances.
You're still welcome to think her record is not liberal enough, but the only senators we can actually be really confident are actually to the left of Clinton -- who vote consistently more opposite the Republicans -- are Sanders and, if you use an "if you are drunk and don't have your glasses on" standard maybe Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
However Vermont Votes, Leahy Says His Superdelegate Vote Is Clinton's
posted by Room 641-A at 9:12 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 9:12 AM on February 16, 2016
Her dw-nominate score was the 11th-leftmost in the 110th Senate
Sure, but she's running for president in 2016, not in 2007-2009. The 110th Senate was nearly ten years ago. After that, she lost the presidential primary to one of those ten senators who was more liberal than her because the Democrats wanted a more liberal candidate in 2008. The country has changed some during Obama's tenure, too, and I think this election provides a great deal of evidence that we've moved left in a number of ways over those years.
I have noticed a lot of people who didn't think people that more-liberal Obama's victory meant anything about policy preferences just because he was a "transformative" candidate. I guess if people think we only elected Obama because he would be the first Black president, as that NYT article posited earlier, then I could understand not seeing this. But Sanders' success and the Republicans' leftward swings on economic issues might indicate that people really preferred the more-liberal policies that he ran on, not just the historic nature of his candidacy.
posted by dialetheia at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sure, but she's running for president in 2016, not in 2007-2009. The 110th Senate was nearly ten years ago. After that, she lost the presidential primary to one of those ten senators who was more liberal than her because the Democrats wanted a more liberal candidate in 2008. The country has changed some during Obama's tenure, too, and I think this election provides a great deal of evidence that we've moved left in a number of ways over those years.
I have noticed a lot of people who didn't think people that more-liberal Obama's victory meant anything about policy preferences just because he was a "transformative" candidate. I guess if people think we only elected Obama because he would be the first Black president, as that NYT article posited earlier, then I could understand not seeing this. But Sanders' success and the Republicans' leftward swings on economic issues might indicate that people really preferred the more-liberal policies that he ran on, not just the historic nature of his candidacy.
posted by dialetheia at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders' remarks at the South Carolina prayer breakfast today.
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
The fix is in.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:29 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:29 AM on February 16, 2016
Thomas Piketty on the rise of Sanders: "In many respects, we are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the 1980 elections."
posted by dialetheia at 9:40 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:40 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Clintons really don’t get it
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:49 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:49 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rush applauds the wmd planned parenthood debate tactics. 1. he is appealing for cross-votes in an open primary so go for it 2. this means Trump really maybe could shoot somebody in broad daylight on 5th avenue and no poll would move 3. the establishment is uttlerly clueless how angry the joe plumbers really are this time.
(I won't be tuning back any time soon. 90% of the airtime was Clinton bashing.)
posted by bukvich at 9:50 AM on February 16, 2016
(I won't be tuning back any time soon. 90% of the airtime was Clinton bashing.)
posted by bukvich at 9:50 AM on February 16, 2016
the Republicans' leftward swings on economic issues
The what now?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:52 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
The what now?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:52 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
After that, she lost the presidential primary to one of those ten senators who was more liberal than her because the Democrats wanted a more liberal candidate in 2008.
Obama's score as a senator is actually to the right of Clinton's, but their standard errors are big enough that the best you can really say is that they're about the same. They ran for president in much the same way; hard to tell apart and with Clinton usually a little more liberal on everything except Iraq-in-2003. The primaries happened to put a lot of weight on that, though, and like always also on a bunch of stuff altogether unrelated to issue positions.
The country has changed some during Obama's tenure, too, and I think this election provides a great deal of evidence that we've moved left in a number of ways over those years.
Dw-nominate scores are generated in a way so that you can compare people across Congresses, even if they didn't vote together. In the 113th Congress, her voting history would put 19 Democrats-and-Sanders to the left of her and 37 to the right (yes, I know that is too many but I am too lazy to sort out deaths/retirements and replacements right now).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obama's score as a senator is actually to the right of Clinton's, but their standard errors are big enough that the best you can really say is that they're about the same. They ran for president in much the same way; hard to tell apart and with Clinton usually a little more liberal on everything except Iraq-in-2003. The primaries happened to put a lot of weight on that, though, and like always also on a bunch of stuff altogether unrelated to issue positions.
The country has changed some during Obama's tenure, too, and I think this election provides a great deal of evidence that we've moved left in a number of ways over those years.
Dw-nominate scores are generated in a way so that you can compare people across Congresses, even if they didn't vote together. In the 113th Congress, her voting history would put 19 Democrats-and-Sanders to the left of her and 37 to the right (yes, I know that is too many but I am too lazy to sort out deaths/retirements and replacements right now).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
the Republicans' leftward swings on economic issues
In the last two debates, just off the top of my head: Donald Trump promised not to touch entitlements; John Kasich defended his Medicare expansion program; Rubio defended increasing capital gains taxes; Jeb! spent a fair amount of time talking about people without health care; Donald Trump promised not to let homeless people die in the streets because they don't have insurance; and Donald Trump has also been going hard after all of them for taking corporate/Wall Street money (especially Ted Cruz and Goldman Sachs' money). I'm not saying any of them have any intention of following through on any of that, but that's more concern about the poor than I've heard from Republicans in my entire lifetime. Not one of them mentioned privatizing Social Security, and only Ted Cruz talked about reducing taxes on rich people. Their base would really like them to go after the banks, too (it's one of the Tea Party's bigger issues) but nobody has budged much on that yet.
posted by dialetheia at 9:59 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the last two debates, just off the top of my head: Donald Trump promised not to touch entitlements; John Kasich defended his Medicare expansion program; Rubio defended increasing capital gains taxes; Jeb! spent a fair amount of time talking about people without health care; Donald Trump promised not to let homeless people die in the streets because they don't have insurance; and Donald Trump has also been going hard after all of them for taking corporate/Wall Street money (especially Ted Cruz and Goldman Sachs' money). I'm not saying any of them have any intention of following through on any of that, but that's more concern about the poor than I've heard from Republicans in my entire lifetime. Not one of them mentioned privatizing Social Security, and only Ted Cruz talked about reducing taxes on rich people. Their base would really like them to go after the banks, too (it's one of the Tea Party's bigger issues) but nobody has budged much on that yet.
posted by dialetheia at 9:59 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
OmieWise, do you mean the Salon article?
posted by Green With You at 10:11 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by Green With You at 10:11 AM on February 16, 2016
I do. Sorry about that. The one by (former, I guess) Clintonite Bill Curry.
posted by OmieWise at 10:21 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 10:21 AM on February 16, 2016
Of course, looking at his earlier prognosticating at Salon, Curry said that Trump was "sunk" in mid-August.
posted by OmieWise at 10:23 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 10:23 AM on February 16, 2016
Silly OmieWise. We don't judge pundits by comparing predictions to outcomes. That would be, like, kind of scientific.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm not saying any of them have any intention of following through on any of that, but that's more concern about the poor than I've heard from Republicans in my entire lifetime.
Maybe they are trying to throw poorer voters scraps from the table, to make themselves come off as more electable.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:30 AM on February 16, 2016
Maybe they are trying to throw poorer voters scraps from the table, to make themselves come off as more electable.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:30 AM on February 16, 2016
And of course, that Salon article repeats the obfuscation about Bill Clinton's now debunked "attack" on Obama:
As Hillary laced into Sanders, Bill was miles away lacing into Obama. In a listless swipe at the banking system, he said, “Yeah, it’s rigged, because you don’t have a president who’s a change maker.”posted by Atom Eyes at 10:31 AM on February 16, 2016
I don't blame people for predicting Trump wasn't for real. That's like if you woke up one morning and the sky was green, blue was still the better bet if someone asked you the night before.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:41 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 10:41 AM on February 16, 2016
Maybe they are trying to throw poorer voters scraps from the table, to make themselves come off as more electable.
Yeah, I view campaign statements as boundary markers. All of them are only promises (if that) until they actually happen, and, in my lifetime, the ones that help poor people are usually the least likely to happen from all parties and elected officials.
posted by rhizome at 10:50 AM on February 16, 2016
Yeah, I view campaign statements as boundary markers. All of them are only promises (if that) until they actually happen, and, in my lifetime, the ones that help poor people are usually the least likely to happen from all parties and elected officials.
posted by rhizome at 10:50 AM on February 16, 2016
(OTOH, I would be really interested to see which pundits were the earliest on saying Trump was a serious candidate.)
posted by Drinky Die at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2016
That's fair. (on preview -- responding to DrinkyDie)
The article itself is kind of dumb though. I agree with the conclusions I guess but the arguments were just a bunch of mudslinging at the Clintons, some of which is probably justified and some of which (as noted above) has been debunked or is just unnecessarily nitpicky.
Seriously, what is is about them that brings the drama llama convention to town? Every. Time.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:53 AM on February 16, 2016
The article itself is kind of dumb though. I agree with the conclusions I guess but the arguments were just a bunch of mudslinging at the Clintons, some of which is probably justified and some of which (as noted above) has been debunked or is just unnecessarily nitpicky.
Seriously, what is is about them that brings the drama llama convention to town? Every. Time.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:53 AM on February 16, 2016
Maybe they are trying to throw poorer voters scraps from the table, to make themselves come off as more electable.
I agree. It speaks to the central issues of this election, though, if they even feel the need to do that for the first time in quite awhile. It seems like they're working harder for the support of the working class, and not just assuming that they'll swallow the usual lines about cutting taxes and economic growth. And I even forgot to mention Trump coming out strongly anti-NAFTA and anti-trade deals! Or the fact that Club for Growth came to get their token donation from him, and he told them to go pound sand, so they're attacking him for being too liberal and planning to raise taxes on the wealthy - and yet he's still the frontrunner.
posted by dialetheia at 10:57 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree. It speaks to the central issues of this election, though, if they even feel the need to do that for the first time in quite awhile. It seems like they're working harder for the support of the working class, and not just assuming that they'll swallow the usual lines about cutting taxes and economic growth. And I even forgot to mention Trump coming out strongly anti-NAFTA and anti-trade deals! Or the fact that Club for Growth came to get their token donation from him, and he told them to go pound sand, so they're attacking him for being too liberal and planning to raise taxes on the wealthy - and yet he's still the frontrunner.
posted by dialetheia at 10:57 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously, what is is about them that brings the drama llama convention to town? Every. Time.
What was that story about how the Clintons are DC outsiders and how everybody in 1992 kinda gave them the stinkeye when they moved into town? Probably goes back at least to that.
posted by rhizome at 10:58 AM on February 16, 2016
What was that story about how the Clintons are DC outsiders and how everybody in 1992 kinda gave them the stinkeye when they moved into town? Probably goes back at least to that.
posted by rhizome at 10:58 AM on February 16, 2016
Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion”
Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring
posted by Backslash at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring
posted by Backslash at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's been done many times already, but maybe it will sink in this time:
Her dw-nominate score was the 11th-leftmost in the 110th Senate. Nominate looks at everyone's entire voting records and pieces through who agrees with whom and which senators disagree with which other senators and how often and estimates an ideal point, the point where that senator stands on the issues, from that voting record.
Problem with this is this is comparing her to other Senators. I'd like to see such a breakout comparing her to likely democratic voters. The only demographics she's got nailed down is the $200,000 a year income people, and the over 50 years old people. I'm saying this is because she, like them, are more toward the conservative spectrum.
I guess when I look at her current stance on issues I don't see her as a left leaning candidate (among democrats). If you are maintaining that she's still left, then I guess the left has lost the plot, because last I checked they were generally in agreement on most of the issues I cited.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Her dw-nominate score was the 11th-leftmost in the 110th Senate. Nominate looks at everyone's entire voting records and pieces through who agrees with whom and which senators disagree with which other senators and how often and estimates an ideal point, the point where that senator stands on the issues, from that voting record.
Problem with this is this is comparing her to other Senators. I'd like to see such a breakout comparing her to likely democratic voters. The only demographics she's got nailed down is the $200,000 a year income people, and the over 50 years old people. I'm saying this is because she, like them, are more toward the conservative spectrum.
I guess when I look at her current stance on issues I don't see her as a left leaning candidate (among democrats). If you are maintaining that she's still left, then I guess the left has lost the plot, because last I checked they were generally in agreement on most of the issues I cited.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
From the Intercept Article linked above ....'Hillary is pristine plus'
Huh? Sounds like a new category of bottled water. Pristine? Pfft, you might as well be drinking sewage. Pristine PLUS is all that passes my lips.
posted by ian1977 at 11:28 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh? Sounds like a new category of bottled water. Pristine? Pfft, you might as well be drinking sewage. Pristine PLUS is all that passes my lips.
posted by ian1977 at 11:28 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The issue is not Hillary Clinton's Wall St links but her party's core dogmas: The Democratic party rejected the New Deal and its stress on working-class Americans in favour of a technocratic elite – is it time for a political revolution?
posted by dialetheia at 11:33 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:33 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clintons are DC outsiders and how everybody in 1992 kinda gave them the stinkeye when they moved into town
Maybe. But that's also the case for the Obamas, the Reagans and the Carters, no? I think you have to go back to Ford before you have someone who's held office in DC prior to becoming President (whose surname is not Bush).
I think there's something to that, though, on further reflection. I was like seven years old when Bill Clinton was elected but I do think there was a sense (whether just propaganda or what, I don't know -- I also grew up in a relatively conservative & Republican area) that they were sort of Arkansas hillbillies. So maybe that inferiority complex or whatever is responsible for some of the crazy that swirls around them / or on the other side, maybe the Washington establishment always just held them at arms length and takes every possible opportunity to gossip about them. I dunno.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:34 AM on February 16, 2016
Maybe. But that's also the case for the Obamas, the Reagans and the Carters, no? I think you have to go back to Ford before you have someone who's held office in DC prior to becoming President (whose surname is not Bush).
I think there's something to that, though, on further reflection. I was like seven years old when Bill Clinton was elected but I do think there was a sense (whether just propaganda or what, I don't know -- I also grew up in a relatively conservative & Republican area) that they were sort of Arkansas hillbillies. So maybe that inferiority complex or whatever is responsible for some of the crazy that swirls around them / or on the other side, maybe the Washington establishment always just held them at arms length and takes every possible opportunity to gossip about them. I dunno.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:34 AM on February 16, 2016
Clintons are DC outsiders and how everybody in 1992 kinda gave them the stinkeye when they moved into town
Far more than them being 'outsiders' because of where they were from - and I can't emphasize this enough - they were Baby Boomers. And that, in those days, was decidedly not the group culturally dominating the political class. The Presidents immediately preceding them were born in 1924 (Carter, Bush) and 1911 (Reagan) - the Clintons, the late 40s. They were young. They had been activists of a sort. They had a distinctly 60s/70s fresh, can-do, irreverent style that was absolutely anathema to the crustier figures in the GI-generation establishment. They were extremely relatable to people their own age, and not quite as much to older people. They seemed almost too informal to be Presidential.
I remember this clearly because they are very close to my parents' age, and they were sort of in awe that someone like them was in the White House. I recall watching the Inauguration festivities with them on TV. At one point, Hilary and Bill were in the White House foyer meeting and greeting a stream of people who had come to shake their hand at some sort of open house hour. During this event, while on camera, either Bill or Hillary noticed that the guards were trying to cut off the line outside so they could move on, and one of them said to the other "Wait! We just screwed all these people out there!" They fixed the problem, but I remember my parents looking at each other and laughing in impressed disbelief that the First Couple had used the word "screwed."
They really were perceived as completely new, fresh, and change-makery then.
posted by Miko at 11:45 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Far more than them being 'outsiders' because of where they were from - and I can't emphasize this enough - they were Baby Boomers. And that, in those days, was decidedly not the group culturally dominating the political class. The Presidents immediately preceding them were born in 1924 (Carter, Bush) and 1911 (Reagan) - the Clintons, the late 40s. They were young. They had been activists of a sort. They had a distinctly 60s/70s fresh, can-do, irreverent style that was absolutely anathema to the crustier figures in the GI-generation establishment. They were extremely relatable to people their own age, and not quite as much to older people. They seemed almost too informal to be Presidential.
I remember this clearly because they are very close to my parents' age, and they were sort of in awe that someone like them was in the White House. I recall watching the Inauguration festivities with them on TV. At one point, Hilary and Bill were in the White House foyer meeting and greeting a stream of people who had come to shake their hand at some sort of open house hour. During this event, while on camera, either Bill or Hillary noticed that the guards were trying to cut off the line outside so they could move on, and one of them said to the other "Wait! We just screwed all these people out there!" They fixed the problem, but I remember my parents looking at each other and laughing in impressed disbelief that the First Couple had used the word "screwed."
They really were perceived as completely new, fresh, and change-makery then.
posted by Miko at 11:45 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
You know, I'm really kind of frustrated with a lot of the coverage specifically about the Democratic candidates here. Most of the papers familiar enough with the candidates - the Dem/left leaning papers - are either stumping for Clinton or Sanders, or busy being prolier-than-thou and talking about how both sides are the demon and must be destroyed. The Republican/right leaning papers are too busy pointing and laughing to do any real analysis.
Is there any coverage out there that is taking both candidates seriously without putting horns and a tail on one of them?
posted by corb at 11:50 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is there any coverage out there that is taking both candidates seriously without putting horns and a tail on one of them?
posted by corb at 11:50 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring
I wish I could provide a more nuanced interpretation of what this stirs in me... I mean we know without a shadow of doubt that outcomes in life are predominantly shaped not by character but by circumstances. Incredible, compassionate, hard working people die of starvation all the time. Talented visionaries succumb to poverty, discrimination and violence after accomplishing "nothing." Not just some but most women are beset upon by domestic abuse, workplace abuse, cultural abuse, you fucking name it. These problems affect women of color with disproportionate prevalence.
When we say Hillary Clinton's life is inspirational, what the fuck does that mean? What does that say to women? You could be a leader too if you played the game better. No. No no no no no. We need to fuck the patriarchy not marry it.
Then look at what she does with that power. She takes the money and gives the speeches. She surrounds herself with other wealthy, powerful white women and she green-lights her staffers to tweet about how she's just your average Mexican grandmother or whatever.
It isn't ok. She seems like a celebrity playing politics (which is what most of our politicians are.) That doesn't mean she hasn't done good. It doesn't mean she's worse than anyone else. But it does mean when you call her a role model I'm gonna grimace and when you celebrate her character and resilience and shit I'm gonna cringe.
She has had all the help she needs. That is why she is where she is. If we tell any other story, I think we concede way too much to a harmful status quo.
posted by an animate objects at 11:50 AM on February 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wish I could provide a more nuanced interpretation of what this stirs in me... I mean we know without a shadow of doubt that outcomes in life are predominantly shaped not by character but by circumstances. Incredible, compassionate, hard working people die of starvation all the time. Talented visionaries succumb to poverty, discrimination and violence after accomplishing "nothing." Not just some but most women are beset upon by domestic abuse, workplace abuse, cultural abuse, you fucking name it. These problems affect women of color with disproportionate prevalence.
When we say Hillary Clinton's life is inspirational, what the fuck does that mean? What does that say to women? You could be a leader too if you played the game better. No. No no no no no. We need to fuck the patriarchy not marry it.
Then look at what she does with that power. She takes the money and gives the speeches. She surrounds herself with other wealthy, powerful white women and she green-lights her staffers to tweet about how she's just your average Mexican grandmother or whatever.
It isn't ok. She seems like a celebrity playing politics (which is what most of our politicians are.) That doesn't mean she hasn't done good. It doesn't mean she's worse than anyone else. But it does mean when you call her a role model I'm gonna grimace and when you celebrate her character and resilience and shit I'm gonna cringe.
She has had all the help she needs. That is why she is where she is. If we tell any other story, I think we concede way too much to a harmful status quo.
posted by an animate objects at 11:50 AM on February 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
They really were perceived as completely new, fresh, and change-makery then.
And change-makery they certainly were! See also: the New Democrats, the DLC, and the dismantling of the New Deal consensus, as described in that Thomas Frank piece linked just above:
And change-makery they certainly were! See also: the New Democrats, the DLC, and the dismantling of the New Deal consensus, as described in that Thomas Frank piece linked just above:
The figure that brought triumphant closure to that last internecine war was President Bill Clinton, who installed a new kind of Democratic administration in Washington. Rather than paying homage to the politics of Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton passed trade deals that defied and even injured the labor movement, once his party’s leading constituency; he signed off on a measure that basically ended the federal welfare program; and he performed singular favors for the financial industry, the New Deal’s great nemesis.posted by dialetheia at 11:52 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Among the legions of the respectable at the time, Bill Clinton’s many reversals of Democratic tradition were thought to establish him as a figure of great historic significance. A telling example of this once-common view can be found in an admiring 1996 book by the then Guardian journalist Martin Walker, who asserted that the president’s few failings were “in the end balanced and even outweighed by his part in finally sinking the untenable old consensus of the New Deal, and the crafting of a new one”.
That Clintonian consensus, which slouches on in the bank bailouts and trade deals of recent years, is what deserves to be on the table in 2016, under the bright lights of public scrutiny at last. As we slide ever deeper into the abyss of inequality, it is beginning to dawn on us that sinking the New Deal consensus wasn’t the best idea after all.
Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring
I have a (probably bogus) theory that the many great recent Hillary Onion articles we were getting were the Onion staffers getting in their licks while they could. But in light of this one, I guess Haim Saban finally cracked the whip?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have a (probably bogus) theory that the many great recent Hillary Onion articles we were getting were the Onion staffers getting in their licks while they could. But in light of this one, I guess Haim Saban finally cracked the whip?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is there any coverage out there that is taking both candidates seriously without putting horns and a tail on one of them?
Is there ever? The horse race approach always wins. Some of us would of course would prefer to see journalists looking deeper into their platforms and examining their proposed solutions and exploring what history, data, and relevant experts have to say about them. But what sells is horse-race coverage, and in fact when they say that they must be right. Even here, we had about 10% of this thread touch on policy but the rest is about the horse race.
posted by Miko at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there ever? The horse race approach always wins. Some of us would of course would prefer to see journalists looking deeper into their platforms and examining their proposed solutions and exploring what history, data, and relevant experts have to say about them. But what sells is horse-race coverage, and in fact when they say that they must be right. Even here, we had about 10% of this thread touch on policy but the rest is about the horse race.
posted by Miko at 11:53 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
change-makery they certainly were
Listen, I'm not defending their economic policy or denying your points, I'm trying to take people back to the moment they arrived, before they had this record, to try to explain some of their early apparent chemistry with the public.
posted by Miko at 11:55 AM on February 16, 2016
Listen, I'm not defending their economic policy or denying your points, I'm trying to take people back to the moment they arrived, before they had this record, to try to explain some of their early apparent chemistry with the public.
posted by Miko at 11:55 AM on February 16, 2016
When we say Hillary Clinton's life is inspirational, what the fuck does that mean? What does that say to women?
I won't speak for women, and I am more of a Hillary basher than most, but I won't diminish her accomplishments. She's a highly successful, wealthy woman, with an impressive resume, who is conducting a serious campaign for the Presidency of the US. If that's not inspirational I'm not sure who you are holding out for.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I won't speak for women, and I am more of a Hillary basher than most, but I won't diminish her accomplishments. She's a highly successful, wealthy woman, with an impressive resume, who is conducting a serious campaign for the Presidency of the US. If that's not inspirational I'm not sure who you are holding out for.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also, at the time, the party was in an absolute shambles and the idea of a new Democratic consensus around a more conservative fiscal policy had a viability that is hard to appreciate now, in hindsight, 8 years into a left ascendancy. I campaigned for Clinton in college. It was not possible to predict the events of the 1990s and oughts. All we could see at the time was that a decrepit, failing, near-irrelevant party was energized by some new ideas that threatened the dominance of the right. We could see that Bush Sr. was dangerous internationally (we could not see that his son would be even more disastrous). We could see that Perot was a nut. I can agree with you that the results of the ND economic shift and the slow handover of the government to corporations that it assisted has been negative overall, and still not be sure what a viable alternative would have been given the political landscape at the time of Clinton's initial election. There's no need to act like it was a terrible moral choice then; it was distinctly superior to all of the alternatives, and there were no other serious Democratic contenders with any other viable ideas for reviving a limping party.
posted by Miko at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Miko at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Listen, I'm not defending their economic policy or denying your points
Sure, and I'm not arguing your points either! I remember the boomer identity issue being important for my parents, too. I'm just saying that there were a lot of other reasons for established/Washington Democrats to have issues with them at that point, too, which I thought was the original question - they did change the ideological outlook of the party for a generation, after all, and not everyone was excited about that.
posted by dialetheia at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2016
Sure, and I'm not arguing your points either! I remember the boomer identity issue being important for my parents, too. I'm just saying that there were a lot of other reasons for established/Washington Democrats to have issues with them at that point, too, which I thought was the original question - they did change the ideological outlook of the party for a generation, after all, and not everyone was excited about that.
posted by dialetheia at 12:01 PM on February 16, 2016
I have a (probably bogus) theory that the many great recent Hillary Onion articles we were getting were the Onion staffers getting in their licks while they could. But in light of this one, I guess Haim Saban finally cracked the whip?
In the "Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" vein, she seems to be sliding from the latter to the former (at least as regards the Presidential race).
posted by Etrigan at 12:02 PM on February 16, 2016
In the "Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable" vein, she seems to be sliding from the latter to the former (at least as regards the Presidential race).
posted by Etrigan at 12:02 PM on February 16, 2016
not everyone was excited about that
Eh. There was no coalition other than the Clintons.' There was, essentially, no functional party.
posted by Miko at 12:04 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh. There was no coalition other than the Clintons.' There was, essentially, no functional party.
posted by Miko at 12:04 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's a highly successful, wealthy woman, with an impressive resume, who is conducting a serious campaign for the Presidency of the US. If that's not inspirational I'm not sure who you are holding out for.
The young black women leading BLM inspire me. Darkmatter, a non-binary trans south asian artistic duo who are actively contributing to grass roots social justice efforts, inspire me. I mean just people who have nothing but are still friendly on the bus inspire me. These conversations on metafilter inspire me. I'm not holding out for anything; I'm paying attention to those people and the ideas they're championing. And what those people are saying is that they don't feel like Hillary Clinton represents them. So as far as I'm concerned, Hillary Clinton doesn't represent me and the world I want to live in either.
posted by an animate objects at 12:11 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
The young black women leading BLM inspire me. Darkmatter, a non-binary trans south asian artistic duo who are actively contributing to grass roots social justice efforts, inspire me. I mean just people who have nothing but are still friendly on the bus inspire me. These conversations on metafilter inspire me. I'm not holding out for anything; I'm paying attention to those people and the ideas they're championing. And what those people are saying is that they don't feel like Hillary Clinton represents them. So as far as I'm concerned, Hillary Clinton doesn't represent me and the world I want to live in either.
posted by an animate objects at 12:11 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
It should also be noted that the Democratic Party in 1992 was not quite the liberal-dominated urban-centric party it is today.
also, what's that yellow swatch up there by Quebec? Hi Bernie!
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:15 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
also, what's that yellow swatch up there by Quebec? Hi Bernie!
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:15 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is there any coverage out there that is taking both candidates seriously without putting horns and a tail on one of them?
Definitely not. I don't think that we are able to deal with anything political in terms of media coverage without polarizing whatever the scope is, though - I don't think it's just this election. Government as a whole? Pure partisan Democrat vs. Republican. Any focus on one of the parties? Let's make them all AT WAR.
My theory is that making it controversial or combative leads to better revenue. There isn't as much of a market for more objective viewpoints.
But certainly, this is the first time I've seen it within an election where it's been so combative within the same party - people are either saying Sanders will never happen, or that Clinton is corrupt and horrible because _____ - It's really "us vs them." There's not much of "Here's what the strengths and weaknesses of both are, along with some historical perspective about both of them" - I don't expect a ton of that anymore, but I do remember a time where it seemed like that was more possible.
I don't know how much of this is due to a shift away from "revenue from a subscription" vs "revenue from ads," but I suspect that has quite a bit to do with it.
There's more meat to it, though - the DNC has done a really good job of pissing people off who consider themselves a bit more further to that "traditional left" and would normally traditionally align themselves with the Democrats. Sanders coming in as the sole outsider - with no real relation to the DNC - has put the DNC on the offensive, and it's bringing to light that there's a much larger difference with many who who consider themselves more "progressive" and the leadership of the party than I think many were aware of. Their behavior through much of this hasn't helped.
Plus, there are a lot of people who are really excited about being able to get married for the first time, or having healthcare for the first time - and these are decisions that are at a very delicate tipping point, that are perceived as being more easily undone. For them, personally, there is much more at stake in this election than there has been in the past few - These haven't been established long enough to be safe, and they feel very threatened (and rightfully so) by a lot of the rhetoric from the Republican wing. So for them, the idea that a particular candidate will be more likely to get in office and retain the position is more personal than it's ever been. There are arguments for either being more likely, but they differ - For Clinton, there's a lot of traditional name-recognition / race-relations / centrist reasons to vote for her, whereas for Sanders there's a lot of excitement from those who have felt left behind by the democratic party, those who are fed up with the "establishment", and those who value his honesty. I'm sure that there are more reasons, but the point is that the reasons that someone would support Sanders and the reasons someone would support Clinton do not have as much overlap as we have seen in, say, the 2008 primary.
I think these are the largest factors - and I think that they all greatly amplify one another in a giant feedback loop.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:38 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Definitely not. I don't think that we are able to deal with anything political in terms of media coverage without polarizing whatever the scope is, though - I don't think it's just this election. Government as a whole? Pure partisan Democrat vs. Republican. Any focus on one of the parties? Let's make them all AT WAR.
My theory is that making it controversial or combative leads to better revenue. There isn't as much of a market for more objective viewpoints.
But certainly, this is the first time I've seen it within an election where it's been so combative within the same party - people are either saying Sanders will never happen, or that Clinton is corrupt and horrible because _____ - It's really "us vs them." There's not much of "Here's what the strengths and weaknesses of both are, along with some historical perspective about both of them" - I don't expect a ton of that anymore, but I do remember a time where it seemed like that was more possible.
I don't know how much of this is due to a shift away from "revenue from a subscription" vs "revenue from ads," but I suspect that has quite a bit to do with it.
There's more meat to it, though - the DNC has done a really good job of pissing people off who consider themselves a bit more further to that "traditional left" and would normally traditionally align themselves with the Democrats. Sanders coming in as the sole outsider - with no real relation to the DNC - has put the DNC on the offensive, and it's bringing to light that there's a much larger difference with many who who consider themselves more "progressive" and the leadership of the party than I think many were aware of. Their behavior through much of this hasn't helped.
Plus, there are a lot of people who are really excited about being able to get married for the first time, or having healthcare for the first time - and these are decisions that are at a very delicate tipping point, that are perceived as being more easily undone. For them, personally, there is much more at stake in this election than there has been in the past few - These haven't been established long enough to be safe, and they feel very threatened (and rightfully so) by a lot of the rhetoric from the Republican wing. So for them, the idea that a particular candidate will be more likely to get in office and retain the position is more personal than it's ever been. There are arguments for either being more likely, but they differ - For Clinton, there's a lot of traditional name-recognition / race-relations / centrist reasons to vote for her, whereas for Sanders there's a lot of excitement from those who have felt left behind by the democratic party, those who are fed up with the "establishment", and those who value his honesty. I'm sure that there are more reasons, but the point is that the reasons that someone would support Sanders and the reasons someone would support Clinton do not have as much overlap as we have seen in, say, the 2008 primary.
I think these are the largest factors - and I think that they all greatly amplify one another in a giant feedback loop.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:38 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Eh. There was no coalition other than the Clintons.' There was, essentially, no functional party.
I mean, notwithstanding that he faced a competitive enough primary to have to be "the comeback kid" by losing in New Hampshire, I don't even necessarily disagree. But to the extent that he was able to reinvent the party by embracing Wall Street and essentially selling out Black people via criminal justice "reform" and welfare "reform," no, I still don't think it was really the right thing to do even if it was what everyone else was doing. I mean, just for example, I think Sanders might have some speeches from that era that show he had better judgment about countering right-wing framing instead of accepting and even promoting that framing when it suited their interests, despite the political climate. I understand that he wasn't in a position to lead the party at that point, certainly. But I can also understand someone thinking that what Clinton did was inexcusable if they lost their job to outsourcing and have no social safety net to fall back on because welfare was dismantled.
In many ways this conversation is a derail, but it was her very involvement in those changes (because she largely sold it to feminists, at the very least) that is driving a lot of the frustration with her being the nominee. I mean, working class Americans have been devastated by outsourcing of jobs, and we're running someone who is associated with NAFTA (whether it's fair to blame her for any of that is a separate question, but it's undeniable that she's tied to it) - like I said earlier, it's really insult to injury to working-class people. The NAFTA association was a decent part of why Obama was able to beat her in 2008, too, if I remember correctly. Not that it really got us anywhere (shakes fist at TPP)... and while Clinton now claims to be against TPP, she called it one of her crowning achievements as Secretary of State, so it's hard to take her reversal seriously either. Mainstream Democrats are pretty unconvincing on fair trade issues right now - another reason Sanders is having so much success with the grassroots.
Just my opinion, but for the Iraq war vote and NAFTA association alone, she will have a hard time running against Trump. Really, anyone running establishment will have a hard time this year, because both parties have a lot of mistakes to answer for - and whoever is running the establishment candidate will get stuck holding the bag for the neoliberal consensus of the last two decades. Trump will castigate her for her Iraq war vote, for taking money from Wall Street, for NAFTA/TPP - and he can attack from the left on all of those issues.
I honestly don't know if I even have the stomach to watch the Democratic nominee take the blame for Iraq in a general election debate, much less see Trump get away with painting Democrats as pawns of Wall Street.
posted by dialetheia at 12:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
I mean, notwithstanding that he faced a competitive enough primary to have to be "the comeback kid" by losing in New Hampshire, I don't even necessarily disagree. But to the extent that he was able to reinvent the party by embracing Wall Street and essentially selling out Black people via criminal justice "reform" and welfare "reform," no, I still don't think it was really the right thing to do even if it was what everyone else was doing. I mean, just for example, I think Sanders might have some speeches from that era that show he had better judgment about countering right-wing framing instead of accepting and even promoting that framing when it suited their interests, despite the political climate. I understand that he wasn't in a position to lead the party at that point, certainly. But I can also understand someone thinking that what Clinton did was inexcusable if they lost their job to outsourcing and have no social safety net to fall back on because welfare was dismantled.
In many ways this conversation is a derail, but it was her very involvement in those changes (because she largely sold it to feminists, at the very least) that is driving a lot of the frustration with her being the nominee. I mean, working class Americans have been devastated by outsourcing of jobs, and we're running someone who is associated with NAFTA (whether it's fair to blame her for any of that is a separate question, but it's undeniable that she's tied to it) - like I said earlier, it's really insult to injury to working-class people. The NAFTA association was a decent part of why Obama was able to beat her in 2008, too, if I remember correctly. Not that it really got us anywhere (shakes fist at TPP)... and while Clinton now claims to be against TPP, she called it one of her crowning achievements as Secretary of State, so it's hard to take her reversal seriously either. Mainstream Democrats are pretty unconvincing on fair trade issues right now - another reason Sanders is having so much success with the grassroots.
Just my opinion, but for the Iraq war vote and NAFTA association alone, she will have a hard time running against Trump. Really, anyone running establishment will have a hard time this year, because both parties have a lot of mistakes to answer for - and whoever is running the establishment candidate will get stuck holding the bag for the neoliberal consensus of the last two decades. Trump will castigate her for her Iraq war vote, for taking money from Wall Street, for NAFTA/TPP - and he can attack from the left on all of those issues.
I honestly don't know if I even have the stomach to watch the Democratic nominee take the blame for Iraq in a general election debate, much less see Trump get away with painting Democrats as pawns of Wall Street.
posted by dialetheia at 12:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Georgia state senator switches endorsement from Clinton to Sanders
Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy Reveals Generational Schism Among Women
posted by melissasaurus at 12:47 PM on February 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy Reveals Generational Schism Among Women
posted by melissasaurus at 12:47 PM on February 16, 2016
The Democratic party rejected the New Deal and its stress on working-class Americans in favour of a technocratic elite – is it time for a political revolution?
There are parallels with the Blairist version of the UK Labour party. Voters on the left basically said they'd had enough of the version of governance that Labour offered them. Maybe Clinton was unfortunate enough to run into Obama in 2008 and general economic malaise in 2016.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:59 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are parallels with the Blairist version of the UK Labour party. Voters on the left basically said they'd had enough of the version of governance that Labour offered them. Maybe Clinton was unfortunate enough to run into Obama in 2008 and general economic malaise in 2016.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:59 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
ian1977: "Probably meta but it would be really cool to have a political section on metafilter. Politifilter? This site has better, more interesting, more nuanced analysis from all you guys then the other dedicated political blogs that I've seen anyway."
There used to be a spin-off site politicalfilter.com.
posted by octothorpe at 1:13 PM on February 16, 2016
There used to be a spin-off site politicalfilter.com.
posted by octothorpe at 1:13 PM on February 16, 2016
What killed it? Politics?
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:24 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:24 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
but I won't diminish her accomplishments. She's a highly successful, wealthy woman, with an impressive resume, who is conducting a serious campaign for the Presidency of the US.
This is true, but I still don't want Carly Fiorina to be president.
I'm getting tired of being asked to justify my support of Bernie Sanders or prove that my lack of support of Hillary isn't sexist or personal. Her campaign is providing daily WTF's, and she has many positions that any reasonable progressive would disagree with. She takes yearly vacations with a war criminal, ffs. At this point, the onus is on her to convince me why I should vote for her.
(This is not directed at you, cjorgensen!)
posted by Room 641-A at 1:29 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is true, but I still don't want Carly Fiorina to be president.
I'm getting tired of being asked to justify my support of Bernie Sanders or prove that my lack of support of Hillary isn't sexist or personal. Her campaign is providing daily WTF's, and she has many positions that any reasonable progressive would disagree with. She takes yearly vacations with a war criminal, ffs. At this point, the onus is on her to convince me why I should vote for her.
(This is not directed at you, cjorgensen!)
posted by Room 641-A at 1:29 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I still don't think it was really the right thing to do even if it was what everyone else was doing.
Your points are all well taken. It's just, having lived through it, for Democrats at that time it was Hobson's choice - hold out as stalwarts of the left and be utterly marginalized (especially because much of the ground they took would have been otherwise readily occupied by the right) or start promoting policies that socially liberal fiscal conservatives and growth-sector industries perceived as less unfriendly to business. There's not a lot of teeth in the "Comeback Kid" narrative as proof of a Clinton come-from-behind position - I mean, Harkin was from Iowa, and Tsongas was a local to NH, and the whole primary system was less encrusted then - that was Clinton's spin. You could generate some alternate-history scenarios where Cuomo did decide to run, or Bob Kerrey wasn't a doofus, but the hard part of a strong argument for other real choices is that the party was full of leaders, like all the rest of the 1988 and 1992 slates, who worked from only one power base - old white guys the unions liked, urban reformers like Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson, etc. - and as a whole the party was wishy-washy, a strained coalition, and kind of out of ideas - in a way I think it still is, though yeah some components of the support base have grown more progressive, and unions are less important. The ND coalition was a calculated move and it did sell out welfare for middle-class ends. I just think the alternative for the party was to play the role of either the laughably inept, irrelevant party, or the old-timey, out-of-touch cranky 20th century workin'man's party. Things could have been different - there could have been a more right thing to do - but it would have required everything to be different, the entire landscape and popular assumptions, not just a swap-out of a candidate here or there, or a few different powerful voices in the party, or a differently focused platform.
posted by Miko at 1:33 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Your points are all well taken. It's just, having lived through it, for Democrats at that time it was Hobson's choice - hold out as stalwarts of the left and be utterly marginalized (especially because much of the ground they took would have been otherwise readily occupied by the right) or start promoting policies that socially liberal fiscal conservatives and growth-sector industries perceived as less unfriendly to business. There's not a lot of teeth in the "Comeback Kid" narrative as proof of a Clinton come-from-behind position - I mean, Harkin was from Iowa, and Tsongas was a local to NH, and the whole primary system was less encrusted then - that was Clinton's spin. You could generate some alternate-history scenarios where Cuomo did decide to run, or Bob Kerrey wasn't a doofus, but the hard part of a strong argument for other real choices is that the party was full of leaders, like all the rest of the 1988 and 1992 slates, who worked from only one power base - old white guys the unions liked, urban reformers like Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson, etc. - and as a whole the party was wishy-washy, a strained coalition, and kind of out of ideas - in a way I think it still is, though yeah some components of the support base have grown more progressive, and unions are less important. The ND coalition was a calculated move and it did sell out welfare for middle-class ends. I just think the alternative for the party was to play the role of either the laughably inept, irrelevant party, or the old-timey, out-of-touch cranky 20th century workin'man's party. Things could have been different - there could have been a more right thing to do - but it would have required everything to be different, the entire landscape and popular assumptions, not just a swap-out of a candidate here or there, or a few different powerful voices in the party, or a differently focused platform.
posted by Miko at 1:33 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know, Miko, that doesn't really sound like the "Clinton is the wrongest ever that was ever wrong and anything you say about her is wrong too unless it's that she's wronger than wrong" comment that belongs in this thread.
FFS, we can't even let her be accomplished and inspiring even if we don't want her to be President.
posted by OmieWise at 1:47 PM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
FFS, we can't even let her be accomplished and inspiring even if we don't want her to be President.
posted by OmieWise at 1:47 PM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's just, having lived through it, for Democrats at that time it was Hobson's choice - hold out as stalwarts of the left and be utterly marginalized (especially because much of the ground they took would have been otherwise readily occupied by the right) or start promoting policies that socially liberal fiscal conservatives and growth-sector industries perceived as less unfriendly to business.
The Clintons chose option 2. Sanders chose option 1. Sanders spent his 40 years (okay, 25 years) in the desert, utterly marginalized.
posted by clawsoon at 1:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Clintons chose option 2. Sanders chose option 1. Sanders spent his 40 years (okay, 25 years) in the desert, utterly marginalized.
posted by clawsoon at 1:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Democrat or not, he was in the desert.
Vermont, man. I've been there.
posted by clawsoon at 2:13 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Vermont, man. I've been there.
posted by clawsoon at 2:13 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders was a Democrat at that point in time?
He caucused with the Dems.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:13 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
He caucused with the Dems.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:13 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie killing it with the youth vote. From Sarah Silverman.
posted by Trochanter at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 2:21 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
All Things Considered aired a piece on the generational divide among SC blacks (pretty much the same as with women.) It'll be up here in about an hour and a half.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2016
So the choices on why Bernie isn't getting attacked are:
> The Republicans want him to win.
> No one expects much from him.
> They don't know him.
> Because he's "chipping away" at Clinton.
> Because a bitter primary fight will alienate his followers.
> The Republicans are too caught up in internecine strife.
> Because it's easier to attack a known than an unknown.
> Because they will just bring it in the general.
> He's not the frontrunner.
Or they are attacking him:
> Because he's a Jew.
> Because he's aNazi National Socialist.
> Because he's a Socialist.
> Because he's for progress.
> Because he's a one issue candidate.
> Because he'll bring on the apocalypse!
> Because he wants to end mass incarceration.
> With everything.
Sanders: Opponents may throw the kitchen sink at me
My take is there's not really anything to attack Sanders with. Everyone has this narrative that politicians hold back their best attacks, but there's no way they wouldn't be sinking this guy by now if they could. It also seems like the attacks only make people get to know Sanders and his positions. In short, "He wants $15 minimum wage" isn't really an effective attack.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
> The Republicans want him to win.
> No one expects much from him.
> They don't know him.
> Because he's "chipping away" at Clinton.
> Because a bitter primary fight will alienate his followers.
> The Republicans are too caught up in internecine strife.
> Because it's easier to attack a known than an unknown.
> Because they will just bring it in the general.
> He's not the frontrunner.
Or they are attacking him:
> Because he's a Jew.
> Because he's a
> Because he's a Socialist.
> Because he's for progress.
> Because he's a one issue candidate.
> Because he'll bring on the apocalypse!
> Because he wants to end mass incarceration.
> With everything.
Sanders: Opponents may throw the kitchen sink at me
My take is there's not really anything to attack Sanders with. Everyone has this narrative that politicians hold back their best attacks, but there's no way they wouldn't be sinking this guy by now if they could. It also seems like the attacks only make people get to know Sanders and his positions. In short, "He wants $15 minimum wage" isn't really an effective attack.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Because he has promised to raise taxes.
That has been a proven attack for a generation. Republicans will milk it as hard as they can.
posted by clawsoon at 2:38 PM on February 16, 2016
That has been a proven attack for a generation. Republicans will milk it as hard as they can.
posted by clawsoon at 2:38 PM on February 16, 2016
But not really an attack when your candidate says, "I will raise taxes. Let me tell you on who, how much, and how people benefit." Next?
posted by cjorgensen at 2:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 2:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
It'll energize the Norquististas to come out and vote against him. Whether it will be personally effective at convincing you not to vote for Sanders doesn't mean it won't be beat like a drum.
posted by Etrigan at 2:44 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by Etrigan at 2:44 PM on February 16, 2016
> Because he'll bring on the apocalypse!
Just you watch:
"The economy is in a horrible terrible awful state right now due to eight years under a Kenyan democrat. If we do anything, ANYTHING to help ANYBODY right now the whole system will collapse."
I'm just telling you. And you'll have Paul Krugman picking little holes in the numbers and they'll say, "See? Even Krugman agrees! It's the end of the world!"
posted by Trochanter at 2:44 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just you watch:
"The economy is in a horrible terrible awful state right now due to eight years under a Kenyan democrat. If we do anything, ANYTHING to help ANYBODY right now the whole system will collapse."
I'm just telling you. And you'll have Paul Krugman picking little holes in the numbers and they'll say, "See? Even Krugman agrees! It's the end of the world!"
posted by Trochanter at 2:44 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ohhhhh, it'll still be used as an attack. You've just gotten so used to "he says he won't raise taxes, but he will!", since no politician dares to say it directly, that you've forgotten that "he says he'll raise taxes!" can also be an attack.
The most interesting question will be how effective the attack will be, and with whom.
posted by clawsoon at 2:47 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The most interesting question will be how effective the attack will be, and with whom.
posted by clawsoon at 2:47 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop
posted by audi alteram partem at 2:47 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by audi alteram partem at 2:47 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders spent his 40 years (okay, 25 years) in the desert, utterly marginalized.
I guess this is to say see, standing on principle worked out. Maybe. But in the meantime, the positioning of the Democrats allowed for some important gains that would not have been possible if the right were even more empowered to command the center. That's the political trade-off the Clintons were part of leading. It wasn't a total loss, and Sanders was part of most of those positive changes. Without a functioning party and two Democratic administrations to work under for a combined sixteen years, he would not have been able to do much of anything. Politics isn't a solo game.
posted by Miko at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I guess this is to say see, standing on principle worked out. Maybe. But in the meantime, the positioning of the Democrats allowed for some important gains that would not have been possible if the right were even more empowered to command the center. That's the political trade-off the Clintons were part of leading. It wasn't a total loss, and Sanders was part of most of those positive changes. Without a functioning party and two Democratic administrations to work under for a combined sixteen years, he would not have been able to do much of anything. Politics isn't a solo game.
posted by Miko at 2:49 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop
Sounds like an Onion headline.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:51 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sounds like an Onion headline.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:51 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
It'll energize the Norquististas to come out and vote against him. Whether it will be personally effective at convincing you not to vote for Sanders doesn't mean it won't be beat like a drum.
Sure, but when that's his message you want them beating that drum. Every stance he takes can be used as an attack, but that's the thing. He's running on issues and positions, so it's pretty difficult to shine the spotlight on anything he stand for as an attack. Take a look at the link audi alter parted just posted. ^ Every single one of those issues are a vector for attack. Doing so just gives him opportunity to get out his message.
Compare and contrast to Hillary. The attacks on her are not issue based and don't further any narrative about her stances.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:54 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, but when that's his message you want them beating that drum. Every stance he takes can be used as an attack, but that's the thing. He's running on issues and positions, so it's pretty difficult to shine the spotlight on anything he stand for as an attack. Take a look at the link audi alter parted just posted. ^ Every single one of those issues are a vector for attack. Doing so just gives him opportunity to get out his message.
Compare and contrast to Hillary. The attacks on her are not issue based and don't further any narrative about her stances.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:54 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
It'll energize the Norquististas to come out and vote against him.
But how many of them are left, really? Even the esteemed Grover Norquist is reduced to shilling for Big Vape and running a crappy right-wing radio show at this point (seriously, his frequent vape advocacy tweets are hilarious). I really think some of these attacks might have weakened over the years, finally. It's harder and harder to find working-class people who actually think the problem with our economy is actually that taxes on rich people are too high. Right wing talk radio is no longer ascendant - they're all seen as cranks by the mainstream now. People have other ways of getting information beyond the mainstream CNN/NYT/Fox stuff. I'm not saying it won't affect how some people vote, sure, but I think it's silly to be so terrified of that attack that we never try to get government to do anything useful for anyone ever again and just keep making shittier and shittier compromises.
I also think the internet changes the calculus a little bit. It's easier to spread disinformation on the internet, but it's also easier to spread correct information. A simple infographic showing the proposed tax brackets with a clear statement that you'll never pay health care premiums again, along with a list of programs that they would fund, will find its way around Facebook without CNN or any of the corporate media having to be involved in filtering it at all.
But in the meantime, the positioning of the Democrats allowed for some important gains that would not have been possible if the right were even more empowered to command the center.
It also led to an enormous loss of trust that gives Democrats serious trouble with working-class white voters to this day.
posted by dialetheia at 2:55 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
But how many of them are left, really? Even the esteemed Grover Norquist is reduced to shilling for Big Vape and running a crappy right-wing radio show at this point (seriously, his frequent vape advocacy tweets are hilarious). I really think some of these attacks might have weakened over the years, finally. It's harder and harder to find working-class people who actually think the problem with our economy is actually that taxes on rich people are too high. Right wing talk radio is no longer ascendant - they're all seen as cranks by the mainstream now. People have other ways of getting information beyond the mainstream CNN/NYT/Fox stuff. I'm not saying it won't affect how some people vote, sure, but I think it's silly to be so terrified of that attack that we never try to get government to do anything useful for anyone ever again and just keep making shittier and shittier compromises.
I also think the internet changes the calculus a little bit. It's easier to spread disinformation on the internet, but it's also easier to spread correct information. A simple infographic showing the proposed tax brackets with a clear statement that you'll never pay health care premiums again, along with a list of programs that they would fund, will find its way around Facebook without CNN or any of the corporate media having to be involved in filtering it at all.
But in the meantime, the positioning of the Democrats allowed for some important gains that would not have been possible if the right were even more empowered to command the center.
It also led to an enormous loss of trust that gives Democrats serious trouble with working-class white voters to this day.
posted by dialetheia at 2:55 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
An example of a hilarious Norquist vape tweet, just for fun.
posted by dialetheia at 2:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
It also led to an enormous loss of trust that gives Democrats serious trouble with working-class white voters to this day.
Working class white voters don't vote against Democrats because they don't trust them, they vote for Republicans because of social issues, nativism, and xenophobia.
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Working class white voters don't vote against Democrats because they don't trust them, they vote for Republicans because of social issues, nativism, and xenophobia.
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Working class white voters don't vote against Democrats because they don't trust them…
There's plenty of data out there showing they don't vote for Democrats because they don't trust Democrats. People have even linked to these stories in this thread.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:03 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's plenty of data out there showing they don't vote for Democrats because they don't trust Democrats. People have even linked to these stories in this thread.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:03 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
the positioning of the Democrats allowed for some important gains that would not have been possible if the right were even more empowered to command the center.
Such as?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:03 PM on February 16, 2016
Such as?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:03 PM on February 16, 2016
YOU'VE LOST THE VAPE VOTE!
posted by Artw at 3:05 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 3:05 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
He only started caucusing with the party sometime in or after 1993, although it's surprisingly unclear exactly when
1994 at the latest, since that'd be the latest I could have initially learned that (roommate at the time was a C-SPAN junky.) He did co-found the Congressional Progressive Caucus in '91 (which isn't the same thing, but since it was a caucus with Dems I could see that causing some confusion.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:06 PM on February 16, 2016
1994 at the latest, since that'd be the latest I could have initially learned that (roommate at the time was a C-SPAN junky.) He did co-found the Congressional Progressive Caucus in '91 (which isn't the same thing, but since it was a caucus with Dems I could see that causing some confusion.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:06 PM on February 16, 2016
Ohhhhh, it'll still be used as an attack. You've just gotten so used to "he says he won't raise taxes, but he will!", since no politician dares to say it directly, that you've forgotten that "he says he'll raise taxes!" can also be an attack.
I can just hear the GOP attack ad now:
[Ominous narrator]
Bernie Sanders says he'll raise your taxes...
But history has shown that Democrats often make Big Liberal Promises on the campaign trail, but once elected, it's back to Business As Usual.
Can we really afford to elect Yet Another Democrat who's just going to sell out the Progressive American Dream by kowtowing to the Right Wing Big Money Lobbyists who control Washington?
Vote Ted Cruz.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:10 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can just hear the GOP attack ad now:
[Ominous narrator]
Bernie Sanders says he'll raise your taxes...
But history has shown that Democrats often make Big Liberal Promises on the campaign trail, but once elected, it's back to Business As Usual.
Can we really afford to elect Yet Another Democrat who's just going to sell out the Progressive American Dream by kowtowing to the Right Wing Big Money Lobbyists who control Washington?
Vote Ted Cruz.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:10 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
An example of a hilarious Norquist vape tweet, just for fun.
it's like a fedora made out of words
posted by indubitable at 3:12 PM on February 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
it's like a fedora made out of words
posted by indubitable at 3:12 PM on February 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Apparently this article is being used as a basis to undermine Sanders (at least in the rarefied atmosphere of newspaper article comments) because he was on unemployment in 1971, and didn't have a regular paycheck until he got into politics.
So I read it out of curiosity, and in the process went from a lackadaisical support of Sanders, to planning on getting deeply involved in volunteering for his campaign.
Bernie Sanders has a Secret - Politico
posted by gofargogo at 3:15 PM on February 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
So I read it out of curiosity, and in the process went from a lackadaisical support of Sanders, to planning on getting deeply involved in volunteering for his campaign.
Bernie Sanders has a Secret - Politico
posted by gofargogo at 3:15 PM on February 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
It also led to an enormous loss of trust that gives Democrats serious trouble with working-class white voters to this day.
Is the argument here that working-class White voters are not voting, or that they're voting for Republicans? Because the latter seems wildly implausible if the issue is trust. Unless the gains under discussion are social advancements, in which case, it is social conservatism we are talking about, and more liberal is worse.
posted by OmieWise at 3:54 PM on February 16, 2016
Is the argument here that working-class White voters are not voting, or that they're voting for Republicans? Because the latter seems wildly implausible if the issue is trust. Unless the gains under discussion are social advancements, in which case, it is social conservatism we are talking about, and more liberal is worse.
posted by OmieWise at 3:54 PM on February 16, 2016
That Politico article is pretty gross and sleazy in its focus on Sanders' family and private life.
posted by indubitable at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Neither endorsing nor agreeing, just noting: 'a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump'
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:59 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:59 PM on February 16, 2016
And then there's Jeb.
Uh, has anyone checked in on him in the last couple hours?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:01 PM on February 16, 2016
Uh, has anyone checked in on him in the last couple hours?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:01 PM on February 16, 2016
America
Jeb(!) is laying it on pretty thick here.
posted by zabuni at 4:01 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jeb(!) is laying it on pretty thick here.
posted by zabuni at 4:01 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Agreed, it didn't add anything worthwhile to the discussion of Bernie's candidacy. Nice work, Politico.
posted by wintermind at 4:01 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by wintermind at 4:01 PM on February 16, 2016
I'm sure I can't be the first person on this epic thread to voice this, but I'm disappointed that so many candidates, especially on the Republican side, have opted for the "Live Free" option. I'd have hoped for more diversity of opinion than that. Kudos to Mr Scalia for leading the way, there.
posted by Grangousier at 4:02 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by Grangousier at 4:02 PM on February 16, 2016
Well at least it isn't a bullet with his name on it.
posted by rhizome at 4:06 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by rhizome at 4:06 PM on February 16, 2016
Is the argument here that working-class White voters are not voting, or that they're voting for Republicans?
Not voting. I live in Montana and talk to people who feel this way nearly every day. I said it earlier in the thread, too - the line I most often hear is "at least Republicans are honest about trying to rip me off. Democrats do the same thing but they're hypocrites and pretend to be on my side when they're really not." There's a sense of betrayal to it. Most of them mention NAFTA within three or four sentences. Guns are the biggest cultural wedge issue here, and people so far seem fairly comfortable with Sanders' record there once I bring it up (though I'm sure they'll get more worried if the NRA starts in on him).
I think it's unfair to paint all white working-class voters as driven strictly by racial resentment. Certainly that drives a huge share of the Republican side of that vote, but there are plenty of decent working-class people who have just given up on government altogether - they don't fail to vote for Democrats because they're racist, they fail to vote for Democrats because they think they're untrustworthy and uncompelling. They don't think anyone involved at any level of the federal system cares about them at all. If we had many union jobs anymore, they'd probably be Union Democrat types (in fact, I hear this stuff most often when I'm drinking at my local union bar).
Re: biographical pieces on Sanders, I really liked this profile by Rick Perlstein (who is one of my heroes).
posted by dialetheia at 4:07 PM on February 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Not voting. I live in Montana and talk to people who feel this way nearly every day. I said it earlier in the thread, too - the line I most often hear is "at least Republicans are honest about trying to rip me off. Democrats do the same thing but they're hypocrites and pretend to be on my side when they're really not." There's a sense of betrayal to it. Most of them mention NAFTA within three or four sentences. Guns are the biggest cultural wedge issue here, and people so far seem fairly comfortable with Sanders' record there once I bring it up (though I'm sure they'll get more worried if the NRA starts in on him).
I think it's unfair to paint all white working-class voters as driven strictly by racial resentment. Certainly that drives a huge share of the Republican side of that vote, but there are plenty of decent working-class people who have just given up on government altogether - they don't fail to vote for Democrats because they're racist, they fail to vote for Democrats because they think they're untrustworthy and uncompelling. They don't think anyone involved at any level of the federal system cares about them at all. If we had many union jobs anymore, they'd probably be Union Democrat types (in fact, I hear this stuff most often when I'm drinking at my local union bar).
Re: biographical pieces on Sanders, I really liked this profile by Rick Perlstein (who is one of my heroes).
posted by dialetheia at 4:07 PM on February 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
The NRA won't be hitting Sanders. I get the ILA (lobbying arm) emails and thus far they seem to be stressing that a primary win for Sanders is a win for gun owners. This may be because of Trump's gun control record, I'm not sure.
posted by corb at 4:11 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 4:11 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a sense of betrayal to it.
Huh. I mean, if you're getting ripped off either way, can't you discount the party's approach to doing so? It seems like an opportunity to switch off some of the tractor beam Republicans have on the working class (et al).
posted by rhizome at 4:12 PM on February 16, 2016
Huh. I mean, if you're getting ripped off either way, can't you discount the party's approach to doing so? It seems like an opportunity to switch off some of the tractor beam Republicans have on the working class (et al).
posted by rhizome at 4:12 PM on February 16, 2016
Yeah, it's weird. It's part of why taking corporate donations backfires on Democrats so much worse than it does for Republicans - we say we're better than that, so when we're not, we additionally look like hypocrites. I've talked to a surprising number of people who are willing to take a chance on Sanders after years of disengagement because he seems like a very trustworthy, honest person, he hasn't made a lucrative career out of his political engagement, he really seems to be in it for the little guy, and he doesn't take corporate/Wall Street money. At this point, that's all a lot of people are even looking for - someone they can trust.
posted by dialetheia at 4:18 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:18 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
The NRA won't be hitting Sanders. I get the ILA (lobbying arm) emails and thus far they seem to be stressing that a primary win for Sanders is a win for gun owners. This may be because of Trump's gun control record, I'm not sure.
I've been saying his problematic gun vote could be helpful in November. It not only de-fangs the "They're going to take all your guns!" argument, if it is between Bernie and Trump it could be enough to flip some disaffected people who are on the fence between the two. His NRA Report card is something like five Fs and four D-minuses. His only other score is the C- he got on that vote, which could provide cover from the left. It's not as if the NRA actually likes him or anything.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:43 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been saying his problematic gun vote could be helpful in November. It not only de-fangs the "They're going to take all your guns!" argument, if it is between Bernie and Trump it could be enough to flip some disaffected people who are on the fence between the two. His NRA Report card is something like five Fs and four D-minuses. His only other score is the C- he got on that vote, which could provide cover from the left. It's not as if the NRA actually likes him or anything.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:43 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
'a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump'
It's like the author is a vacuum cleaner salesman.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:55 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's like the author is a vacuum cleaner salesman.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:55 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Neither endorsing nor agreeing, just noting: 'a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump'
FDR will raise your taxes! A vote for FDR is a vote for Hoover!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:21 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
FDR will raise your taxes! A vote for FDR is a vote for Hoover!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:21 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
That Politico article is pretty gross and sleazy in its focus on Sanders' family and private life.
It sure was.
OTOH the article may well be my "have a beer with the candidate" moment, because he's been on unemployment, had his power shut off, lived in dark, depressing, run down shitholes. He's just like me! And if I ever found myself in politics (shudder), I'd love to tell the press/opponents to fuck off when they dug into my personal life.
posted by gofargogo at 5:22 PM on February 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
It sure was.
OTOH the article may well be my "have a beer with the candidate" moment, because he's been on unemployment, had his power shut off, lived in dark, depressing, run down shitholes. He's just like me! And if I ever found myself in politics (shudder), I'd love to tell the press/opponents to fuck off when they dug into my personal life.
posted by gofargogo at 5:22 PM on February 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
By the way, I'm not saying that many Union Democrat types don't also harbor all sorts of racial stereotypes - I'm totally not saying they aren't racist at all - just that they just don't tend to be quite as strongly motivated by it as the "build a wall and let god sort it out" types on the right. It's not necessarily a major part of their identities or voting preferences, is all.
posted by dialetheia at 5:25 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 5:25 PM on February 16, 2016
Ted Cruz Pledges Not to Provide Gluten-Free Meals to the Military
posted by Artw at 5:26 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:26 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Michael Steele is having the best week ever.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:32 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 5:32 PM on February 16, 2016
Ted Cruz Pledges Not to Provide Gluten-Free Meals to the Military
HOW IS THAT REAL
posted by zutalors! at 5:35 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Gonna guess he doesn't know that Celiac is a thing, but even so...if troops want gluten free meals why not give them? Cruz hates our troops.
-
Bracing for a contested convention
Still seems unlikely to me, but the theatre of it would be incredible.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:39 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
-
Bracing for a contested convention
Still seems unlikely to me, but the theatre of it would be incredible.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:39 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ted Cruz Pledges Not to Provide Gluten-Free Meals to the Military
AND HE WANTS CONTROL OF THE 1,800+ WARHEADS!
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:39 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
AND HE WANTS CONTROL OF THE 1,800+ WARHEADS!
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:39 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously... I am getting a President Stillson vibe from Ted Cruz.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:44 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:44 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ted Cruz Pledges Not to Provide Gluten-Free Meals to the Military
Man, I'd hate to be an Onion writer these days...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Man, I'd hate to be an Onion writer these days...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:57 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton 5h5 hours ago
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
Basically stealing Bernie's line, but he usually refers to people smoking pot. Of course, Hillary, can't do that, because she still believes young black people should have criminal records for the extremely petty crime of possessing pot.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
Basically stealing Bernie's line, but he usually refers to people smoking pot. Of course, Hillary, can't do that, because she still believes young black people should have criminal records for the extremely petty crime of possessing pot.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
Former Treasury Official Who Helped Bail Out the Banks Says They're Still Too Big to Fail
Need Kashkari??
And going way back in the vaults:
Can someone please explain to me why Capeheart is STILL trying to make this a thing?
Capeheart appears on Hardball, no?
MSNBC Ignores Petition Calling for Chris Matthews’ Suspension
#celiacvetsforbernie ?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Need Kashkari??
And going way back in the vaults:
Can someone please explain to me why Capeheart is STILL trying to make this a thing?
Capeheart appears on Hardball, no?
MSNBC Ignores Petition Calling for Chris Matthews’ Suspension
#celiacvetsforbernie ?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Luckily, no one is saying that all working-class Whites are racist. The issue, I guess, is that regardless of the fine Montana folks you've been talking to, the narrative that working-class Whites have abandoned the Democratic party in droves is false. There's only been about a six point loss in the past 50 years. What has changed is that higher income predicts Republican votes.
Although it does seem that in the South, where racial politics might be more in play, the margin voting GOP is greater.
Although it does seem that in the South, where racial politics might be more in play, the margin voting GOP is greater.
Indeed, President Obama carried lower-income whites handily in Ohio in 2008. While Obama narrowly lost lower-income whites to McCain on a national level (51 to 47 percent), he lost non-college whites at an even sharper rate (58 to 40 percent).17 Obama’s national losses of lower-income whites were substantially driven by Southern voting patterns, however, a key detail that I’ll return to in a moment. For now, however, the key point is the ascendency of income divisions’ electoral salience, an empirical development that is at odds with the punditry’s emphasis on “the significance of the social rather than economic dimensions of contemporary class politics.”posted by OmieWise at 6:07 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hope trump jumps down his throat about the gluten remark. Then we know this season has truly jumped the shark.
posted by ian1977 at 6:16 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 6:16 PM on February 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton 5h5 hours ago
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
Unless she's renounced pretty much her entire political history and done the sackcloth and ashes routine, Hillary Clinton doesn't have shit to say about the system fucking over black people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:18 PM on February 16, 2016 [23 favorites]
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
Unless she's renounced pretty much her entire political history and done the sackcloth and ashes routine, Hillary Clinton doesn't have shit to say about the system fucking over black people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:18 PM on February 16, 2016 [23 favorites]
The issue, I guess, is that regardless of the fine Montana folks you've been talking to, the narrative that working-class Whites have abandoned the Democratic party in droves is false. There's only been about a six point loss in the past 50 years.
Okay, but that doesn't disprove anything because someone doesn't have to have voted for Democrats to feel betrayed and distrustful of them. I would bet most of these people haven't voted in decades if at all. They still have opinions about Democrats. I'm not necessarily saying they are former Democratic voters, only that they are potential Democratic voters.
On another note, I loved this piece from former NAACP President Ben Jealous. Bernie goes to Morehouse: a reflection on the Kingian origins of the “Sanders Revolution”
posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Okay, but that doesn't disprove anything because someone doesn't have to have voted for Democrats to feel betrayed and distrustful of them. I would bet most of these people haven't voted in decades if at all. They still have opinions about Democrats. I'm not necessarily saying they are former Democratic voters, only that they are potential Democratic voters.
On another note, I loved this piece from former NAACP President Ben Jealous. Bernie goes to Morehouse: a reflection on the Kingian origins of the “Sanders Revolution”
posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ted Cruz Pledges Not to Provide Gluten-Free Meals to the Military
Shockingly, this may be the thing that actually convinces my mom (who has celiac) not to vote for him.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:25 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Shockingly, this may be the thing that actually convinces my mom (who has celiac) not to vote for him.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:25 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Posted too soon! I meant to add this King quote from the piece: "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."
posted by dialetheia at 6:27 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 6:27 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
>Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton 5h5 hours ago
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
What the hell kind of pandering bullshit is that. It's insulting. And it's so, so old.
I wonder if the transcripts from her speeches have her saying something like, "Now, come campaign season, I might have to say some things, but I want to assure you, right here and right now...."
posted by Trochanter at 6:29 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
What the hell kind of pandering bullshit is that. It's insulting. And it's so, so old.
I wonder if the transcripts from her speeches have her saying something like, "Now, come campaign season, I might have to say some things, but I want to assure you, right here and right now...."
posted by Trochanter at 6:29 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
...I realize I am a poll pandering hypocrite and am dropping out and throwing my weight behinds Sanders The next president of United States! "
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 PM on February 16, 2016
I think she ripped that line from Jello Biafra's "No More Cocoons."
posted by rhizome at 6:35 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 6:35 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Okay, but that doesn't disprove anything because someone doesn't have to have voted for Democrats to feel betrayed and distrustful of them. I would bet most of these people haven't voted in decades if at all. They still have opinions about Democrats. I'm not necessarily saying they are former Democratic voters, only that they are potential Democratic voters.
I think you are moving the goal posts.
posted by OmieWise at 6:37 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think you are moving the goal posts.
posted by OmieWise at 6:37 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's a theory. What if the endgame is the creation of a viable third party?
The DNC is an infrastructure; databases, networks, brand recognition, and people.
The DNC hates Bernie because he's not part of them. Only joined a year ago, and he has only fundraised a few thousand, compared to Hillary's millions. He is a DINO... and now his supporters are now recreating that DNC infrastructure.
They're managing their own databases, running their own field offices, and even running their own campaigns as Bernie supporters (like Tim Canova). Whether he intended to or not, he is now at the helm of the most likely possible challenger to the two party system. With very little effort, he could fracture the democrats, forever.
I think the DNC's (rightful) fear of this competing infrastructure is what's driving their political-panic-attack. Which is only further galvanizing Bernie supporters to strengthen this infrastructure, so it can better fight the DNC.
We might be surprisingly close to a three party system. Not race - although that too - but system, because this isn't a bunch of Independents. They are Socialists, who by definition are better at organization than "independants".
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:37 PM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
The DNC is an infrastructure; databases, networks, brand recognition, and people.
The DNC hates Bernie because he's not part of them. Only joined a year ago, and he has only fundraised a few thousand, compared to Hillary's millions. He is a DINO... and now his supporters are now recreating that DNC infrastructure.
They're managing their own databases, running their own field offices, and even running their own campaigns as Bernie supporters (like Tim Canova). Whether he intended to or not, he is now at the helm of the most likely possible challenger to the two party system. With very little effort, he could fracture the democrats, forever.
I think the DNC's (rightful) fear of this competing infrastructure is what's driving their political-panic-attack. Which is only further galvanizing Bernie supporters to strengthen this infrastructure, so it can better fight the DNC.
We might be surprisingly close to a three party system. Not race - although that too - but system, because this isn't a bunch of Independents. They are Socialists, who by definition are better at organization than "independants".
posted by special agent conrad uno at 6:37 PM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not bad but let's Rastafy her by...10 percent or so.
posted by ian1977 at 6:38 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 6:38 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
You're not wrong, Walter.
I think she ripped that line from Jello Biafra's "No More Cocoons."
I bet her list of band names is awful.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:41 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
You're not wrong, Walter.
I think she ripped that line from Jello Biafra's "No More Cocoons."
I bet her list of band names is awful.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:41 PM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop
posted by Artw at 6:49 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:49 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
https://goplifer.com/2016/02/02/a-republican-red-wedding/
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:51 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:51 PM on February 16, 2016
Whoa, this is the guy who oversaw TARP! Banks blindsided by former Bush official Neel Kashkari: 'The biggest banks are still too big to fail and continue to pose a significant, ongoing risk to our economy.' Wall Street woke up with a new problem Tuesday: a Republican Goldman Sachs alum using his new bully pulpit atop the Federal Reserve to suggest the biggest banks should break up.
posted by dialetheia at 6:52 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 6:52 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think she ripped that line from Jello Biafra's "No More Cocoons."
Every time Hillary talked about "getting things done" during the last debate, the end of Full Metal Jackoff start playing in my head: "Ollie Hillary for president - [s]he'll get things done!"
posted by homunculus at 7:07 PM on February 16, 2016
Every time Hillary talked about "getting things done" during the last debate, the end of Full Metal Jackoff start playing in my head: "
posted by homunculus at 7:07 PM on February 16, 2016
Unless she's renounced pretty much her entire political history and done the sackcloth and ashes routine
Shame! Shame! Shame!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:28 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shame! Shame! Shame!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:28 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know any details but Killer Mike hosted a phone bank party tonight!
posted by Room 641-A at 7:52 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:52 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here's a theory. What if the endgame is the creation of a viable third party?
At the same time the Republicans are threatening to break into three parties (old-school conservatives; Tea Party; Trump/Loony Party) which could completely destroy the 2-party system as we know it.
I have no idea if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
posted by mmoncur at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
At the same time the Republicans are threatening to break into three parties (old-school conservatives; Tea Party; Trump/Loony Party) which could completely destroy the 2-party system as we know it.
I have no idea if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
posted by mmoncur at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
From the "Red Wedding" article:
A Sanders nomination changes the logic. That race becomes not only winnable, but a near-lock for any Republican who isn’t a raving idiot.
Wow... It's a shame they don't have one of those in the race. [rimshot]
posted by mmoncur at 8:05 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
A Sanders nomination changes the logic. That race becomes not only winnable, but a near-lock for any Republican who isn’t a raving idiot.
Wow... It's a shame they don't have one of those in the race. [rimshot]
posted by mmoncur at 8:05 PM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
That Red Wedding article was fascinating, especially as it illuminates much of the Republican response to Sanders (and Clinton). They think he's so un-electable, that they actually would love to see him run (except for the whole Red Wedding proposition). It's only Hillary they are afraid of, from an electability standpoint.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 8:12 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by special agent conrad uno at 8:12 PM on February 16, 2016
A Sanders nomination changes the logic. That race becomes not only winnable, but a near-lock for any Republican who isn’t a raving idiot.
They were saying the same thing about Obama in 2008. They're morons, vote for who you want to vote.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:34 PM on February 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
They were saying the same thing about Obama in 2008. They're morons, vote for who you want to vote.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:34 PM on February 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white CEOs get away with fleecing our entire country." —Hillary
Looks like the Clinton campaign is catching up to Bernie Sanders' messaging from 6 months ago
posted by mikelieman at 8:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Looks like the Clinton campaign is catching up to Bernie Sanders' messaging from 6 months ago
posted by mikelieman at 8:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Someone at Jeb! HQ allowed the domain registration to expire for JebBush.com.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:54 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 8:54 PM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's going to be Trump v. Sanders. Pretty much everyone knows this by now. Sanders is not only more dignified and well-spoken than Trump, he thinks quicker and is legit funny. The debates will be a bloodbath.
It will come down to retail politics, and if Obama can or will fire up his machine one last time to GOTV.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:17 PM on February 16, 2016
It will come down to retail politics, and if Obama can or will fire up his machine one last time to GOTV.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:17 PM on February 16, 2016
Eh, I dunno. Clinton is still in a commanding position to win and the Republican race is unpredictable once it gets down to Trump, Cruz, and Establishment Guy.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 PM on February 16, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 PM on February 16, 2016
I wish the comedy shows would stop bringing Trump on. I know the news has a case that they must, but not the entertainment shows. I just heard him on Colbert, doing the same stupid Trump jokes.
Like hey guys, he proposed cleansing our country of 12 million people. He wants to ban people from our borders based on religion. He is dangerously unqualified to be President even if he didn't hold those positions. He is winning this race. Stop fucking treating him like a joke and giving him softball goofy interviews.
I expect more from Colbert. The correspondents' dinner after a few years of Trump would be no joke, Stephen. He's that bad and you know it. Why are we treating this like business as usual?
posted by Drinky Die at 10:39 PM on February 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
Like hey guys, he proposed cleansing our country of 12 million people. He wants to ban people from our borders based on religion. He is dangerously unqualified to be President even if he didn't hold those positions. He is winning this race. Stop fucking treating him like a joke and giving him softball goofy interviews.
I expect more from Colbert. The correspondents' dinner after a few years of Trump would be no joke, Stephen. He's that bad and you know it. Why are we treating this like business as usual?
posted by Drinky Die at 10:39 PM on February 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
I haven't heard "young people never vote" lately.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 10:40 PM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reading about the primaries is like catnip to me.
But from a meta standpoint - watching the pivots, the changing hearts, the leftward tug and the conversations which work and those which fail. I've never enjoyed sports, but I think I understand being a stats-nerd. I have my team, but watching the plays as-they-occur is more exciting than winning.
In terms of both policy and efficacy I'm for Sanders, but I didn't start out that way, and I've been fascinated watching how the campaigning has worked, and how it worked on me.
Between this thread, 538, and tons of MSM articles I've never been this engaged in politics, not even with Obama. I loved and love him, and think he is the greatest president this country has ever seen. Yet I'm moved by how motivated Bernie supporters are. So motivated they create their own apps and databases. I don't even think it's Bernie; the left was just so hungry for someone, anyone to latch on to, but no-one realized it. And now a firehouse has been turned on, of both small-donor money and talent.
I turned 18 in 2000 and you can guess my very first voting experience. The tremendous apathy that instilled in me is finally being - somehow - thawed. I have already done something I never did before: I donated. And I'm extremely tempted to do something else new: phonebanking.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:07 AM on February 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
But from a meta standpoint - watching the pivots, the changing hearts, the leftward tug and the conversations which work and those which fail. I've never enjoyed sports, but I think I understand being a stats-nerd. I have my team, but watching the plays as-they-occur is more exciting than winning.
In terms of both policy and efficacy I'm for Sanders, but I didn't start out that way, and I've been fascinated watching how the campaigning has worked, and how it worked on me.
Between this thread, 538, and tons of MSM articles I've never been this engaged in politics, not even with Obama. I loved and love him, and think he is the greatest president this country has ever seen. Yet I'm moved by how motivated Bernie supporters are. So motivated they create their own apps and databases. I don't even think it's Bernie; the left was just so hungry for someone, anyone to latch on to, but no-one realized it. And now a firehouse has been turned on, of both small-donor money and talent.
I turned 18 in 2000 and you can guess my very first voting experience. The tremendous apathy that instilled in me is finally being - somehow - thawed. I have already done something I never did before: I donated. And I'm extremely tempted to do something else new: phonebanking.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:07 AM on February 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
I am also entirely convinced that Bernie had no fucking clue he would get this kind of response. That people would work so hard, so quickly for him, and give so much money. It really feels like he only just got comfortable with the fact that he might, actually, become president. I should state that I like that.
I know it's been said before on the blue, but leaders are most effective at making space for opinions, at shifting that Overton Window. The President doesn't have shit for actual power, as the Republicans have shown since 2010. So what the President is best as is a figurehead for down-the-line candidates. People follow the politics of the Leader, and change happens from the bottom up.
The Tea Party gets this, by the way.
So does Trump. He just might fraction off a splinter of the Republican Party, yet. ElRon Hubbard started a religion and made a bunch of money. Why shouldn't Trump start a political party for the same reasons?
The conclusion of this comment is: people are hungry for alternate political parties. The establishment, on both sides, might be able to shoehorn this hunger into their existing system, and it might not. But there are loads of people who will give time and money to candidates who are actual outsiders.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:23 AM on February 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I know it's been said before on the blue, but leaders are most effective at making space for opinions, at shifting that Overton Window. The President doesn't have shit for actual power, as the Republicans have shown since 2010. So what the President is best as is a figurehead for down-the-line candidates. People follow the politics of the Leader, and change happens from the bottom up.
The Tea Party gets this, by the way.
So does Trump. He just might fraction off a splinter of the Republican Party, yet. ElRon Hubbard started a religion and made a bunch of money. Why shouldn't Trump start a political party for the same reasons?
The conclusion of this comment is: people are hungry for alternate political parties. The establishment, on both sides, might be able to shoehorn this hunger into their existing system, and it might not. But there are loads of people who will give time and money to candidates who are actual outsiders.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:23 AM on February 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's going to be Trump v. Sanders. Pretty much everyone knows this by now.
The Dem Party establishment isn't going to just let this one go without a fight; Sanders is by no means a shoe-in.
posted by rhizome at 1:20 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Dem Party establishment isn't going to just let this one go without a fight; Sanders is by no means a shoe-in.
posted by rhizome at 1:20 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or it could be that Clinton will get the most voters to vote for her. Maybe not, sure, but a Clinton win wouldn't be the result of some shenanigans (absent superdelegate craziness) but rather that she received more delegates as the result of the voting process.
posted by Justinian at 1:31 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:31 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
but a Clinton win wouldn't be the result of some shenanigans
I totally agree. Even the superdelegate craziness is no longer cray cray, because the attention raised to them will ensure they act (somewhat) fairly. While Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems like she lives in a bubble, I think even her bubble will go where the wind blows.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 1:53 AM on February 17, 2016
I totally agree. Even the superdelegate craziness is no longer cray cray, because the attention raised to them will ensure they act (somewhat) fairly. While Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems like she lives in a bubble, I think even her bubble will go where the wind blows.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 1:53 AM on February 17, 2016
ElRon Hubbard started a religion
A favorite for this Star Trek OS reference.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:57 AM on February 17, 2016
A favorite for this Star Trek OS reference.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:57 AM on February 17, 2016
Even the superdelegate craziness is no longer cray cray, because the attention raised to them will ensure they act (somewhat) fairly
Doesn't seem "fair" for super-delegates to pre-decide their vote before the public has had its input. Seems more like setting up the fix.
When the DNC and other Clinton supporters are confronted with someone like Bernie Sanders, one almost imagines the opening scene of Miller's Crossing, where a gangster complains about not being able to trust a fixed fight.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:26 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Doesn't seem "fair" for super-delegates to pre-decide their vote before the public has had its input. Seems more like setting up the fix.
When the DNC and other Clinton supporters are confronted with someone like Bernie Sanders, one almost imagines the opening scene of Miller's Crossing, where a gangster complains about not being able to trust a fixed fight.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:26 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or it could be that Clinton will get the most voters to vote for her.
Absolutely, but before votes are cast...
posted by rhizome at 2:31 AM on February 17, 2016
Absolutely, but before votes are cast...
posted by rhizome at 2:31 AM on February 17, 2016
I wish the comedy shows would stop bringing Trump on. I know the news has a case that they must, but not the entertainment shows. I just heard him on Colbert, doing the same stupid Trump jokes. ... He is winning this race. Stop fucking treating him like a joke and giving him softball goofy interviews.
Firstly, it is not the job of a comedy show to do the job that the "news" decline to do.
Secondly, a Trump presidency is probably like winning the lottery to Colbert etc. So much poTENtial. The jokes practically write themselves. And just think of the ratings!
posted by sour cream at 2:55 AM on February 17, 2016
Firstly, it is not the job of a comedy show to do the job that the "news" decline to do.
Secondly, a Trump presidency is probably like winning the lottery to Colbert etc. So much poTENtial. The jokes practically write themselves. And just think of the ratings!
posted by sour cream at 2:55 AM on February 17, 2016
No, it IS the job of the news to interview the Republican frontrunner. It is NOT the job of a comedian to do so, it's pure choice for a comedian. In this case, it's a really bad choice to give this person any sort of promotion. Stephen Colbert is a good person and a devout Catholic. I believe he cares more about his family and his country than ratings. I think it's time for media people in a situation like his to stop feeding the Trump machine.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:01 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 3:01 AM on February 17, 2016
I think this video accurately portrays Trump's relationship with Jeb! right now.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:42 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:42 AM on February 17, 2016
Trump is a TV personality. He SHOULD be on TV with comedians.
He SHOULDN'T be running for president. Or being taken seriously.
posted by mmoncur at 3:47 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
He SHOULDN'T be running for president. Or being taken seriously.
posted by mmoncur at 3:47 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Latest poll shows Clinton and Sanders in a dead heat in Nevada
posted by indubitable at 4:25 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by indubitable at 4:25 AM on February 17, 2016
Trump is a TV personality.
So was Reagan.
I think the bigger problem with Trump is not so much that he is a TV personality, but rather that he is an unpredictable psychopath without convictions or morals who will do anything to "win", whatever that may mean to him at a given moment. And before you say that applies to all politicians, think for a moment whether that also applies to Sanders, or Reagan for that matter, regardless of whether you agree with their politics.
posted by sour cream at 4:31 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
So was Reagan.
I think the bigger problem with Trump is not so much that he is a TV personality, but rather that he is an unpredictable psychopath without convictions or morals who will do anything to "win", whatever that may mean to him at a given moment. And before you say that applies to all politicians, think for a moment whether that also applies to Sanders, or Reagan for that matter, regardless of whether you agree with their politics.
posted by sour cream at 4:31 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
but a Clinton win wouldn't be the result of some shenanigans (absent superdelegate craziness) but rather that she received more delegates as the result of the voting process. (emphasis mine)
I posted this a couple of days ago but I think it got lost in the shuffle:
However Vermont Votes, Leahy Says His Superdelegate Vote Is Clinton's
posted by Room 641-A at 5:32 AM on February 17, 2016
I posted this a couple of days ago but I think it got lost in the shuffle:
However Vermont Votes, Leahy Says His Superdelegate Vote Is Clinton's
posted by Room 641-A at 5:32 AM on February 17, 2016
Oh, the thing about Trump appearing on the tv shows is part Equal Time law and part networks not wanting to appear biased. (And part doing anything for ratings, of course.) I'm not sure which applies to late night shows, though, since they are in the "Musical, Variety and Comedy" category and may be different than the "Daytime Talk Show" category.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:44 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 5:44 AM on February 17, 2016
The Dem Party establishment isn't going to just let this one go without a fight; Sanders is by no means a shoe-in.
I love watching the developing narrative on Sanders:
I love watching the developing narrative on Sanders:
Who?posted by cjorgensen at 6:16 AM on February 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
He stands no chance to win any primary.
He only tied.
He still lacks super delegates.
He can't win the general because he's 20 points down nationally.
He's unelectable.
He'll only do well in white states.
LOOK HE'S NOT A SHOE-IN!
Oh, the thing about Trump appearing on the tv shows is part Equal Time law and part networks not wanting to appear biased. (And part doing anything for ratings, of course.) I'm not sure which applies to late night shows, though, since they are in the "Musical, Variety and Comedy" category and may be different than the "Daytime Talk Show" category.
I'd say ratings more than anything else. There's too much evidence of TV news having a bias for creating conflict. It's practically unwatchable anymore because you have a thin wallpaper of fact over what is, essentially, talking head lucha libre in suits.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:22 AM on February 17, 2016
I'd say ratings more than anything else. There's too much evidence of TV news having a bias for creating conflict. It's practically unwatchable anymore because you have a thin wallpaper of fact over what is, essentially, talking head lucha libre in suits.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:22 AM on February 17, 2016
part Equal Time law
Equal time is pretty much a non-issue these days, a sort of toothless relic. It's the kind of thing where you (the station) is supposed to keep a log of how much time each candidate got on air, and make that log available to the FCC in case someone complains,and if they find you have not made time available to others, you're either fined or required to make time available, but no one ever asks, no one cares, and they all get way more time than they should anyway. Also, if it's for ads, candidates still have to purchase the time, so if they just don't have the money, they don't get equal time. Also, both news and talk shows are exempt from the rule. So it's rarely even a small factor in what you're seeing or not seeing.
I love watching the developing narrative on Sanders
Yeah, it's interesting that a big part of the engine behind both Sanders and Trump is "I'm for the improbable underdog!"
posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on February 17, 2016
Equal time is pretty much a non-issue these days, a sort of toothless relic. It's the kind of thing where you (the station) is supposed to keep a log of how much time each candidate got on air, and make that log available to the FCC in case someone complains,and if they find you have not made time available to others, you're either fined or required to make time available, but no one ever asks, no one cares, and they all get way more time than they should anyway. Also, if it's for ads, candidates still have to purchase the time, so if they just don't have the money, they don't get equal time. Also, both news and talk shows are exempt from the rule. So it's rarely even a small factor in what you're seeing or not seeing.
I love watching the developing narrative on Sanders
Yeah, it's interesting that a big part of the engine behind both Sanders and Trump is "I'm for the improbable underdog!"
posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on February 17, 2016
Yeah, it's interesting that a big part of the engine behind both Sanders and Trump is "I'm for the improbable underdog!"
No kidding. Not to mention the fact that they're less like underdogs every day.
I think one of the interesting things, in the most non-interesting way, is the chance that two non-underdogs (neither Trump nor Sanders) get their party's nomination and the race becomes even less predictable (even without Bloomberg running interference or either of them going third party) and leading to a win for the candidate who ends up with what amounts to the least apathetic, as opposed to deciding a winner based upon the most enthusiastic, voter turnout.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:17 AM on February 17, 2016
No kidding. Not to mention the fact that they're less like underdogs every day.
I think one of the interesting things, in the most non-interesting way, is the chance that two non-underdogs (neither Trump nor Sanders) get their party's nomination and the race becomes even less predictable (even without Bloomberg running interference or either of them going third party) and leading to a win for the candidate who ends up with what amounts to the least apathetic, as opposed to deciding a winner based upon the most enthusiastic, voter turnout.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:17 AM on February 17, 2016
I can't believe no one has opened the gift that is Bernie's English politician brother, Larry Sanders. Come on, SNL.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:23 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:23 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
the candidate who ends up with what amounts to the least apathetic, as opposed to deciding a winner based upon the most enthusiastic, voter turnout.
Well, that's always base Republicans. In a very consistent historical pattern, they vote reliably, because they understand the need for party dominance, even if it means holding their nose; whereas the Democratic base is more susceptible to requiring a spark of emotion.
posted by Miko at 7:32 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, that's always base Republicans. In a very consistent historical pattern, they vote reliably, because they understand the need for party dominance, even if it means holding their nose; whereas the Democratic base is more susceptible to requiring a spark of emotion.
posted by Miko at 7:32 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, that's always base Republicans. In a very consistent historical pattern, they vote reliably, because they understand the need for party dominance, even if it means holding their nose; whereas the Democratic base is more susceptible to requiring a spark of emotion.
Sure, but isn't this race an outlier in that respect? In the sense that quite a few Republicans are going to be potentially disenfranchised in a way that they're not altogether used to, and potentially lose that spark that you mentioned, if Trump doesn't get the nomination (doubly so if it's in a way that he can spin as a slight or unfair process). Serious question, I really don't follow politics nor do I have the recall and analysis skills folks like you do.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:40 AM on February 17, 2016
Sure, but isn't this race an outlier in that respect? In the sense that quite a few Republicans are going to be potentially disenfranchised in a way that they're not altogether used to, and potentially lose that spark that you mentioned, if Trump doesn't get the nomination (doubly so if it's in a way that he can spin as a slight or unfair process). Serious question, I really don't follow politics nor do I have the recall and analysis skills folks like you do.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:40 AM on February 17, 2016
Sure, but isn't this race an outlier in that respect?
No. Because they understand party dominance.
posted by Miko at 7:46 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
No. Because they understand party dominance.
posted by Miko at 7:46 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I mean, the things you mention will alienate soft Republicans and swing voters, but the base will be unmoved. They're smart about voting for Congressional control and they care about the Supreme Court as much as anyone else. They just have cultivated much greater discipline about using the system even when it isn't perfectly reflecting their personal sensibilities.)
posted by Miko at 7:56 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by Miko at 7:56 AM on February 17, 2016
I can't bring myself to get worked up about the whole superdelegates thing. The rules were set long before anyone thought this would be anything other than a Clinton coronation. That's not really her fault.
No one realistically thought the Sanders campaign would go anywhere. It was supposed to be a consciousness-raising, push-Clinton-to-the-left exercise that went viral.
Whether Clinton wins a small majority of (elected) delegates or Sanders gets a majority, party leaders and elected officials get a voice, under the Democratic Party nominating rules, in deciding which candidate they feel is going to be the best for the general election and the presidency itself.
I agree that the whole process should be streamlined, be made more transparent, and be weighted more strongly to reflect the preferences of average Democratic voters. But that's just not how the process works currently and while I don't think it's an optimal process, I can't really say it's unfair.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:57 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
No one realistically thought the Sanders campaign would go anywhere. It was supposed to be a consciousness-raising, push-Clinton-to-the-left exercise that went viral.
Whether Clinton wins a small majority of (elected) delegates or Sanders gets a majority, party leaders and elected officials get a voice, under the Democratic Party nominating rules, in deciding which candidate they feel is going to be the best for the general election and the presidency itself.
I agree that the whole process should be streamlined, be made more transparent, and be weighted more strongly to reflect the preferences of average Democratic voters. But that's just not how the process works currently and while I don't think it's an optimal process, I can't really say it's unfair.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:57 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
In a very consistent historical pattern, [Republicans] vote reliably, because they understand the need for party dominance, even if it means holding their nose
Between 1984 and 2008, the Democratic candidate gained votes over the preceding Democratic candidate every time -- seven straight increases, no lower than 1.9 million. In that span, the Republican vote total increased four times (once by just 400,000) and dropped three times. Throw in 2012 (Obama lost 4M votes from 2008, Romney gained just under 1M from McCain), and it's 7-5 Democrats. Republicans vote more reliably in midterm and state/local elections, but not in presidentials.
posted by Etrigan at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Between 1984 and 2008, the Democratic candidate gained votes over the preceding Democratic candidate every time -- seven straight increases, no lower than 1.9 million. In that span, the Republican vote total increased four times (once by just 400,000) and dropped three times. Throw in 2012 (Obama lost 4M votes from 2008, Romney gained just under 1M from McCain), and it's 7-5 Democrats. Republicans vote more reliably in midterm and state/local elections, but not in presidentials.
posted by Etrigan at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, but isn't this race an outlier in that respect?
No. Because they understand party dominance.
I also think Republican's alleged principles aren't as far from the money as Dems. They don't have to abandon their base so brazenly to get that sweet lobbyist money.
posted by Trochanter at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2016
No. Because they understand party dominance.
I also think Republican's alleged principles aren't as far from the money as Dems. They don't have to abandon their base so brazenly to get that sweet lobbyist money.
posted by Trochanter at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2016
Rachel Maddow had an interesting piece last night about how much better the Sanders campaign is set up for Super Tuesday, assuming they can get some momentum in Nevada, and don't have a disastrous result in South Carolina.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on February 17, 2016
I agree that the whole process should be streamlined, be made more transparent, and be weighted more strongly to reflect the preferences of average Democratic voters. But that's just not how the process works currently and while I don't think it's an optimal process, I can't really say it's unfair.
Just because there are rules written down someplace by somebody at some point doesn't mean those rules are fair.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:02 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just because there are rules written down someplace by somebody at some point doesn't mean those rules are fair.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:02 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Undecided independent voter" tells Bush "I'm here because Barbara Bush didn't raise an idiot."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on February 17, 2016
Republicans vote more reliably in midterm and state/local elections, but not in presidentials.
Yes, this supports my point. Democrats and Democratic voters who aren't party members only out-vote Republicans when they are emotionally swayed. Republicans don't rely on that phenomenon. This is why they say turnout is key. Democratic voters need a lot of massaging to turn out.
posted by Miko at 8:08 AM on February 17, 2016
Yes, this supports my point. Democrats and Democratic voters who aren't party members only out-vote Republicans when they are emotionally swayed. Republicans don't rely on that phenomenon. This is why they say turnout is key. Democratic voters need a lot of massaging to turn out.
posted by Miko at 8:08 AM on February 17, 2016
"Undecided independent voter" tells Bush "I'm here because Barbara Bush didn't raise an idiot."
I can see how you can be the first thing: An Undecided independent voter. And I can see how you can believe the second thing: Barbara Bush didn't raise an idiot.
But I can't understand how you can reconcile the two.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:48 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can see how you can be the first thing: An Undecided independent voter. And I can see how you can believe the second thing: Barbara Bush didn't raise an idiot.
But I can't understand how you can reconcile the two.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:48 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump: Apple should hack San Bernardino shooter phone
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:52 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:52 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no trouble reconciling how a person who would think the latter thing would be confused enough to sputter out a random answer to the questions "Have you decided who you support? How do you identify as a voter? Republican, Democrat, or Independent?" in an attempt to look wiser than they actually are in reality.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:53 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:53 AM on February 17, 2016
Does Trump read Metafilter just so he can make controversial statements about whatever scrolls up the front page? #metaTrump
posted by meinvt at 8:54 AM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by meinvt at 8:54 AM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Honestly when Hillary's made her stance on encryption was when I decided she wasn't fit to be President. Prior to this I honestly didn't have an opinion on her personally. I was against dynastic politics in general, but not her specifically. This solidified my distaste for her. If you are going to pontificate on topics you don't understand at least tap the experience of those who do. Trump on the other hand, I already decided he's an idiot.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:58 AM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 8:58 AM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
No. Because they understand party dominance.
Is it that, or is it that they are effective in motivating their grassroots in a way that Democrats are not? I would like to believe that all Republican voters are that politically sophisticated, but the simplest explanation is that their party leaders nurture and motivate the grassroots instead of treating it like an embarrassing liability.
posted by dialetheia at 8:58 AM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is it that, or is it that they are effective in motivating their grassroots in a way that Democrats are not? I would like to believe that all Republican voters are that politically sophisticated, but the simplest explanation is that their party leaders nurture and motivate the grassroots instead of treating it like an embarrassing liability.
posted by dialetheia at 8:58 AM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
It can be both.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 9:01 AM on February 17, 2016
Is it possible that republicans have an easier time motivating their base because they are closer to being a monoculture? (I.e. white, Christian) where as the democratic side is a true melting pot?
posted by ian1977 at 9:03 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 9:03 AM on February 17, 2016
I say, ask who governs further from their rhetoric? A recipe for cynicism and apathy.
posted by Trochanter at 9:06 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 9:06 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just because there are rules written down someplace by somebody at some point doesn't mean those rules are fair.
Sure. But my point is, the Democratic Party is under no obligation to select "the most electable progressive" (however that might be divined) as its nominee. It's not a Labor Party or a Social Democratic Party -- in fact, I'd argue that progressives didn't go from being "a part of the Democratic coalition" to "the dominant force in the party" until the Bush era.
That has probably changed now and to some extent the chaos is a result of the Democratic Party old guard running to keep up.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 AM on February 17, 2016
Sure. But my point is, the Democratic Party is under no obligation to select "the most electable progressive" (however that might be divined) as its nominee. It's not a Labor Party or a Social Democratic Party -- in fact, I'd argue that progressives didn't go from being "a part of the Democratic coalition" to "the dominant force in the party" until the Bush era.
That has probably changed now and to some extent the chaos is a result of the Democratic Party old guard running to keep up.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 AM on February 17, 2016
Depending on where you live, Democrats are shit at the local level. A typical midterm election in my home town usually involved passing over two or three uncontested or token-contest Republican incumbents to get to the equally uncontested Democrats on the city and county level. That was before the city was gerrymandered from one competitive district into two Republican-majority districts.
Also, I should point out that liberals consistently are ~15 percent of the electorate, a minority even among Democrats.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:09 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, I should point out that liberals consistently are ~15 percent of the electorate, a minority even among Democrats.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:09 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is it that, or is it that they are effective in motivating their grassroots in a way that Democrats are not?
They motivate their grassroots by emphasizing the importance of party dominance.
And sure they're closer to a monoculture - us against them is part of their strategy to dominate the legislatures.
If you aren't on any GOP mailing lists/FB pages, etc., you might like to take a look sometime. It is useful to know how the other side works.
posted by Miko at 9:12 AM on February 17, 2016
They motivate their grassroots by emphasizing the importance of party dominance.
And sure they're closer to a monoculture - us against them is part of their strategy to dominate the legislatures.
If you aren't on any GOP mailing lists/FB pages, etc., you might like to take a look sometime. It is useful to know how the other side works.
posted by Miko at 9:12 AM on February 17, 2016
Which Women Support Hillary (And Which Women Can’t Afford To)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:17 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:17 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
republicans have an easier time motivating their base because they are closer to being a monoculture
My first instinct was to say yes but then I remembered that the Republican Party is currently in the middle of a three-way civil war.
It's still sort of true though. My interpretation is that traditionally the moderate/establishment types were the face of the party, its elected officials and talking heads; the libertarians provided the intellectual underpinnings for movement conservatism; and religious conservatives were the heart and muscles for the Party. Religious conservatives always griped that the other two groups paid lip service to issues important to them like abortion and traditional family values and whatnot while not doing a whole lot to move the ball forward (or backward as the case may be) on those issues. Libertarians and establishment conservatives wanted the party to be the sort of sunny, urbane conservatism that flourishes elsewhere and thought the evangelicals were just crabby yokels. And I guess the division of labor has finally broken down.
The confounding factor in my little mental picture of paradigm shift is Trump. I can't really figure out where he fits in. He's definitely not an evangelical and he is rightly mocked for pretending to be the conservative Protestant that he obviously isn't. He's also not libertarian; at least in principle he's anti-free trade, anti-Wall Street. He won't get any plaudits from Reason Magazine any time soon.
You know, I think Donald Trump is actually in the establishment camp. The only difference is that he says plainly what they refuse to acknowledge. He's laying bare the absurd, horrifying and bigoted natural outcomes that they would prefer to ignore, deny or hide.
That is why the establishment loathes and fears him.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
My first instinct was to say yes but then I remembered that the Republican Party is currently in the middle of a three-way civil war.
It's still sort of true though. My interpretation is that traditionally the moderate/establishment types were the face of the party, its elected officials and talking heads; the libertarians provided the intellectual underpinnings for movement conservatism; and religious conservatives were the heart and muscles for the Party. Religious conservatives always griped that the other two groups paid lip service to issues important to them like abortion and traditional family values and whatnot while not doing a whole lot to move the ball forward (or backward as the case may be) on those issues. Libertarians and establishment conservatives wanted the party to be the sort of sunny, urbane conservatism that flourishes elsewhere and thought the evangelicals were just crabby yokels. And I guess the division of labor has finally broken down.
The confounding factor in my little mental picture of paradigm shift is Trump. I can't really figure out where he fits in. He's definitely not an evangelical and he is rightly mocked for pretending to be the conservative Protestant that he obviously isn't. He's also not libertarian; at least in principle he's anti-free trade, anti-Wall Street. He won't get any plaudits from Reason Magazine any time soon.
You know, I think Donald Trump is actually in the establishment camp. The only difference is that he says plainly what they refuse to acknowledge. He's laying bare the absurd, horrifying and bigoted natural outcomes that they would prefer to ignore, deny or hide.
That is why the establishment loathes and fears him.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's a good analysis, but it overlooks a few factions, like the war hawks, in particular the neocon variety, who admittedly have fallen out of favor in recent administrations. The other major issue, I think, is that the GOP post-Southern strategy has become not only about religious conservatism but racial conservatism- see Chris Ladd's essay on the entrenched race-based structures that have acted as unofficial social safety nets for American white non-elites (the elites themselves profit from these structures, but in the modern globalized age a little capital can travel around the whole world). Trump taps into the disaffection of these working class whites, and it's not because he shares their religion, where Carson, Cruz, Rubio do (ironic to list those candidates as contrast, ain't it?). It's because he shares their concerns- and it just so happens those concerns mean upholding racially unjust institutions.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:15 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:15 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
At one point, "the establishment," considered bipartisan compromise to be a necessary evil of good government. Part of the business of being in Congress was a certain amount of horse-trading with the establishment democrats to keep government rolling, and being good at it was something of a point of pride for veteran congrescritters. Unfortunately they've been RINO'd out by the Tea Party. I think one of Trump's problems is that he thinks pragmatically like a RINO but talks like a Teabagger. I don't know if he can maintain that.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:48 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:48 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie ain't winning this folks, sorry. If he had another year to campaign, he would, but there isn't enough time. Thank the DNC for keeping the debates out of the public eye so nobody could get a national profile to compete with Hillary.
PPP Polls: Clinton Has Double-Digit Leads In 9 Of 12 Early March Primaries
posted by Drinky Die at 10:55 AM on February 17, 2016
PPP Polls: Clinton Has Double-Digit Leads In 9 Of 12 Early March Primaries
posted by Drinky Die at 10:55 AM on February 17, 2016
Hmm good points. I'm not sure where the neo-cons would fall into my analysis. For all their preening and aura of inevitability, their whole Wilsonian, end-of-history, benign-American-empire discourse ended up holding the reins of power for just a few short years (I'd call it 2001 through 2006). Call it the Project For a New American Half-Decade.
It's maybe instructive to think about how that coalition was constructed in the runup to Iraq. Obviously the cement was post-9/11 fear and anger. But Evangelicals were told -- I remember this very well -- that the planned War was a noble struggle to use American military might for good, in the service of democracy. In retrospect one can call it a true Crusade, though a secular(ish) one, which had about the results that crusades historically have seen. And of course the business establishment has always loved wars and rumors of wars, there wasn't any cajoling needed on that front.
I don't think though that there was an actual voting constituency (the editors of the Weekly Standard don't count) that was particularly pushing for war at the beginning, as opposed to jumping on board due to a mix of fear, greed, idealism and pure bandwagoning. Neo-conservatism was a project that wanted to be an ideology but ended up being a failure, as opposed to Christianism, libertarianism and corporatism, which have been the three lasting ideological components of the Republican coalition.
The question of race and white supremacy, of course, intersects all of these ideologies in important ways as well...
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:02 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's maybe instructive to think about how that coalition was constructed in the runup to Iraq. Obviously the cement was post-9/11 fear and anger. But Evangelicals were told -- I remember this very well -- that the planned War was a noble struggle to use American military might for good, in the service of democracy. In retrospect one can call it a true Crusade, though a secular(ish) one, which had about the results that crusades historically have seen. And of course the business establishment has always loved wars and rumors of wars, there wasn't any cajoling needed on that front.
I don't think though that there was an actual voting constituency (the editors of the Weekly Standard don't count) that was particularly pushing for war at the beginning, as opposed to jumping on board due to a mix of fear, greed, idealism and pure bandwagoning. Neo-conservatism was a project that wanted to be an ideology but ended up being a failure, as opposed to Christianism, libertarianism and corporatism, which have been the three lasting ideological components of the Republican coalition.
The question of race and white supremacy, of course, intersects all of these ideologies in important ways as well...
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:02 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thank the DNC for keeping the debates out of the public eye so nobody could get a national profile to compete with Hillary.
I managed to use an esoteric broadcasting device (my TV) to watch several of these occult debates. While I was left with a more or less positive impression of Sanders each time, it's hardly the case that he was pwning Clinton so hard that more debates would have demolished her candidacy.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:11 AM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I managed to use an esoteric broadcasting device (my TV) to watch several of these occult debates. While I was left with a more or less positive impression of Sanders each time, it's hardly the case that he was pwning Clinton so hard that more debates would have demolished her candidacy.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:11 AM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
it's hardly the case that he was pwning Clinton so hard that more debates would have demolished her candidacy.
Sure, but a trend seems apparent, and you don't have to black & white it with pwning and demolition and the lamentations of her partyfolk.
posted by rhizome at 11:17 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, but a trend seems apparent, and you don't have to black & white it with pwning and demolition and the lamentations of her partyfolk.
posted by rhizome at 11:17 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
lamentations of her partyfolk
worst emocore band name ever
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:20 AM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
worst emocore band name ever
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:20 AM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I watched the debates too, yo, but millions of voters didn't because the DNC intentionally did not try to maximize viewers.
"By the time voting starts in Iowa, potential voters will have seen about 40 percent less of Democratic candidates on the debate stage than their Republican counterparts," University of Michigan’s Director of Debate Aaron Kall told PolitiFact.
I said nothing about demolishing her candidacy, lol. It's a long hard road to beat her no matter what and any victory would have to be close, but Bernie has no chance when he started off so far behind and the party worked to make sure the frontrunner was protected.
I think she is going to win the general, but people should be really, really nervous. It is entirely conceivable the Republicans could win.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:21 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"By the time voting starts in Iowa, potential voters will have seen about 40 percent less of Democratic candidates on the debate stage than their Republican counterparts," University of Michigan’s Director of Debate Aaron Kall told PolitiFact.
I said nothing about demolishing her candidacy, lol. It's a long hard road to beat her no matter what and any victory would have to be close, but Bernie has no chance when he started off so far behind and the party worked to make sure the frontrunner was protected.
I think she is going to win the general, but people should be really, really nervous. It is entirely conceivable the Republicans could win.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:21 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It depends on how Hillary clinches the nomination, if she does so fairly then it's going to be Dean in 2004 all over again. Disillusionment and rallying to the establishment Democrat, and she's going to have to move hard to the left to pick up disgruntled Sandernistas. Still, I'd like to think there's a sliver of a chance of a "the movement marches on" scenario where the grassroots apparatus that's built around the Sanders candidacy attempts a historically unprecedented write-in campaign against her, should she win by DNC manipulation. Again, this scenario only works if the GOP is equally divided (Trump goes third party), making the prospect of splitting the leftish vote less dicey. And in an unlikely "both parties melt down" timeline.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:26 AM on February 17, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:26 AM on February 17, 2016
I'm just not buying that more debates would be making much of a difference. There've been plenty of opportunities to watch Clinton and Sanders debate. None of them have been game-changers.
It is entirely conceivable the Republicans could win.
It is! No matter who is nominated! If it's Sanders, I hope everyone rallies to support him, as I intend to! But it remains quite possible, as you said, that it will be Clinton, which is why I remain smacked in the fucking gob at how enthusiastically Sanders supporters are doing the GOP's work of tearing her down for them ahead of time, rather than focusing on the many legitimate strengths of their preferred candidate. And from my view from the outside, I don't see Sanders encouraging those kind of scorched-earth tactics.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:26 AM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
It is entirely conceivable the Republicans could win.
It is! No matter who is nominated! If it's Sanders, I hope everyone rallies to support him, as I intend to! But it remains quite possible, as you said, that it will be Clinton, which is why I remain smacked in the fucking gob at how enthusiastically Sanders supporters are doing the GOP's work of tearing her down for them ahead of time, rather than focusing on the many legitimate strengths of their preferred candidate. And from my view from the outside, I don't see Sanders encouraging those kind of scorched-earth tactics.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:26 AM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't know why you keep talking about demolishing and game changing, that's not the issue here. It's simple exposure. Hillary's biggest advantage is name recognition. Everywhere Bernie shows up to campaign he makes gains, often tremendous gains, slowly over time. There just isn't enough time to make all the gains he needs and he can't be everywhere at once.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that's not the candidate where those worries lay.
posted by Artw at 11:30 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 11:30 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nikki Haley to endorse Marco Rubio
posted by melissasaurus at 11:33 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:33 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's a long hard road to beat her no matter what and any victory would have to be close, but Bernie has no chance when he started off so far behind and the party worked to make sure the frontrunner was protected.
Could read:
It's a long hard road to beat her no matter what and any victory would have to be close, but Obama has no chance when he started off so far behind and the party worked to make sure the frontrunner was protected.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:34 AM on February 17, 2016
Could read:
It's a long hard road to beat her no matter what and any victory would have to be close, but Obama has no chance when he started off so far behind and the party worked to make sure the frontrunner was protected.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:34 AM on February 17, 2016
Obama gave the keynote at the 2004 DNC, though. He did have some public exposure for years.
Would definitely like more comparisons between the Sanders and Obama campaigns, though. Where was Obama's right now, eight years ago, in Feb. 2008?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:37 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Would definitely like more comparisons between the Sanders and Obama campaigns, though. Where was Obama's right now, eight years ago, in Feb. 2008?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:37 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure where the neo-cons would fall into my analysis. For all their preening and aura of inevitability, their whole Wilsonian, end-of-history, benign-American-empire discourse ended up holding the reins of power for just a few short years (I'd call it 2001 through 2006).
Far from it, unfortunately. It's just hard to tell because they've been absorbed into the foreign policy consensus in both parties - which explains why interventionism remains so popular within both party establishments. I mean, Clinton, Cruz and Rubio are all receiving foreign policy advice from the same firm. Some neocons are now Democratic foreign policy allies (most notably Robert Kagan, who has courted and supported Hillary Clinton for her hawkishness). Much as there is some neoliberal economic consensus between the establishment branches of both parties, there is a neoconservative foreign policy consensus that hasn't so much disappeared as it has been absorbed into both parties' worldviews. The intervention in Libya was a very neoconservative venture - and a great deal of evidence (especially from her released emails) indicates that Hillary Clinton was the one to convince Obama that it was a good idea and criticized the President for not going far enough. The interventionist neoconservative philosophy is alive and well in American politics - and now represented on both sides of the aisle. See also: Clinton's ongoing praise of Henry Kissinger.
It's interesting to see both Sanders and Trump criticizing the interventionist consensus from both sides, though (though again, I'm certainly not taking Trump at face value there).
posted by dialetheia at 11:38 AM on February 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Far from it, unfortunately. It's just hard to tell because they've been absorbed into the foreign policy consensus in both parties - which explains why interventionism remains so popular within both party establishments. I mean, Clinton, Cruz and Rubio are all receiving foreign policy advice from the same firm. Some neocons are now Democratic foreign policy allies (most notably Robert Kagan, who has courted and supported Hillary Clinton for her hawkishness). Much as there is some neoliberal economic consensus between the establishment branches of both parties, there is a neoconservative foreign policy consensus that hasn't so much disappeared as it has been absorbed into both parties' worldviews. The intervention in Libya was a very neoconservative venture - and a great deal of evidence (especially from her released emails) indicates that Hillary Clinton was the one to convince Obama that it was a good idea and criticized the President for not going far enough. The interventionist neoconservative philosophy is alive and well in American politics - and now represented on both sides of the aisle. See also: Clinton's ongoing praise of Henry Kissinger.
It's interesting to see both Sanders and Trump criticizing the interventionist consensus from both sides, though (though again, I'm certainly not taking Trump at face value there).
posted by dialetheia at 11:38 AM on February 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump is also big on how he's totally going to defeat ISIS, so how that squares with being a non interventionist is any bodies guess.
I get the impression that foreign policy is where American elections are allowed to drift off into daft fantasy lands the most.
posted by Artw at 11:42 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get the impression that foreign policy is where American elections are allowed to drift off into daft fantasy lands the most.
posted by Artw at 11:42 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
538: Bernie Sanders's Path to Nomination
posted by melissasaurus at 11:46 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:46 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Where was Obama's right now, eight years ago, in Feb. 2008?
Building the tools that both campaigns are using this time around. Time will tell which one figured it out better.
posted by Etrigan at 11:46 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Building the tools that both campaigns are using this time around. Time will tell which one figured it out better.
posted by Etrigan at 11:46 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
One difference between Sanders and Obama is Obama did not have to work particularly hard to get the black community on his side. The black political community is, for obvious mutually beneficial reasons, very keyed in with the Democratic establishment. Not easy for an outsider with Bernie's background to make inroads there, especially when he started out poorly on racial issues. Can't win in this party when you have the numbers he does at this point with black folks.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:47 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:47 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is also big on how he's totally going to defeat ISIS, so how that squares with being a non interventionist is any bodies guess.
Well, maybe he uses the art of the deal and the businessman's unideological ruthless pragmatism to outsource all of that to Russia and co. He previously spoke that despite the Iranian treaty being a disaster, he would not rescind it, as it was a done deal. Maybe that means he's willing to play ball with Tehran. So basically he'd get other countries and mercenaries to defeat ISIS for us. And in doing so, strengthen Assad's hand and piss off Turkey/the Saudis/other Gulf Arabs. Not to mention get a lot of hospitals blown up by the Russian Air Force, but hey, no American blood or treasure spent, right?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:49 AM on February 17, 2016
Well, maybe he uses the art of the deal and the businessman's unideological ruthless pragmatism to outsource all of that to Russia and co. He previously spoke that despite the Iranian treaty being a disaster, he would not rescind it, as it was a done deal. Maybe that means he's willing to play ball with Tehran. So basically he'd get other countries and mercenaries to defeat ISIS for us. And in doing so, strengthen Assad's hand and piss off Turkey/the Saudis/other Gulf Arabs. Not to mention get a lot of hospitals blown up by the Russian Air Force, but hey, no American blood or treasure spent, right?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:49 AM on February 17, 2016
It's interesting to see both Sanders and Trump criticizing the interventionist consensus from both sides, though (though again, I'm certainly not taking Trump at face value there).
2016 is sort of 2008: Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul neo-isolationism strikes back. It's the rise of the outsiders. People back then were saying that there should have been a Paul/Kucinich ticket (or vice versa), and even some now say there should be a Trump/Sanders one, as chimerical as that would be.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:51 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
2016 is sort of 2008: Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul neo-isolationism strikes back. It's the rise of the outsiders. People back then were saying that there should have been a Paul/Kucinich ticket (or vice versa), and even some now say there should be a Trump/Sanders one, as chimerical as that would be.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:51 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
even some now say there should be a Trump/Sanders one, as chimerical as that would be.
"You're the problem!" "No, you're the problem!"
Let's call the whole thing off...
posted by Etrigan at 11:58 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"You're the problem!" "No, you're the problem!"
Let's call the whole thing off...
posted by Etrigan at 11:58 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the classified email chains discovered on Hillary Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News. (disclaimer, Fox News)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:59 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:59 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Obama gave the keynote at the 2004 DNC, though. He did have some public exposure for years.
I'd suggest less than a sitting senator. I would also suggest this speech was the first time most anyone had heard of him. That's a pretty short sprint to the White House. Look at the GOP side for a minute. Can you tell me who did their 2012 keynote? Or even who gave the rebuttal to the State of the Union Address? Those aren't exactly huge game changers.
Would definitely like more comparisons between the Sanders and Obama campaigns, though. Where was Obama's right now, eight years ago, in Feb. 2008?
From my memory even further behind. He won Iowa, but it was close. He lost NH.
Thing is though there was a variety of Dem. candidates, so as these folded he could pick up the support of their supporters. Sanders doesn't have that luxury. He has to peel supporters away from Clinton.
> PPP Polls: Clinton Has Double-Digit Leads In 9 Of 12 Early March Primaries
You do realize it's not over in March, right? There's still a ways to go after that.
If Hillary trounces Sanders in those 9 then maybe, but if he gets close in even half those the narrative will no longer be, "Hillary is inevitable." It'll be, "This race was hers to squander and she's done so."
Again, at one point Bernie was supposed to lose Iowa by a wide margin. Even NH was Hillary's and Nevada and SC for sure were. Then it was tie, big loss, maybe loss, and maybe tie. It's not a foregone conclusion, but it's looking less likely she's the for sure thing every day.
Again, if I were a betting man (and I am) I would push all my money in on Clinton. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be worried about the turn and the river.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:03 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd suggest less than a sitting senator. I would also suggest this speech was the first time most anyone had heard of him. That's a pretty short sprint to the White House. Look at the GOP side for a minute. Can you tell me who did their 2012 keynote? Or even who gave the rebuttal to the State of the Union Address? Those aren't exactly huge game changers.
Would definitely like more comparisons between the Sanders and Obama campaigns, though. Where was Obama's right now, eight years ago, in Feb. 2008?
From my memory even further behind. He won Iowa, but it was close. He lost NH.
Thing is though there was a variety of Dem. candidates, so as these folded he could pick up the support of their supporters. Sanders doesn't have that luxury. He has to peel supporters away from Clinton.
> PPP Polls: Clinton Has Double-Digit Leads In 9 Of 12 Early March Primaries
You do realize it's not over in March, right? There's still a ways to go after that.
If Hillary trounces Sanders in those 9 then maybe, but if he gets close in even half those the narrative will no longer be, "Hillary is inevitable." It'll be, "This race was hers to squander and she's done so."
Again, at one point Bernie was supposed to lose Iowa by a wide margin. Even NH was Hillary's and Nevada and SC for sure were. Then it was tie, big loss, maybe loss, and maybe tie. It's not a foregone conclusion, but it's looking less likely she's the for sure thing every day.
Again, if I were a betting man (and I am) I would push all my money in on Clinton. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be worried about the turn and the river.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:03 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
At the same time the Republicans are threatening to break into three parties (old-school conservatives; Tea Party; Trump/Loony Party) which could completely destroy the 2-party system as we know it.
I used to have a lot more belief in the possibility of the US developing a variety of actually functional parties before I learned just how baked-in the D/R party system is to the laws and processes of so many states. The deck is so stacked against them at state levels that it's hard to get other candidates on the ballots. And why would these sitting state lawmakers who benefit from the D/R structure do anything to weaken that?
posted by phearlez at 12:08 PM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I used to have a lot more belief in the possibility of the US developing a variety of actually functional parties before I learned just how baked-in the D/R party system is to the laws and processes of so many states. The deck is so stacked against them at state levels that it's hard to get other candidates on the ballots. And why would these sitting state lawmakers who benefit from the D/R structure do anything to weaken that?
posted by phearlez at 12:08 PM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Jonathan Capehart saga, or why progressives have stopped trusting the corporate media
(related and linked earlier in the thread: This is how Hillary Clinton gets the coverage she wants)
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 PM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
(related and linked earlier in the thread: This is how Hillary Clinton gets the coverage she wants)
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 PM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
If Clinton is the nominee, the DNC is sure making it hard for Sanders voters to even be interested in voting for her, with all of this shady nonsense.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:10 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:10 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm just not buying that more debates would be making much of a difference.
Almost all of the work on this comes from the debates in the general election, but debates have basically no effect on the outcome. Presumably they could if someone really shat the bed, but that sort of thing is rare (but not unheard of; see Rick Perry last time around choosing to go to the debate while apparently high on the goofballs).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:14 PM on February 17, 2016
Almost all of the work on this comes from the debates in the general election, but debates have basically no effect on the outcome. Presumably they could if someone really shat the bed, but that sort of thing is rare (but not unheard of; see Rick Perry last time around choosing to go to the debate while apparently high on the goofballs).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:14 PM on February 17, 2016
Thinking over the dynamics of this election, I was reminded a bit of Kucinich as well - but I think that Sanders has a bit more ferocity and campaign savvy than Kucinich ever did, and he certainly has more support. I remember really liking Kucinich and also thinking that there was no way he could be president. But he was also not quite the same outsider that Sanders is. Remember, Sanders only joined the Democratic party very very recently.
I don't remember much talk of Paul/Kucinich back then, it's possible that I summarily dismissed the idea. I generally do not want to speak of the present election in absolutes, as there's much that can happen -- but the idea of a Trump/Sanders tickets is not one of those things that can. It's a crazy fantasy that has no real-world rationale whatsoever. It is one of the only things that I am willing to say with a degree of confidence that will never happen. I do not see any world in which either of those two can accomplish anything working together as a pair, or where one would select the other as a veep. It would probably be the first presidential term where the opposition response to the state of the union came from the VP.
I suppose that given an infinite amount of realities, there's at least one where this could happen, but failing any sudden dramatic collider experiments prior to the election, I don't think it's this one. There's a greater likelihood of a third term from Obama with bipartisan support from the houses than there is of that ever happening.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:17 PM on February 17, 2016
I don't remember much talk of Paul/Kucinich back then, it's possible that I summarily dismissed the idea. I generally do not want to speak of the present election in absolutes, as there's much that can happen -- but the idea of a Trump/Sanders tickets is not one of those things that can. It's a crazy fantasy that has no real-world rationale whatsoever. It is one of the only things that I am willing to say with a degree of confidence that will never happen. I do not see any world in which either of those two can accomplish anything working together as a pair, or where one would select the other as a veep. It would probably be the first presidential term where the opposition response to the state of the union came from the VP.
I suppose that given an infinite amount of realities, there's at least one where this could happen, but failing any sudden dramatic collider experiments prior to the election, I don't think it's this one. There's a greater likelihood of a third term from Obama with bipartisan support from the houses than there is of that ever happening.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:17 PM on February 17, 2016
Would definitely like more comparisons between the Sanders and Obama campaigns, though. Where was Obama's right now, eight years ago, in Feb. 2008?
The big difference is in the 'invisible' primary. Just looking at 538's charts, which can be tricky because they don't have clear dates on them and are pretty small, shortly after Iowa Obama had between half and two-thirds as many endorsement points as Clinton, where Sanders has about one two-hundredth as many as Clinton does. Again, endorsements don't matter because voters care, but they're just an easily-observable proxy for support from party elites, whose support matters because they have toolkits they can use to help do well in their state.
It probably matters that 538's numbers are only for elected officials, though, when there are other party elites (at least in terms of the original idea) who also matter -- large interest groups, unions, strategists and fundraisers, and so son. ISTR that Sanders has won endorsements from some of those folks that might indicate growing support in the party but that don't show up in 538's numbers.
Again, at one point Bernie was supposed to lose Iowa by a wide margin. Even NH was Hillary's and Nevada and SC for sure were. Then it was tie, big loss, maybe loss, and maybe tie. It's not a foregone conclusion, but it's looking less likely she's the for sure thing every day
I'd still put my money on Clinton if I were betting, but Sanders has done surprisingly well so far. South Carolina is still the place to watch, because black people, but you should look at how he does with black voters in SC as a floor since many of them will have already voted. If he's doing well with black voters who turn out on election day, then it really REALLY is on.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:24 PM on February 17, 2016
The big difference is in the 'invisible' primary. Just looking at 538's charts, which can be tricky because they don't have clear dates on them and are pretty small, shortly after Iowa Obama had between half and two-thirds as many endorsement points as Clinton, where Sanders has about one two-hundredth as many as Clinton does. Again, endorsements don't matter because voters care, but they're just an easily-observable proxy for support from party elites, whose support matters because they have toolkits they can use to help do well in their state.
It probably matters that 538's numbers are only for elected officials, though, when there are other party elites (at least in terms of the original idea) who also matter -- large interest groups, unions, strategists and fundraisers, and so son. ISTR that Sanders has won endorsements from some of those folks that might indicate growing support in the party but that don't show up in 538's numbers.
Again, at one point Bernie was supposed to lose Iowa by a wide margin. Even NH was Hillary's and Nevada and SC for sure were. Then it was tie, big loss, maybe loss, and maybe tie. It's not a foregone conclusion, but it's looking less likely she's the for sure thing every day
I'd still put my money on Clinton if I were betting, but Sanders has done surprisingly well so far. South Carolina is still the place to watch, because black people, but you should look at how he does with black voters in SC as a floor since many of them will have already voted. If he's doing well with black voters who turn out on election day, then it really REALLY is on.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:24 PM on February 17, 2016
You not only have to look how well he does, but how the Clinton campaign reacts to this. They are alienating Nevada voters by referring to a state that's quite diverse as "white." They moved past confidence to hopeful optimism into moderating expectations, and that's a sad progression to make.
Again, endorsements don't matter because voters care, but they're just an easily-observable proxy for support from party elites, whose support matters because they have toolkits they can use to help do well in their state.
I think endorsements are also shaky currently. When the leaders pick, Clinton wins. When the members pick Sanders is taking it. I'd rather the support of memberships than the leaders personally.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:37 PM on February 17, 2016
Again, endorsements don't matter because voters care, but they're just an easily-observable proxy for support from party elites, whose support matters because they have toolkits they can use to help do well in their state.
I think endorsements are also shaky currently. When the leaders pick, Clinton wins. When the members pick Sanders is taking it. I'd rather the support of memberships than the leaders personally.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:37 PM on February 17, 2016
When the members pick Sanders is taking it.
The question is whether that continues when the primaries move to SC and beyond.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:44 PM on February 17, 2016
The question is whether that continues when the primaries move to SC and beyond.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:44 PM on February 17, 2016
but the idea of a Trump/Sanders tickets is not one of those things that can. It's a crazy fantasy that has no real-world rationale whatsoever. It is one of the only things that I am willing to say with a degree of confidence that will never happen.
Of course it's not possible. But it's the sort of thing that fires up people's imaginations, because at last it's not fringe candidates like Paul or Kucinich or Nader or McKinney in the sidelines, but actually having a chance to win nominations. And that's why the two get lumped together, despite being substantively different in many ways- they are both outsiders. They do not represent politics as usual.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:46 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course it's not possible. But it's the sort of thing that fires up people's imaginations, because at last it's not fringe candidates like Paul or Kucinich or Nader or McKinney in the sidelines, but actually having a chance to win nominations. And that's why the two get lumped together, despite being substantively different in many ways- they are both outsiders. They do not represent politics as usual.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:46 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can someone explain to me why they relase national polls? I mean, it's very nice to hear that Sanders is now within spitting distance of Clinton, but we don't vote nationally, so who cares?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:48 PM on February 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:48 PM on February 17, 2016
The big difference is in the 'invisible' primary.
Yeah, unfortunately Clinton has a huge lead with superdelegates (many of whom are also lobbyists). However, the "Party Decides" dogma has been challenged pretty strongly this year - maybe it will make less of a difference than people think. I still don't think they'd have the nerve to throw the election to her if Sanders manages to win on pledged delegates, but stranger things have happened - and that is, after all, why they instituted the superdelegates. Debbie Wasserman Schultz made it explicit: superdelegates were intended to prevent the party from having to run against the grassroots.
South Carolina is still the place to watch, because black people
I don't mean to pick on you at all because nearly everyone talks about it this way, especially in the media, but it's been increasingly bothering me - is there some reason why we believe that Black people in South Carolina will vote identically to Black people in e.g. swing states? Nobody thinks that white people in South Carolina vote the same as white people in Ohio - why do we still talk about the Black vote as if it's a monolith with none of the variability in voting behavior due to age/geography/income/etc that we ascribe to white voters? I just find it hard to imagine someone thinking Sanders had "the white vote" sewn up because he won in New Hampshire or something. For starters, do Black Democrats in SC tend to be more liberal or conservative than Black people in other states? More or less affluent? To what extent does Black support in South Carolina indicate Black support across the country? It may well be a great indicator - I've just never seen anyone present the evidence.
This video of the Sanders rally at Morehouse yesterday is great - Nina Turner's speech is especially worth watching. Killer Mike has been getting some blowback (after being quoted out of context) for quoting feminist and anti-racism activist Jane Elliott saying that "just having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president - you have to have policy that's reflective of social justice" - but it's worth watching his whole speech, too. He damn near brought me to tears with his part about "goddamnit, DEMAND something for your vote!" I also really liked Turner quoting Killer Mike on the "one-issue candidate" critique: "yeah, he's a one-issue candidate - and that issue is you, the people."
posted by dialetheia at 12:55 PM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, unfortunately Clinton has a huge lead with superdelegates (many of whom are also lobbyists). However, the "Party Decides" dogma has been challenged pretty strongly this year - maybe it will make less of a difference than people think. I still don't think they'd have the nerve to throw the election to her if Sanders manages to win on pledged delegates, but stranger things have happened - and that is, after all, why they instituted the superdelegates. Debbie Wasserman Schultz made it explicit: superdelegates were intended to prevent the party from having to run against the grassroots.
South Carolina is still the place to watch, because black people
I don't mean to pick on you at all because nearly everyone talks about it this way, especially in the media, but it's been increasingly bothering me - is there some reason why we believe that Black people in South Carolina will vote identically to Black people in e.g. swing states? Nobody thinks that white people in South Carolina vote the same as white people in Ohio - why do we still talk about the Black vote as if it's a monolith with none of the variability in voting behavior due to age/geography/income/etc that we ascribe to white voters? I just find it hard to imagine someone thinking Sanders had "the white vote" sewn up because he won in New Hampshire or something. For starters, do Black Democrats in SC tend to be more liberal or conservative than Black people in other states? More or less affluent? To what extent does Black support in South Carolina indicate Black support across the country? It may well be a great indicator - I've just never seen anyone present the evidence.
This video of the Sanders rally at Morehouse yesterday is great - Nina Turner's speech is especially worth watching. Killer Mike has been getting some blowback (after being quoted out of context) for quoting feminist and anti-racism activist Jane Elliott saying that "just having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president - you have to have policy that's reflective of social justice" - but it's worth watching his whole speech, too. He damn near brought me to tears with his part about "goddamnit, DEMAND something for your vote!" I also really liked Turner quoting Killer Mike on the "one-issue candidate" critique: "yeah, he's a one-issue candidate - and that issue is you, the people."
posted by dialetheia at 12:55 PM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
is there some reason why we believe that Black people in South Carolina will vote identically to Black people in e.g. swing states?
No, although I believe there are reason that we believe Black voters in South Carolina will vote similarly to those in other Southern States, which vote often before swing state voters do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:57 PM on February 17, 2016
No, although I believe there are reason that we believe Black voters in South Carolina will vote similarly to those in other Southern States, which vote often before swing state voters do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:57 PM on February 17, 2016
If Clinton is the nominee, the DNC is sure making it hard for Sanders voters to even be interested in voting for her, with all of this shady nonsense.
I think this will be the narrative for the rest of the primary- by the time the convention rolls around, I don't think Sanders' apertures will accept any outcome other than his victory. Any lack of delegates it setbacks will be explained as a conspiracy by three Democratic establishment, and there will be huge pressure on Sanders to Nader the election.
posted by happyroach at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think this will be the narrative for the rest of the primary- by the time the convention rolls around, I don't think Sanders' apertures will accept any outcome other than his victory. Any lack of delegates it setbacks will be explained as a conspiracy by three Democratic establishment, and there will be huge pressure on Sanders to Nader the election.
posted by happyroach at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does anyone know where here is a graphic of 2008 polls overlaid on top of the 2016 polls?
posted by ian1977 at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2016
I can't believe "Nader an election" is a phrase.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:25 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:25 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, Trump is going full truther: Trump Says ‘Very Secret Papers’ May Show ‘The Saudis’ Knocked Down World Trade Center. I assume this will only improve his poll numbers, just like every other completely batshit thing that's come out of his mouth so far.
posted by dialetheia at 1:30 PM on February 17, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 1:30 PM on February 17, 2016
Don't you mean "Perot an election"?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:30 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:30 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
is there some reason why we believe that Black people in South Carolina will vote identically to Black people in e.g. swing states? Nobody thinks that white people in South Carolina vote the same as white people in Ohio
In practice, black voters are behaviorally a much more cohesive bloc than white or latino voters. I don't know if this is true at an attitudinal level or not but you could easily check for yourself with CCES data; it's free.
In any case, you can just look at black respondents nationwide. The most recent one I can find (early Feb, PPP) has black respondents at 82 to 8 for Clinton. A more recent one only broke out "nonwhites" but had them at thirty-something; too lazy to look again and too lazy to try to make reasonable inferences about black support versus latino-and-asian support from that.
Also in any case, swing state or not doesn't matter in primaries. What matters is delegate count, which depends roughly on the number of Democratic voters and blah blah don't care.
I expect Sanders wouldn't have this problem if he'd started effectively campaigning in 2013 like Clinton did, but he didn't.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:37 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
In practice, black voters are behaviorally a much more cohesive bloc than white or latino voters. I don't know if this is true at an attitudinal level or not but you could easily check for yourself with CCES data; it's free.
In any case, you can just look at black respondents nationwide. The most recent one I can find (early Feb, PPP) has black respondents at 82 to 8 for Clinton. A more recent one only broke out "nonwhites" but had them at thirty-something; too lazy to look again and too lazy to try to make reasonable inferences about black support versus latino-and-asian support from that.
Also in any case, swing state or not doesn't matter in primaries. What matters is delegate count, which depends roughly on the number of Democratic voters and blah blah don't care.
I expect Sanders wouldn't have this problem if he'd started effectively campaigning in 2013 like Clinton did, but he didn't.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:37 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
If this is what it takes to realign American foreign policy into no longer uncritically supporting the House of Saud, well,
posted by Apocryphon at 1:41 PM on February 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:41 PM on February 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump Says ‘Very Secret Papers’ May Show ‘The Saudis’ Knocked Down World Trade Center
Well, most of the people who carried out 9/11 were Saudis. I do remember there being theories (in the "inside job!" crowd) about how the Bush ties to Saudi royalty were involved and how certain prominent Saudi nationals left the states right before the attacks -- would be interesting if Trump came out as a 9/11 truther...
There also some news reports from last April about how the FBI is investigating whether some Saudi-related documents were purposely left out of the 9/11 commission investigation (this Vice article touches on it). Former Senator Bob Graham (cochair of the intelligence committee inquiry) said he thinks the FBI is covering up Saudi state involvement in 9/11.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:42 PM on February 17, 2016
Well, most of the people who carried out 9/11 were Saudis. I do remember there being theories (in the "inside job!" crowd) about how the Bush ties to Saudi royalty were involved and how certain prominent Saudi nationals left the states right before the attacks -- would be interesting if Trump came out as a 9/11 truther...
There also some news reports from last April about how the FBI is investigating whether some Saudi-related documents were purposely left out of the 9/11 commission investigation (this Vice article touches on it). Former Senator Bob Graham (cochair of the intelligence committee inquiry) said he thinks the FBI is covering up Saudi state involvement in 9/11.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:42 PM on February 17, 2016
> Wow, Trump is going full truther:
I interpret "truther" as suggesting 9/11 was perpetuated or allowed by the US Government. There are those pesky 28 pages though...
posted by onehalfjunco at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I interpret "truther" as suggesting 9/11 was perpetuated or allowed by the US Government. There are those pesky 28 pages though...
posted by onehalfjunco at 1:45 PM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this will be the narrative for the rest of the primary- by the time the convention rolls around, I don't think Sanders' apertures will accept any outcome other than his victory
No one, well, maybe not literally no one but very few Sanders supporters are saying anything like this. As far as I can see the vast majority of people believe that Clinton will win the Dem nomination regardless of what their personal preference is.
I would be highly surprised if Sanders did an about-face and ran third-party. He's been very clear that he doesn't want to be a spoiler.
Whether Clinton wins clean or wins dirty is up to her and her campaign.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:46 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
No one, well, maybe not literally no one but very few Sanders supporters are saying anything like this. As far as I can see the vast majority of people believe that Clinton will win the Dem nomination regardless of what their personal preference is.
I would be highly surprised if Sanders did an about-face and ran third-party. He's been very clear that he doesn't want to be a spoiler.
Whether Clinton wins clean or wins dirty is up to her and her campaign.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:46 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because polling has, so far, consistently shown support for Sanders trailing Clinton among nonwhite registered democratic voters by a large margin.
Right but flattening Latino and Black voters into "nonwhite voters" is a great example of what I'm complaining about - Latinos have tended to be much more evenly divided than Black voters on Sanders (see: the apparent tie in Nevada, which was supposedly one of her diverse firewalls), so talking about "nonwhite support" like 538 does in that article isn't necessarily informative because it obfuscates that variability. I do appreciate that they went on to talk about Black support in particular, though.
What I'm asking isn't whether there are broad trends, because obviously there is pretty broad support for Clinton among Black voters - I'm just wondering whether that margin of support is probably similar in e.g. New York state or e.g. among Millenial Black voters or things of that nature. There probably isn't enough primary polling data to come to those conclusions just yet, and it probably gets especially difficult to pinpoint those kinds of differences with any precision or accuracy because of much smaller sample sizes once you start drilling down further. Maybe I'm just tired of seeing the political media talk about race in objectifying terms, even if there may be some truth to the idea that people tend to vote similarly across the board within certain groups. I'd dig into those CCES data but I have climate data to sort through for my own work instead!
posted by dialetheia at 2:01 PM on February 17, 2016
Right but flattening Latino and Black voters into "nonwhite voters" is a great example of what I'm complaining about - Latinos have tended to be much more evenly divided than Black voters on Sanders (see: the apparent tie in Nevada, which was supposedly one of her diverse firewalls), so talking about "nonwhite support" like 538 does in that article isn't necessarily informative because it obfuscates that variability. I do appreciate that they went on to talk about Black support in particular, though.
What I'm asking isn't whether there are broad trends, because obviously there is pretty broad support for Clinton among Black voters - I'm just wondering whether that margin of support is probably similar in e.g. New York state or e.g. among Millenial Black voters or things of that nature. There probably isn't enough primary polling data to come to those conclusions just yet, and it probably gets especially difficult to pinpoint those kinds of differences with any precision or accuracy because of much smaller sample sizes once you start drilling down further. Maybe I'm just tired of seeing the political media talk about race in objectifying terms, even if there may be some truth to the idea that people tend to vote similarly across the board within certain groups. I'd dig into those CCES data but I have climate data to sort through for my own work instead!
posted by dialetheia at 2:01 PM on February 17, 2016
About this time in 2008 on MetaFilter: The New Hampshire polls had been all wrong so nobody knew what to expect anymore, and...there was that time Clinton cried. Oh, and Edwards was still in the race!
I hope those guys who complained about an election thread on the blue feel bad, now that it's 8 years later and all we've got is one measly 150-comment thread to look back on.
posted by gueneverey at 2:15 PM on February 17, 2016
I hope those guys who complained about an election thread on the blue feel bad, now that it's 8 years later and all we've got is one measly 150-comment thread to look back on.
posted by gueneverey at 2:15 PM on February 17, 2016
Donald Trump's Supporters in South Carolina Are Even Scarier Than You Thought: Almost 40 percent wish the South had won the Civil War.
posted by homunculus at 2:27 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 2:27 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The tourism department for Cape Breton Island recently put up a promotional website called Cape Breton if Donald Trump Wins.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:32 PM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:32 PM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Almost 40 percent wish the South had won the Civil War.
Ah yes, the fearsome Uncle Rico demographic.
posted by rhizome at 2:34 PM on February 17, 2016
Ah yes, the fearsome Uncle Rico demographic.
posted by rhizome at 2:34 PM on February 17, 2016
I'm just wondering whether that margin of support is probably similar in e.g. New York state or e.g. among Millenial Black voters or things of that nature.
There won't be data like that until the big surveys like cces or Annenberg come out after the general election
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:40 PM on February 17, 2016
There won't be data like that until the big surveys like cces or Annenberg come out after the general election
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:40 PM on February 17, 2016
I'm just wondering whether that margin of support is probably similar in e.g. New York state or e.g. among Millenial Black voters or things of that nature.
"African Americans support former Secretary of State Clinton by more than a 3-to-1 margin nationwide, but among young blacks 18 to 29 years old, that margin shrinks to 46 percent for Clinton versus 33 percent for Sanders, according to recent Reuters/Ipsos polling." - Young blacks more open to Bernie Sanders' White House bid
posted by melissasaurus at 2:56 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"African Americans support former Secretary of State Clinton by more than a 3-to-1 margin nationwide, but among young blacks 18 to 29 years old, that margin shrinks to 46 percent for Clinton versus 33 percent for Sanders, according to recent Reuters/Ipsos polling." - Young blacks more open to Bernie Sanders' White House bid
posted by melissasaurus at 2:56 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can someone explain to me why they relase national polls? I mean, it's very nice to hear that Sanders is now within spitting distance of Clinton, but we don't vote nationally, so who cares?
Because of the cost and mathematics of polling. It requires a sample size of about 1000 to get a poll with a margin of error of around 3%. You need the same sample size whether you are polling one state or the entire nation.
So you can get a reasonably good poll of the entire nation with a sample of 1000 people. To do that for 50 states requires a sample of 50,000 people -- at 50 times the cost.
A poll of the nation closely predicts the outcome of the individual state votes unless the national poll is very close to 50/50.
posted by JackFlash at 2:59 PM on February 17, 2016
Because of the cost and mathematics of polling. It requires a sample size of about 1000 to get a poll with a margin of error of around 3%. You need the same sample size whether you are polling one state or the entire nation.
So you can get a reasonably good poll of the entire nation with a sample of 1000 people. To do that for 50 states requires a sample of 50,000 people -- at 50 times the cost.
A poll of the nation closely predicts the outcome of the individual state votes unless the national poll is very close to 50/50.
posted by JackFlash at 2:59 PM on February 17, 2016
I have to wonder about the undecideds in those Civil War polls. What more information do you need on that folks?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:03 PM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:03 PM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
What percentage of the people who answer the phone and say they'd vote for Clinton actually go vote, vs. what percentage of the people saying they'll vote for Sanders?
80% of 33% > 50% of 46%, right?
.264 > .180....
People could be in for a surprise depending on the GOTV effort...
posted by mikelieman at 3:08 PM on February 17, 2016
80% of 33% > 50% of 46%, right?
.264 > .180....
People could be in for a surprise depending on the GOTV effort...
posted by mikelieman at 3:08 PM on February 17, 2016
If you look at the full results [pdf], you can see that 12% of Carson supporters wish the South won the Civil War......
posted by melissasaurus at 3:09 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:09 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I doubt most of them are actually undecided, it's just that they're afraid of being thought of (rightfully) as uneducated racists, even by pollsters.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:10 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 3:10 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think "Undecided" was code for "IT'S ABOUT STATES RIGHTS!"
posted by mmoncur at 3:14 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mmoncur at 3:14 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
What percentage of the people who answer the phone and say they'd vote for Clinton actually go vote, vs. what percentage of the people saying they'll vote for Sanders?
Well, likely voter models are a REALLY BIG DEAL. I'd be surprised if back of the envelope speculation answered this big a question.
posted by OmieWise at 3:25 PM on February 17, 2016
Well, likely voter models are a REALLY BIG DEAL. I'd be surprised if back of the envelope speculation answered this big a question.
posted by OmieWise at 3:25 PM on February 17, 2016
I wish the Canadians had won the War of 1812. Then we'd have universal healthcare.
Then again, maybe we would have just ended up being a casino mogul Biff Tannen version of Canada.
posted by XMLicious at 4:37 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Then again, maybe we would have just ended up being a casino mogul Biff Tannen version of Canada.
posted by XMLicious at 4:37 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
This primary season is turning into the most amazing political thing I've ever seen in my life. My god.
I think I'm losing my mind, because I'm going from scorn and contempt for The Donald to scorn, contempt, and a kind of hallucinogenic love for his unhinged attacks on the Republicans. He's utterly destroying them, scorched earth stylee, and although it's certain that he would utterly destroy what's left of America if he got that far, too, well, I'm just enjoying the show too much to care at this point.
I guess that makes me a bad and irresponsible person, but wow: what schadenfreudey fun to see him just go full loonie and tear into everybody and everything like a giant orange billionaire baby who wants his bikkie.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:18 PM on February 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think I'm losing my mind, because I'm going from scorn and contempt for The Donald to scorn, contempt, and a kind of hallucinogenic love for his unhinged attacks on the Republicans. He's utterly destroying them, scorched earth stylee, and although it's certain that he would utterly destroy what's left of America if he got that far, too, well, I'm just enjoying the show too much to care at this point.
I guess that makes me a bad and irresponsible person, but wow: what schadenfreudey fun to see him just go full loonie and tear into everybody and everything like a giant orange billionaire baby who wants his bikkie.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:18 PM on February 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
wow those Repub debates have gotten quite odd
posted by mannequito at 6:51 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mannequito at 6:51 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
That pull quote is lousy. However, the author of that post is making a big mistake- that wasn't Clinton's quote, it was Albright's.
The piece is worth reading, if clumsily handled. Check out the part where they discuss Christine Quinn's pic on the cover of New York:
The piece is worth reading, if clumsily handled. Check out the part where they discuss Christine Quinn's pic on the cover of New York:
Certain New Yorkers just couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever for someone so brash—they couldn’t picture her in the job. “How much do you think the woman thing mattered?” she [Hillary] asks as she munches on a salad out of one of those clear plastic takeout bowls. A lot, I say, but I don’t think people could tell you what they didn’t like. It was visceral. And then, as sort of a joke, I say that the cover photograph that made Quinn look like a vampire certainly didn’t help. “They did that to her deliberately,” she says with an edge of disgust in her voice. “I couldn’t understand it. She’d been around. It’s not like she came out of nowhere. People knew her. I just thought she was treated really badly.” The exchange tees me up perfectly to ask: If New York City still isn’t ready for its first female mayor, is the United States ready for its first female president?posted by Miko at 7:33 PM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
The error was just pointed out to the author on Twitter, who said "my bad." I'm sure he's a fine fellow, but this kind of thing just makes my little journo-geek eyes see red. It's an example of reporters (or at least kibitzers with a media outlet) allowing the narrative to take over from the facts. One the narrative becomes "Hillary is a bad feminist/hypocrite," writers start sifting through content to find and push more evidence in support of that narrative. Here, the fact is clearly stated that someone else, someone who's already known to promote old-school views of feminism, said this thing about women being "judgmental," but the writer breezed right by that, his mind editing out the correct attribution because he was so ready to see, and write about, the Bad Feminist Hillary narrative.
That should concern everyone. It should be of concern that we would be so ready to gleefully leap on a negative that fits an emerging narrative, but isn't even accurate. It's random that I saw it. I wonder how long it would have been missed, and how far the erroneous post has already gone.
posted by Miko at 7:46 PM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
That should concern everyone. It should be of concern that we would be so ready to gleefully leap on a negative that fits an emerging narrative, but isn't even accurate. It's random that I saw it. I wonder how long it would have been missed, and how far the erroneous post has already gone.
posted by Miko at 7:46 PM on February 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
-Your theory of politics is wrong
-The Sanders Campaign Has Crossed Into Neverland
-"Extreme" doesn't mean what it used to, Sanders vs the CEA
posted by kliuless at 7:52 PM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
-The Sanders Campaign Has Crossed Into Neverland
-"Extreme" doesn't mean what it used to, Sanders vs the CEA
posted by kliuless at 7:52 PM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Glad he fixed it. I feel bad I posted it. Problem is though she is saying things si liar to this. Click through to the piece linked in that one. They cite their quotes. iPad not letting me make links or I would.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:06 PM on February 17, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 8:06 PM on February 17, 2016
Well, I did click through, and I read the piece - that's how I spotted the misattribution.
I can't find anything she's saying that's awful. I mean, it's true that women seeing access to power have a particularly tough road, and sometimes that's because of misogyny, and sometimes that misogyny does come from and through other women. That's not untrue. It's just very hard to talk about - especially when every outlet is now positioned to leap on anything Hillary might say that's critical of her own reception among a range of women.
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can't find anything she's saying that's awful. I mean, it's true that women seeing access to power have a particularly tough road, and sometimes that's because of misogyny, and sometimes that misogyny does come from and through other women. That's not untrue. It's just very hard to talk about - especially when every outlet is now positioned to leap on anything Hillary might say that's critical of her own reception among a range of women.
posted by Miko at 8:09 PM on February 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Young blacks more open to Bernie Sanders' White House bid
Well, that's me told. I'd worry a lot about the error bars around that, though, since it still seems unlikely to me that they ran a poll so large that you could get a reasonable sample of 18-29 year old black likely primary voters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:20 PM on February 17, 2016
Well, that's me told. I'd worry a lot about the error bars around that, though, since it still seems unlikely to me that they ran a poll so large that you could get a reasonable sample of 18-29 year old black likely primary voters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:20 PM on February 17, 2016
I meant the piece linked inside that one. Doesn't matter. It's probably crap too.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:22 PM on February 17, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 8:22 PM on February 17, 2016
I meant the piece linked inside that one.
I'm not trying to play "gotcha" on you or anything. The only links I saw in the Vogue piece were to a page of other Vogue stories about Hillary and to Mario Testino. So just wasn't sure what you meant.
posted by Miko at 8:24 PM on February 17, 2016
I'm not trying to play "gotcha" on you or anything. The only links I saw in the Vogue piece were to a page of other Vogue stories about Hillary and to Mario Testino. So just wasn't sure what you meant.
posted by Miko at 8:24 PM on February 17, 2016
This one. If my iPad was cooperating....
I'm actually glad I posted the first link just to read your rebuttal. Sometimes we live to serve as an example to others. I should have read the Vogue piece instead of trusting the reading comprehension of others.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:49 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm actually glad I posted the first link just to read your rebuttal. Sometimes we live to serve as an example to others. I should have read the Vogue piece instead of trusting the reading comprehension of others.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:49 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, thank you.
I just gave that a quick scan since I have to get going. I guess I'm not sure that it's terrible to bring gender into the race. I definitely think gender matters - just not more than policy (otherwise, what would Albright want us to do, vote for Palin or Fiorina or enjoy our special place in hell?) - and that's the whole premise behind things like EMILY's List. I can see it bothering people if they get the sense that it's the only thing she has to offer or that she's implying it inherently makes her the superior choice (as opposed to her policies doing that). The Vogue piece touches on her policymaking regarding issues relevant to women and families. I do expect women to be more familiar with those issues and to care more about taking them seriously in politics. Also, I can remember that in the 2008 campaign, there was a lot of excitement around the idea of being one of the people who supported the first black president - it had an allure. Of course, Obama didn't really play that up too much in his campaign, except for the famed post-Wright speech.
posted by Miko at 6:24 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just gave that a quick scan since I have to get going. I guess I'm not sure that it's terrible to bring gender into the race. I definitely think gender matters - just not more than policy (otherwise, what would Albright want us to do, vote for Palin or Fiorina or enjoy our special place in hell?) - and that's the whole premise behind things like EMILY's List. I can see it bothering people if they get the sense that it's the only thing she has to offer or that she's implying it inherently makes her the superior choice (as opposed to her policies doing that). The Vogue piece touches on her policymaking regarding issues relevant to women and families. I do expect women to be more familiar with those issues and to care more about taking them seriously in politics. Also, I can remember that in the 2008 campaign, there was a lot of excitement around the idea of being one of the people who supported the first black president - it had an allure. Of course, Obama didn't really play that up too much in his campaign, except for the famed post-Wright speech.
posted by Miko at 6:24 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Big money bundlers confused as to why media isn't covering Hillary's small donations. (NYTimes)
The collected fundraisers, who for years have bundled checks for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, listened approvingly as Ms. White, who seemed especially frustrated, expressed bewilderment that the campaign’s mobilization of grassroots support had been eclipsed in the news media by Bernie Sanders’s criticism of Mrs. Clinton as the establishment candidate representing big money.
posted by localhuman at 6:36 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The collected fundraisers, who for years have bundled checks for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, listened approvingly as Ms. White, who seemed especially frustrated, expressed bewilderment that the campaign’s mobilization of grassroots support had been eclipsed in the news media by Bernie Sanders’s criticism of Mrs. Clinton as the establishment candidate representing big money.
posted by localhuman at 6:36 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess I'm not sure that it's terrible to bring gender into the race.
Personally I think it's wonderful. It's a conversation that needs to be had. This said, you can't do it, then pretend like you're not. Or, more accurately if you make it an issue you can't be upset when others do too.
The latest Quinnipiac poll and more polls. This is why, to me, it looks like a game of time. Can Hillary secure enough delegates fast enough to move the narrative back to her inevitable nomination, or can Bernie stay viable long enough for the turning tide to go his way?
posted by cjorgensen at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2016
Personally I think it's wonderful. It's a conversation that needs to be had. This said, you can't do it, then pretend like you're not. Or, more accurately if you make it an issue you can't be upset when others do too.
The latest Quinnipiac poll and more polls. This is why, to me, it looks like a game of time. Can Hillary secure enough delegates fast enough to move the narrative back to her inevitable nomination, or can Bernie stay viable long enough for the turning tide to go his way?
posted by cjorgensen at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2016
Trump is behind in the national polls for the first time. The ground level word I'm hearing makes me think his behavior at the debate, especially the "Bush lied, people died" stuff, is behind the drop in support.
posted by charred husk at 6:57 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by charred husk at 6:57 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Weirdest Town Hall Revelations From Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Trump
posted by Artw at 7:00 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by Artw at 7:00 AM on February 18, 2016
American voters back Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont over Republican candidates by margins
of 4 to 10 percentage points in head to head presidential matchups, (pdf) according to a Quinnipiac
University National poll released today. The closest Republican contender is Ohio Gov. John
Kasich who trails Sanders 45 – 41 percent.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trails or ties leading Republicans in the
November face-off, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:00 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
of 4 to 10 percentage points in head to head presidential matchups, (pdf) according to a Quinnipiac
University National poll released today. The closest Republican contender is Ohio Gov. John
Kasich who trails Sanders 45 – 41 percent.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trails or ties leading Republicans in the
November face-off, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:00 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, that's very interesting, but we don't vote nationally.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on February 18, 2016
Literally every single person on this website knows that.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not to mention there is at least 46 percentage points up for grabs if/when other candidates drop out.
posted by ian1977 at 7:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 7:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK this whole primary season has been worth it to watch Ben Carson MD explain his plan for solving the dual crises of apple-picking-accidents and bear-induced-homelessness which so afflict our glorious nation. Paging Steven Colbert.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:11 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:11 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean I love a good circular firing squad as much as the next progressive but let's call a truce here so we can point and laugh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 AM on February 18, 2016
OK this whole primary season has been worth it to watch Ben Carson MD explain his plan for solving the dual crises of apple-picking-accidents and bear-induced-homelessness which so afflict our glorious nation.
He is so stupid but so thoughtful about it. it's perplexing.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I have this concept called "glass jar people". Briefly, this means those people who just see things in a way that is interestingly different and who just, it's hard to explain... notice very different things than most people do when they are walking through the world and are blissfully unafraid to comment on whatever the hell passes through their misfiring synapses at a given moment.
I guess the best-known example of what I mean by a glass jar person is Karl Pilkington. Ricky Gervais basically spends a large portion of his waking hours planning little things to present to Karl Pilkington just to see the bizarre ways he will react.
My point is, I want to take a miniature Ben Carson and put him in a glass jar and carry him around with me so I can get his running commentary on everything. He has now made it to the top of my glass jar people list.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:28 AM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
I guess the best-known example of what I mean by a glass jar person is Karl Pilkington. Ricky Gervais basically spends a large portion of his waking hours planning little things to present to Karl Pilkington just to see the bizarre ways he will react.
My point is, I want to take a miniature Ben Carson and put him in a glass jar and carry him around with me so I can get his running commentary on everything. He has now made it to the top of my glass jar people list.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:28 AM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
That ... that sounded very thoughtful. I agree that we should all pitch in if a farmer breaks his leg in an apple picking accident. Or in case of bear-induced homelessness. I don't know, maybe we could all pool our resources and establish a means by which we could direct our help to wherever it was most needed.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
The funny thing is, I think if you avoid politics he could probably give you some really helpful advice in other areas of life. Would be a good jar to have.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know that on several occasions I've run into conjoined twins who needed separated stat and I was like, shit, my humanities degree is NOT HELPING ME HERE.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:37 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:37 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Virginia is supposed to be Clinton country. Just don’t tell that to Sanders
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:38 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:38 AM on February 18, 2016
He is so stupid but so thoughtful about it. it's perplexing.
That ... that sounded very thoughtful.
Yeah, so I actually watched the town hall so that's my takeaway from how Ben Carson talks. Not that he has good ideas, but that he says stupid things but is very thoughtful about it.
posted by zutalors! at 8:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernienomics (via)
-the @MattBruenig election team is skeptical
-CBS News poll: Trump maintains commanding lead over GOP field
posted by kliuless at 8:53 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
...the Friedman paper and the attacks on it from Democratic Party wonks are an interesting window into how the primary is playing out behind the scenes. Clinton has achieved such overwhelming party insider support that the Sanders campaign is largely cut off from access to the kind of para-party policy wonk universe that would allow Sanders to release campaign proposals that pass muster by the traditional rules of the game.also btw, re: trump polling :P fwiw!
But he's managed to make a virtue out of this weakness and harness it to the larger significance of the Sanders project — an effort to turn the Democratic Party into a more ideological party that operates more like a progressive mirror image of the conservative Republican Party and less of a broad coalition of interest groups mediated by technocrats.
-the @MattBruenig election team is skeptical
-CBS News poll: Trump maintains commanding lead over GOP field
posted by kliuless at 8:53 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, so I actually watched the town hall so that's my takeaway from how Ben Carson talks. Not that he has good ideas, but that he says stupid things but is very thoughtful about it.
2016 could have been the kinder, gentler form of Dunning-Kruger, guys, but we didn't embrace it.
posted by phearlez at 8:55 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
2016 could have been the kinder, gentler form of Dunning-Kruger, guys, but we didn't embrace it.
posted by phearlez at 8:55 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernienomics
Pretty ticked at Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and others for jumping in with this peripheral garbage. Useful idiot smart guys.
posted by Trochanter at 9:34 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pretty ticked at Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and others for jumping in with this peripheral garbage. Useful idiot smart guys.
posted by Trochanter at 9:34 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
The main tenet of Bernienomics seems to be collecting my donations and then NOT SENDING MY DAMN BUMPER STICKERS!!!!!
posted by ian1977 at 9:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 9:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I thought Carson was impressive in the town hall, much more than on a debate stage or on the stump. I really liked his answer about how his laid back speaking style would handle a more boisterous opponent like Bernie. He said that when he was doing speeches to elementary school kids people doubted they would listen to him too, but that when he spoke softly they all shut up to listen because they couldn't hear him otherwise, no need to shout.
His temperament isn't bad for a leader. He's calm and thoughtful. It's just that, like you guys point out, he comes to bonkers conclusions anyway.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
His temperament isn't bad for a leader. He's calm and thoughtful. It's just that, like you guys point out, he comes to bonkers conclusions anyway.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
From that WaPo article roomthreeseventeen posted re: Virginia:
posted by indubitable at 9:45 AM on February 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
"People look at it as the cool thing to do,” said Travis Evans, 19, a Clinton supporter.These are basically Republican talking points. I'm just surprised they left out mention of secretly busing in the homeless to vote for Bernie.
[...]
"When you’re online, on Tumblr, it’s all about [Sanders],” Popal said. College affordability, she added, is not the reason. “It’s because of legalizing marijuana,” she said, whispering the last word. “That’s all they care about.”
[...]
D'Angelo Morrison, 25, a state Health Department staffer who works with people with AIDS and attended the event, said he supports Clinton because “Hillary has the most experience.” Morrison, who is African American, said many of his friends prefer Sanders “because he promised them free things.”
posted by indubitable at 9:45 AM on February 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
Does anybody believe Clinton's opinion on marijuana is anything other than pandering to the senior vote? But hey, let's mock people for caring about the issue from the other direction.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pope Francis questions Donald Trump's Christianity: The Pope has questioned US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's Christianity over his call to build a border wall with Mexico.
Donald Trump calls Pope Francis 'disgraceful' for questioning his faith: Trump responds after the pope suggests presidential candidate is ‘not a Christian’ because of his plan to build a border wall between the US and Mexico
posted by homunculus at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2016
Donald Trump calls Pope Francis 'disgraceful' for questioning his faith: Trump responds after the pope suggests presidential candidate is ‘not a Christian’ because of his plan to build a border wall between the US and Mexico
posted by homunculus at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2016
Meh, there is nothing unchristian about the wall. Lots of other stuff Trump says on immigration, but not that.
But anyway, let me know when the Vatican starts allowing free immigration.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:53 AM on February 18, 2016
But anyway, let me know when the Vatican starts allowing free immigration.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:53 AM on February 18, 2016
These are basically Republican talking points. I'm just surprised they left out mention of secretly busing in the homeless to vote for Bernie.
Oh, come on. This thread is filled with anti-Clinton Republican talking points posted by Sanders supporters.
posted by OmieWise at 10:08 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, come on. This thread is filled with anti-Clinton Republican talking points posted by Sanders supporters.
posted by OmieWise at 10:08 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's too perfectly wrong in too many different ways.
No, he's perfectly correct. Walls serve a valid security function that is not incompatible with Christianity. The US has the same right to use them to secure it's territory as the Vatican does, even if the territory in question is obviously a tiny bit larger.
It's the hatred and demonization of immigrants that is unchristian, not the wall as a method to secure territory from illegal immigration.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:10 AM on February 18, 2016
No, he's perfectly correct. Walls serve a valid security function that is not incompatible with Christianity. The US has the same right to use them to secure it's territory as the Vatican does, even if the territory in question is obviously a tiny bit larger.
It's the hatred and demonization of immigrants that is unchristian, not the wall as a method to secure territory from illegal immigration.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:10 AM on February 18, 2016
Show me where one Sanders supporter has attacked Clinton for being too liberal.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
This thread isn't being published by the Washington Post, though.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Re: that Albright quote from Vogue, the part that made me the maddest wasn't even the judgmental part - it was this part:
[Albright]: "I worked for Geraldine Ferraro when she was the vice-presidential candidate. And we were somewhere in the Middle West and this woman came up to me and she said, ‘Well. . . . How can she talk to a Russian? I can’t talk to a Russian.’ Nobody was asking this woman to talk to a Russian. Nobody is asking Mary Green in wherever to be president of the United States. Not every woman can be president of the United States, just the way that not every man can be president of the United States. But there is a certain kind of thinking: ‘Well, I can’t do it. How can she?’ "
Not only are women just too judgmental of Clinton, we also have so little confidence in ourselves that we can't imagine ourselves being President and therefore think Clinton couldn't either! I mean, "Nobody is asking Mary Green in wherever to be President"!
Oh, come on. This thread is filled with anti-Clinton Republican talking points posted by Sanders supporters.
Nearly everything people have said against Clinton's candidacy in this thread has been an argument from the left, not the right. The difference matters. And if you mean the email thing, I'm pretty sure we'd be talking about it if Sanders had open investigations with the FBI and the State department, too.
posted by dialetheia at 10:13 AM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
[Albright]: "I worked for Geraldine Ferraro when she was the vice-presidential candidate. And we were somewhere in the Middle West and this woman came up to me and she said, ‘Well. . . . How can she talk to a Russian? I can’t talk to a Russian.’ Nobody was asking this woman to talk to a Russian. Nobody is asking Mary Green in wherever to be president of the United States. Not every woman can be president of the United States, just the way that not every man can be president of the United States. But there is a certain kind of thinking: ‘Well, I can’t do it. How can she?’ "
Not only are women just too judgmental of Clinton, we also have so little confidence in ourselves that we can't imagine ourselves being President and therefore think Clinton couldn't either! I mean, "Nobody is asking Mary Green in wherever to be President"!
Oh, come on. This thread is filled with anti-Clinton Republican talking points posted by Sanders supporters.
Nearly everything people have said against Clinton's candidacy in this thread has been an argument from the left, not the right. The difference matters. And if you mean the email thing, I'm pretty sure we'd be talking about it if Sanders had open investigations with the FBI and the State department, too.
posted by dialetheia at 10:13 AM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's not the walls that are a concern. It's the gates.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:13 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:13 AM on February 18, 2016
Oh, come on. This thread is filled with anti-Clinton Republican talking points posted by Sanders supporters.
Um, no it isn't?
People certainly have issues with her as a candidate, but you may wish to brush up on what they actually are.
posted by Artw at 10:15 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Um, no it isn't?
People certainly have issues with her as a candidate, but you may wish to brush up on what they actually are.
posted by Artw at 10:15 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Vatican walls don't exist as a method to secure territory from illegal immigration.
There is nothing unchristian about a nation having immigration laws and wanting to enforce them.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:20 AM on February 18, 2016
There is nothing unchristian about a nation having immigration laws and wanting to enforce them.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:20 AM on February 18, 2016
I thought Carson was impressive in the town hall, much more than on a debate stage or on the stump. I really liked his answer about how his laid back speaking style would handle a more boisterous opponent like Bernie. He said that when he was doing speeches to elementary school kids people doubted they would listen to him too, but that when he spoke softly they all shut up to listen because they couldn't hear him otherwise, no need to shout.
I thought he was impressive, too, and I also thought of the book Quiet, by Susan Cain, about introversion and its benefits. His strategy wrt speaking softly remind me strongly of things from the (excellent) book.
posted by zutalors! at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Um, no it isn't?
Sure it is. The issues of her emails and of the donors to The Clinton Foundation are both Republican talking points. Also, the general issue of her honesty. The impetus for the critique may or may not come from the Left of Clinton politically, and the critiques may or may not be correct, but it's disingenuous to say that they aren't critiques shared by Republicans.
posted by OmieWise at 10:22 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure it is. The issues of her emails and of the donors to The Clinton Foundation are both Republican talking points. Also, the general issue of her honesty. The impetus for the critique may or may not come from the Left of Clinton politically, and the critiques may or may not be correct, but it's disingenuous to say that they aren't critiques shared by Republicans.
posted by OmieWise at 10:22 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt," the Pope said.Yeah, this is a whole lot of nothing. I don't think Pope Francis isn't really paying much attention and only commented on some second hand information. Trump then took the opportunity to make himself look like a tough guy by taking on the Pope.
posted by charred husk at 10:23 AM on February 18, 2016
The issues of her emails and of the donors to The Clinton Foundation are both Republican talking points.
I don't believe the Republicans own talking points.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:23 AM on February 18, 2016
I don't believe the Republicans own talking points.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:23 AM on February 18, 2016
I am having a hard time with the idea that the wall thing is being taken with such total literalism that "what's wrong with constructing a vertical barrier, that lacks a moral vector" is somehow even worth mouthing silently let alone actually arguing, but then again "I am having a hard time" describes pretty much the entire election cycle for me every time it comes around, so consider this just a sort of scream in the wilderness and by all means carry on.
posted by cortex at 10:24 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by cortex at 10:24 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
There is nothing unchristian about a nation having immigration laws and wanting to enforce them.
Exodus 22:21: ""Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Levitcus 24:22: "You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born."
etc.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:25 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Exodus 22:21: ""Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Levitcus 24:22: "You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born."
etc.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:25 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm concerned about the emails because a) I believe in public records law and FOIA, and I don't think anyone should be circumventing those laws for political reasons - which I believe is a liberal stance - and b) I am concerned about conflicts of interest within the military-industrial complex which lead us to sell increased arms to foreign countries, which is also a completely defensible liberal stance. Just because Republicans attack her on it doesn't mean it's not a valid concern for people of all ideological stripes. Hiding her emails and making questionable arms deals should be issues for liberals.
posted by dialetheia at 10:26 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:26 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
We really don't need more scolding and condescension toward people who aren't convinced that Sanders will a) win a general election and b) proceed to lead us into the promised land instead of getting mired in congressional gridlock.
I don't even have a stake in trying to talk anybody into voting for Clinton in the primary. You like Sanders, vote Sanders, it's a primary, picking your preferred candidate is the whole point. But there is absolutely a double standard Clinton is being held to, which is shitty, and it is really tiresome being treated like those of us who have expressed a preference for Clinton for practical or tactical purposes just need to be browbeaten a little more until the scales fall off our eyes and we realize that if we just hop on the Sanders bandwagon everything is just gonna totally finally work out wonderfully for progressives this time.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:27 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't even have a stake in trying to talk anybody into voting for Clinton in the primary. You like Sanders, vote Sanders, it's a primary, picking your preferred candidate is the whole point. But there is absolutely a double standard Clinton is being held to, which is shitty, and it is really tiresome being treated like those of us who have expressed a preference for Clinton for practical or tactical purposes just need to be browbeaten a little more until the scales fall off our eyes and we realize that if we just hop on the Sanders bandwagon everything is just gonna totally finally work out wonderfully for progressives this time.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:27 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't believe the Republicans own talking points.
I was responding to a Sanders supporter calling remarks made by Hillary supporters Republican talking points. Don't try to paint me as the person who introduced the well-known and well-understood phrase.
Frankly, this thread is frustrating for precisely the reason illustrated here. The Sanders supporters want to have it all: we love our guy 'cause he's the best candidate, and anything we say about Clinton is fair and just and simply the truth as God and everyone knows.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Clinton supporters can belittle Sanders without merit (and they can and do), then surely it's possible for Sanders supporters to do the same. If Clinton supporters can say things that are also said by the GOP, and they can and do, then Sanders supporters can and do as well. This thread has shown that amply.
And, it doesn't have to be wrong to be a Republican talking point.
posted by OmieWise at 10:29 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was responding to a Sanders supporter calling remarks made by Hillary supporters Republican talking points. Don't try to paint me as the person who introduced the well-known and well-understood phrase.
Frankly, this thread is frustrating for precisely the reason illustrated here. The Sanders supporters want to have it all: we love our guy 'cause he's the best candidate, and anything we say about Clinton is fair and just and simply the truth as God and everyone knows.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Clinton supporters can belittle Sanders without merit (and they can and do), then surely it's possible for Sanders supporters to do the same. If Clinton supporters can say things that are also said by the GOP, and they can and do, then Sanders supporters can and do as well. This thread has shown that amply.
And, it doesn't have to be wrong to be a Republican talking point.
posted by OmieWise at 10:29 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
1. Rejecting illegal immigration in favor of an organized legal immigration system is not unchristian.
2. Using the same security measures as the Vatican to secure that system is not unchristian either.
3. Calling large swaths of people rapists or potential terrorists is definitely unchristian.
Why focus on the wall? Trump is doing plenty of actual unchristian bullshit.
Exodus 22:21: ""Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Levitcus 24:22: "You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born."
Yeah none of that comes within miles of saying it's unchristian to have, like every nation on Earth, immigration laws.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:30 AM on February 18, 2016
2. Using the same security measures as the Vatican to secure that system is not unchristian either.
3. Calling large swaths of people rapists or potential terrorists is definitely unchristian.
Why focus on the wall? Trump is doing plenty of actual unchristian bullshit.
Exodus 22:21: ""Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
Levitcus 24:22: "You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born."
Yeah none of that comes within miles of saying it's unchristian to have, like every nation on Earth, immigration laws.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:30 AM on February 18, 2016
Eh, no, she's just got glaring flaws as a candidate which we are absolutely going to talk about as and when they are relevant to the discussion.
posted by Artw at 10:30 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:30 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
But there is absolutely a double standard Clinton is being held to, which is shitty
If there is a double standard, that is shitty, but most Sanders voters I know don't like Hillary Clinton because of her policies and nothing more.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:30 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If there is a double standard, that is shitty, but most Sanders voters I know don't like Hillary Clinton because of her policies and nothing more.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:30 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Bernie (or any of the Repubs) had a private email server for official business we could talk double standards.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:38 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:38 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, many repubs have, not that you'd know it.
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm bothered by Obama at least as much as Clinton regarding the email server issue because he didn't appoint anyone to State Dept IG until a month after she left the SoS position. If there was a functioning inspector general appointed when Democrats had control of congress, the concerns of impropriety could have been vetted back when the practices were occurring.
My wild speculation is that Obama and Clinton made an agreement that he not appoint anyone until she left office, but I think it does her no favors now, while the investigation trickles out to the public during primary season. Do Republicans agree? I don't know, but I don't see them expressing concern with it from the same place I am.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:40 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
My wild speculation is that Obama and Clinton made an agreement that he not appoint anyone until she left office, but I think it does her no favors now, while the investigation trickles out to the public during primary season. Do Republicans agree? I don't know, but I don't see them expressing concern with it from the same place I am.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 10:40 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Bernie (or any of the Repubs) had a private email server for official business we could talk double standards.
Are you saying that the only grounds for a double standard are about the email server? That seems awfully narrow.
posted by OmieWise at 10:41 AM on February 18, 2016
Are you saying that the only grounds for a double standard are about the email server? That seems awfully narrow.
posted by OmieWise at 10:41 AM on February 18, 2016
This involves Clinton, so this is obviously tricky, but do you actually have anything concrete here?
posted by Artw at 10:45 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:45 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
What possible good can it do for Trump to fight with the Pope? Perhaps it'll win him some points with anti-Catholic Protestants, and of course, he's already lost most of the Latino vote so he has nothing to lose there. But does he really think alienating Catholics is a good idea for the general?
Latinos. Muslims. Veterans. Papists. How many demographic groups can the man conceivably piss off and still expect to win the election?
posted by zarq at 10:46 AM on February 18, 2016
Latinos. Muslims. Veterans. Papists. How many demographic groups can the man conceivably piss off and still expect to win the election?
posted by zarq at 10:46 AM on February 18, 2016
Trump is doing plenty of actual unchristian bullshit.
Anything from the New Testament? I'm pretty sure that's all mainstream Christianity really cares about now, unless they need an Old Testament club to beat someone with.
posted by rhizome at 10:47 AM on February 18, 2016
Anything from the New Testament? I'm pretty sure that's all mainstream Christianity really cares about now, unless they need an Old Testament club to beat someone with.
posted by rhizome at 10:47 AM on February 18, 2016
What possible good can it do for Trump to fight with the Pope?
Well, as far as I can remember this is the first time since Sinead O'Connor on SNL that I've heard of any prominent person insulting the Pope, much less in direct dialogue!
posted by rhizome at 10:49 AM on February 18, 2016
Well, as far as I can remember this is the first time since Sinead O'Connor on SNL that I've heard of any prominent person insulting the Pope, much less in direct dialogue!
posted by rhizome at 10:49 AM on February 18, 2016
Trump's strategy of no-strategy has yet to fail him, so who knows? Maybe this will work out?
posted by Artw at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by Artw at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2016
I'm bothered by Obama at least as much as Clinton regarding the email server issue because he didn't appoint anyone to State Dept IG until a month after she left the SoS position. If there was a functioning inspector general appointed when Democrats had control of congress, the concerns of impropriety could have been vetted back when the practices were occurring.
The lack of a Senate-confirmed DoS IG is a red herring. There was an Acting IG for the entirety of Clinton's tenure at State (and he started in that capacity in June 2008, because Bush hadn't bothered appointing a new one either). It's not like calls to the IG just rang off the hook for five years.
posted by Etrigan at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2016
The lack of a Senate-confirmed DoS IG is a red herring. There was an Acting IG for the entirety of Clinton's tenure at State (and he started in that capacity in June 2008, because Bush hadn't bothered appointing a new one either). It's not like calls to the IG just rang off the hook for five years.
posted by Etrigan at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2016
What possible good can it do for Trump to fight with the Pope? Perhaps it'll win him some points with anti-Catholic Protestants, and of course, he's already lost most of the Latino vote so he has nothing to lose there. But does he really think alienating Catholics is a good idea for the general?
Especially after the town hall with Rubio, Cruz and Carson last night, I don't understand why Rubio isn't running away with this thing. He's Catholic, has less scandal than Cruz, seems younger even though he's not, and without Christie reminding us of how rehearsed and fake he is, he comes across as pretty human, family loving etc. I think he did well on a variety of topics last night, while Cruz just came in with a huge chip on his shoulder, about Trump and everyone .
I wonder what would be happening without Trump in this.
posted by zutalors! at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Especially after the town hall with Rubio, Cruz and Carson last night, I don't understand why Rubio isn't running away with this thing. He's Catholic, has less scandal than Cruz, seems younger even though he's not, and without Christie reminding us of how rehearsed and fake he is, he comes across as pretty human, family loving etc. I think he did well on a variety of topics last night, while Cruz just came in with a huge chip on his shoulder, about Trump and everyone .
I wonder what would be happening without Trump in this.
posted by zutalors! at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are you saying that the only grounds for a double standard are about the email server? That seems awfully narrow.
Or something similarly cavalier about avoiding accountability. I'll take that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:52 AM on February 18, 2016
Or something similarly cavalier about avoiding accountability. I'll take that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:52 AM on February 18, 2016
Oh, Rubio... Are we due another round of articles about how third place is secret winner?
posted by Artw at 10:53 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:53 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
But he's got Marcomentum!
posted by dialetheia at 10:54 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:54 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm saying that citing the mere existence of walls around the Vatican as proof of anything remotely to do with immigration or Christianity is bonkers.
Right, my point is walls are neutral. They are built to keep people out. There are plenty of good reasons to want to keep people out. The Vatican had some so they built a wall. Some Americans want one to enforce immigration law. Enforcing immigration law is not unchristian. Being Christian does not mean you allow anybody free access to a place you want to protect.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:56 AM on February 18, 2016
Right, my point is walls are neutral. They are built to keep people out. There are plenty of good reasons to want to keep people out. The Vatican had some so they built a wall. Some Americans want one to enforce immigration law. Enforcing immigration law is not unchristian. Being Christian does not mean you allow anybody free access to a place you want to protect.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:56 AM on February 18, 2016
The walls around the Vatican were built in the 1500's, to keep out soldiers with weapons and stuff.
cf: fighting with the pig. both get dirty. pig likes it. etc.
posted by Trochanter at 11:01 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
cf: fighting with the pig. both get dirty. pig likes it. etc.
posted by Trochanter at 11:01 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, and the wall on the border is meant to keep out illegal immigrants. Why does that make the wall unchristian?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:08 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 11:08 AM on February 18, 2016
Donald Trump calls Pope Francis 'disgraceful'
!!!!!
You can't make this stuff up.
posted by Lyme Drop at 11:09 AM on February 18, 2016
!!!!!
You can't make this stuff up.
posted by Lyme Drop at 11:09 AM on February 18, 2016
Trump has it on good authority from very smart people, the best, most knowledgeable people, that terrorists with voulge-guisarmes are crossing the Mexican border all the time
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:09 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:09 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ted Cruz is already running against the Clintons.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:10 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:10 AM on February 18, 2016
1. Rejecting illegal immigration in favor of an organized legal immigration system is not unchristian.
Sure it is; it doesn't love your neighbor as yourself.
If you mean just "Empirically, this is something that overwhelmingly Christian peoples do," then sure, but at that point systematically exterminating your neighbors just because you want their stuff isn't unchristian.
Yeah none of that comes within miles of saying it's unchristian to have, like every nation on Earth, immigration laws.
Lots of things that every nation on Earth does are unchristian. Hell, lots of things that every single human being on Earth does are unchristian. That's kind of the point.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:11 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sure it is; it doesn't love your neighbor as yourself.
If you mean just "Empirically, this is something that overwhelmingly Christian peoples do," then sure, but at that point systematically exterminating your neighbors just because you want their stuff isn't unchristian.
Yeah none of that comes within miles of saying it's unchristian to have, like every nation on Earth, immigration laws.
Lots of things that every nation on Earth does are unchristian. Hell, lots of things that every single human being on Earth does are unchristian. That's kind of the point.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:11 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
But he's got Marcomentum!
Manuel Roig-Franzia: Rubio secured a spot on a 9/11 committee. Then he skipped many of the meetings.
Manuel Roig-Franzia: Rubio secured a spot on a 9/11 committee. Then he skipped many of the meetings.
Rubio’s role on the panel foreshadowed many of the traits that he has been criticized for during his rise to the top tier of the Republican presidential field. The first-term U.S. senator, who has missed more votes than any of his colleagues, has been attacked by some of his rivals for not doing his job. At a debate in October, former Florida governor Jeb Bush charged: “You should be showing up for work.”posted by zombieflanders at 11:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
And Rubio’s positions on the student tracking proposal followed the same arc as his high-profile role on immigration reform in the U.S. Senate. In both cases, he initially took on his colleagues in favor of immigrant rights, only to publicly wrestle with the issue, then pull back.
Trochanter:
* Pope is in Mexico and someone paraphrases Trump's position about a wall to the Pope and asks for comment. We don't even know exactly what the Pope was responding to.
* Pope says, "That sounds unChristian, talking about building walls instead of bridges. But I don't know exactly what he said so I'll hold off judgement for now."
* Media goes, "Oooohhhhhh shiiiiiiit! The Pope just dissed the Trump!"
* Trump responds (because he has to respond to any slight real or imagined), "The Pope is a stupid loser. My wall will be so beautiful. Jesus will love it."
And here we are.
posted by charred husk at 11:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
"cf: fighting with the pig. both get dirty. pig likes it. etc."Far as I can tell, the Vatican isn't even fighting. It seems to have gone something like this:
* Pope is in Mexico and someone paraphrases Trump's position about a wall to the Pope and asks for comment. We don't even know exactly what the Pope was responding to.
* Pope says, "That sounds unChristian, talking about building walls instead of bridges. But I don't know exactly what he said so I'll hold off judgement for now."
* Media goes, "Oooohhhhhh shiiiiiiit! The Pope just dissed the Trump!"
* Trump responds (because he has to respond to any slight real or imagined), "The Pope is a stupid loser. My wall will be so beautiful. Jesus will love it."
And here we are.
posted by charred husk at 11:12 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
The first-term U.S. senator, who has missed more votes than any of his colleagues, has been attacked by some of his rivals for not doing his job
Fortuitous timing on the Scallia thing?
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2016
Fortuitous timing on the Scallia thing?
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2016
Come on guys, surely we can all agree that a wall is un-Christian, but a fence is just good politics!
posted by dialetheia at 11:17 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 11:17 AM on February 18, 2016
Yes, and the wall on the border is meant to keep out illegal immigrants. Why does that make the wall unchristian?
I've always thought of the wall as a typically stupid, topsy turvy way of dealing with illegal immigration. Who's hiring these people? Go after them.
posted by Trochanter at 11:19 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've always thought of the wall as a typically stupid, topsy turvy way of dealing with illegal immigration. Who's hiring these people? Go after them.
posted by Trochanter at 11:19 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
They could just say that good fences make good neighbors, if it was about being a good neighbor and not about xenophobia.
posted by rhizome at 11:20 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by rhizome at 11:20 AM on February 18, 2016
I'm concerned about the emails because a) I believe in public records law and FOIA
This might be what people mean about repeating Republican talking points. Clinton has been fully compliant with the public record laws and the FOIA. In fact, she has probably been more compliant than any politician in history. Where are the Colin Powell emails? Where are the Condi Rice emails? For that matter, where are the George Bush and Karl Rove emails?
All the records required by law have been retained by the State Department. All the emails pertaining to FOIA are released or in the process. This is just a Republican talking point like BENGHAZI!
Stick to the policy issues, and there certainly are plenty, not the high school lunchroom gossip.
posted by JackFlash at 11:22 AM on February 18, 2016
This might be what people mean about repeating Republican talking points. Clinton has been fully compliant with the public record laws and the FOIA. In fact, she has probably been more compliant than any politician in history. Where are the Colin Powell emails? Where are the Condi Rice emails? For that matter, where are the George Bush and Karl Rove emails?
All the records required by law have been retained by the State Department. All the emails pertaining to FOIA are released or in the process. This is just a Republican talking point like BENGHAZI!
Stick to the policy issues, and there certainly are plenty, not the high school lunchroom gossip.
posted by JackFlash at 11:22 AM on February 18, 2016
1. Rejecting illegal immigration in favor of an organized legal immigration system is not unchristian.
Sure it is; it doesn't love your neighbor as yourself.
Christianity does not require you to let any random person who shows up on your doorstep come live in your house. That isn't how loving your neighbor works.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:23 AM on February 18, 2016
Sure it is; it doesn't love your neighbor as yourself.
Christianity does not require you to let any random person who shows up on your doorstep come live in your house. That isn't how loving your neighbor works.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:23 AM on February 18, 2016
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump added.Oh.My.Fucking.God.
And I can't find ANYTHING about what the Pope was actually responding to. Everything is just, "POPE CALLS TRUMP UNCHRISTIAN". Though apparently Trump started this beef with an earlier interview because he didn't like Francis visiting a border town in Mexico.
posted by charred husk at 11:23 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Trump campaign is like when Humbert Humbert is driving through the stoplights at the end of Lolita, just totally ngaf
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
1. Rejecting illegal immigration in favor of an organized legal immigration system is not unchristian.
When Christians criticize the Republican agenda on immigration reform, it's based on what Republicans already made illegal last year and promise to make illegal in future sessions. Saying it's about illegal immigration when Republicans are floating proposals similar to measures enacted by Germany in 1938 is something of a red herring.
Christian critics of Republican xenophobia argue that the Republican framing of First Amendment liberties and civil rights as applying only to Christian interdenominational conflict and permitting broad institutional discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation if given a biblical justification isn't in the example of Christ or the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Or at least that's what I've heard from the pulpit in the last year or so. I'm not a Christian so I don't really have a theological horse in this race. But I'm not a Christian so I have a big fucking legal objection to any proposal that would put my private freedom of conscience on an ID card for the purpose of legal, institutional, or private discrimination.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
When Christians criticize the Republican agenda on immigration reform, it's based on what Republicans already made illegal last year and promise to make illegal in future sessions. Saying it's about illegal immigration when Republicans are floating proposals similar to measures enacted by Germany in 1938 is something of a red herring.
Christian critics of Republican xenophobia argue that the Republican framing of First Amendment liberties and civil rights as applying only to Christian interdenominational conflict and permitting broad institutional discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation if given a biblical justification isn't in the example of Christ or the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Or at least that's what I've heard from the pulpit in the last year or so. I'm not a Christian so I don't really have a theological horse in this race. But I'm not a Christian so I have a big fucking legal objection to any proposal that would put my private freedom of conscience on an ID card for the purpose of legal, institutional, or private discrimination.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm concerned about the emails because a) I believe in public records law and FOIA
This might be what people mean about repeating Republican talking points. Clinton has been fully compliant with the public record laws and the FOIA.
How do we know that when her server was in her private possession?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:26 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This might be what people mean about repeating Republican talking points. Clinton has been fully compliant with the public record laws and the FOIA.
How do we know that when her server was in her private possession?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:26 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> But there is absolutely a double standard Clinton is being held to, which is shitty, and it is really tiresome being treated like those of us who have expressed a preference for Clinton for practical or tactical purposes just need to be browbeaten a little more until the scales fall off our eyes and we realize that if we just hop on the Sanders bandwagon everything is just gonna totally finally work out wonderfully for progressives this time.
This really goes both ways. Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate? It's tiresome you keep demanding we support a candidate we feel is bought and paid for by special interests. Ilf only we would vote for Hillary we could go back to the good old days of when her husband was president and she'll actually care about the poor and minorities because this time it's different!
posted by cjorgensen at 11:29 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
This really goes both ways. Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate? It's tiresome you keep demanding we support a candidate we feel is bought and paid for by special interests. Ilf only we would vote for Hillary we could go back to the good old days of when her husband was president and she'll actually care about the poor and minorities because this time it's different!
posted by cjorgensen at 11:29 AM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clinton has been fully compliant with the public record laws and the FOIA
Then, again, what are the FBI and State dept investigating, exactly? We won't even know this until the investigation is finished. And I still disagree - it's sketchy and evasive on its face to keep a private email server, period, and that Condi Rice did it too is a crappy excuse. I believe in transparent government and neither party should be able to do this. We don't have to go over all this again - we've already had this argument in this thread - but I think it's really unfair and short-sighted to handwave the entire thing as a Republican talking point when she's being actively investigated and this could have huge impacts on her electability, if nothing else.
If she had a single good reason for keeping a private server, maybe it would be different. I don't think it is going to work in the general to just handwave the whole thing as a Republican talking point, though - it's already hurting her with even Democratic voters, which you can see in e.g. the New Hampshire exit polls where fewer than half of Democratic voters found her to be trustworthy. Feel free to castigate them all as buying Republican talking points, but it's not just Republicans who are concerned about her transparency here.
posted by dialetheia at 11:33 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Then, again, what are the FBI and State dept investigating, exactly? We won't even know this until the investigation is finished. And I still disagree - it's sketchy and evasive on its face to keep a private email server, period, and that Condi Rice did it too is a crappy excuse. I believe in transparent government and neither party should be able to do this. We don't have to go over all this again - we've already had this argument in this thread - but I think it's really unfair and short-sighted to handwave the entire thing as a Republican talking point when she's being actively investigated and this could have huge impacts on her electability, if nothing else.
If she had a single good reason for keeping a private server, maybe it would be different. I don't think it is going to work in the general to just handwave the whole thing as a Republican talking point, though - it's already hurting her with even Democratic voters, which you can see in e.g. the New Hampshire exit polls where fewer than half of Democratic voters found her to be trustworthy. Feel free to castigate them all as buying Republican talking points, but it's not just Republicans who are concerned about her transparency here.
posted by dialetheia at 11:33 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Defending Clinton isn't the same thing as demanding support for Clinton.
It's sort of become that, though. In a kind of "why don't you like her" way.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:34 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's sort of become that, though. In a kind of "why don't you like her" way.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:34 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
How do we know that when her server was in her private possession?
The same way you know for virtually any employee of the government. You trust them to be compliant with record keeping laws. Every piece of paper that passes through a government employee's hands goes in two piles -- one is for record keeping if it pertains to government business, the other does not pertain to record keeping requirements and goes to the shredder. Thousands of government employees make these decisions every day. Do you distrust all of them?
posted by JackFlash at 11:35 AM on February 18, 2016
The same way you know for virtually any employee of the government. You trust them to be compliant with record keeping laws. Every piece of paper that passes through a government employee's hands goes in two piles -- one is for record keeping if it pertains to government business, the other does not pertain to record keeping requirements and goes to the shredder. Thousands of government employees make these decisions every day. Do you distrust all of them?
posted by JackFlash at 11:35 AM on February 18, 2016
If they shipped all their papers off to a private vault in their house? Yes.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to mention liberal immigration reforms that would streamline citizenship for undocumented immigrants and provide asylum to more than a handful of refugees would also be legal. It's very much of question of what form of immigration reform we want to have.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2016
Every piece of paper that passes through a government employee's hands goes in two piles
And in almost no cases is one of them "my private server."
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2016
And in almost no cases is one of them "my private server."
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2016
These are basically Republican talking points. I'm just surprised they left out mention of secretly busing in the homeless to vote for Bernie.
Shaming and guilting didn't work to attract voters so now they are trying to delegitimize Sanders supporters. It's pretty obvious now that the Sanders campaign always believed he could win and the Clinton campaign believed she couldn't lose.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Shaming and guilting didn't work to attract voters so now they are trying to delegitimize Sanders supporters. It's pretty obvious now that the Sanders campaign always believed he could win and the Clinton campaign believed she couldn't lose.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's tiresome you keep demanding we support a candidate we feel is bought and paid for by special interests.
I literally said in the post you're quoting that I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Sanders in the primary.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I literally said in the post you're quoting that I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Sanders in the primary.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate? It's tiresome you keep demanding we support a candidate we feel is bought and paid for by special interests.
From dialetheia's Capehart link:
From dialetheia's Capehart link:
They’re all missing the point. When you hear Sanders supporters insist that they won’t vote for her when the time comes, don’t make the mistake of thinking these people are naive, or spiteful, or ignorant of the consequences. It’s a simple case of feeling disenfranchised, and refusing to participate in a corrupt system that screws you with one hand and expects your support with the other. It’s too insulting—too utterly demeaning—to play along.posted by Trochanter at 11:40 AM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
No doubt we'll see the usual responses that American conservatives are more Catholic than the Pope so what does the Pope really know about Christianity.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:41 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:41 AM on February 18, 2016
No doubt we'll see the usual responses that American conservatives are more Catholic than the Pope so what does the Pope really know about Christianity.
Or the evangelical response that Catholics aren't Christian.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:44 AM on February 18, 2016
Or the evangelical response that Catholics aren't Christian.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:44 AM on February 18, 2016
> Defending Clinton isn't the same thing as demanding support for Clinton.
No, but the you have to think of the SCOTUS! and the world will end if the GOP gets the presidency arguments are pretty much a demand. There have been other comments along these lines as well.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:46 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, but the you have to think of the SCOTUS! and the world will end if the GOP gets the presidency arguments are pretty much a demand. There have been other comments along these lines as well.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:46 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've always thought of the wall as a typically stupid, topsy turvy way of dealing with illegal immigration. Who's hiring these people? Go after them.
Well that would be anti-business.
But yeah, that's always been the sensible action if you really want to do anything about this. But the people who flog this racist horse don't really want to do anything about undocumented immigrant presence because they don't want to pay what it really costs to harvest vegetables and do other tasks native citizens don't want to do/businesses don't want to pay enough to do.
During the W Bush administration the enforcements against businesses employing folks without permission to work actually decreased, and hire validation efforts were constantly undermined as being anti-business/too much like regulation. It's a transparent hypocrisy given the willingness to pass legislation preventing undocumented folk from getting emergency care (talk about christian values right there) and other services. But I guess when it's preventing the needy from getting something - even if they're paying into the tax system at a higher rate since they can't file for their deserved returns (when they're working under fake SSNs) - it's okay, but preventing a business owner from screwing someone over is a big NOPE.
posted by phearlez at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well that would be anti-business.
But yeah, that's always been the sensible action if you really want to do anything about this. But the people who flog this racist horse don't really want to do anything about undocumented immigrant presence because they don't want to pay what it really costs to harvest vegetables and do other tasks native citizens don't want to do/businesses don't want to pay enough to do.
During the W Bush administration the enforcements against businesses employing folks without permission to work actually decreased, and hire validation efforts were constantly undermined as being anti-business/too much like regulation. It's a transparent hypocrisy given the willingness to pass legislation preventing undocumented folk from getting emergency care (talk about christian values right there) and other services. But I guess when it's preventing the needy from getting something - even if they're paying into the tax system at a higher rate since they can't file for their deserved returns (when they're working under fake SSNs) - it's okay, but preventing a business owner from screwing someone over is a big NOPE.
posted by phearlez at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I literally said in the post you're quoting that I'm not trying to talk anyone out of voting for Sanders in the primary.
Right, and I was just pointing out your further criticism goes both ways.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2016
Right, and I was just pointing out your further criticism goes both ways.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2016
Well, when people in here start saying Sanders is a terrible person and a joke and it's immoral to vote for him in the general, we can do the whole tables-are-turned thing.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:51 AM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
phearlez, that's very much my point. And further, illegal immigration goes another step: It's not just hiring an illegal, it's saying "Fifteen dollars an hour! Why should I pay you that, when I can get an illegal mexican to do it for $6.00."
posted by Trochanter at 11:53 AM on February 18, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 11:53 AM on February 18, 2016
> Well, many repubs have, not that you'd know it.
Prior Republican Secretaries of State did indeed have person email that they used to conduct business with. My questions here would be:
1. Did they actually have a server?
2. Were the FOIA laws the same then?
3. Were the archive laws the same?
Keeping a box patched and secure isn't something most lay people want to mess with.
Now, people get hung up on it being a server. A server is just a computer with some additional services enabled. The hardware might not even vary from what you are reading this site with right now (assuming non-mobile). People get hung up with it being in a private residence, but I am guessing Hillary has better security at her home than most data-centers. So then it's only a matter of proving the box was maintained and uncompromised.
Rather than email people should be asking for access logs. Who had access to the server. Was remote administration enabled? What kind of firewall did she use? Was VPN access required? Where were the backups stored? Was the data encrypted?
At the end of the day, to me, it comes down to three real questions:
1. What was the purpose of having it?
2. Did she conduct business on it?
3. Was there classified material on there?
You can make up your own mind, but I have a hard time coming up with a reason why she would need it unless she was trying to circumvent rules. I mean, I have a personal server in my basement. I also run email on it, but I keep my work and personal email separate. I'd be fired it it was shown I was somehow using this box to circumvent work policy (my work does require work email to be on work accounts).
But even if you want to give her a pass on everything above and say, "She did nothing wrong!" you have to at least say it was a predictably stupid move. "Other politicians did this too!" isn't the best defense in the world. The same people that were pissed about Palin having a hotmail account are the same people that seem to want to give Hillary a pass. It's not a matter of hindsight here. It a matter of total obliviousness to how this would look. "Hey, I am thinking of running for president. Think people will have a problem with me running private server in my house?" Nah, go right ahead. "Hey, I think I might want to run for president someday, think giving speeches to Goldman Sachs at the cost of $675,000 will look bad?" Nah, go right ahead. It's like one of those cartoons where the person has an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, but man, she somehow got two stupid devils.
> You trust them to be compliant with record keeping laws.
Can I see the patch logs on that box? Can I see the what services were running on it? Can I get the records for who were admins? Can I get a history of who accessed it when?
You are talking about a candidate who has said she doesn't know what wiping a drive means, and said she believes the government needs to break encryption. I wouldn't hire her to be a student IT worker, let alone think she should be in charge of her own server that she admittedly conducted government business on.
Personally, I think the email thing is a big deal, even aside from it being used to allegedly circumvent rules, or besides it containing classified material, mostly because no one knows if it was administered correctly! But I also don't think it should be what takes her down (and it won't sans an indictment). It's just another one in a long line of avoidable mistakes that make her look bad.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Prior Republican Secretaries of State did indeed have person email that they used to conduct business with. My questions here would be:
1. Did they actually have a server?
2. Were the FOIA laws the same then?
3. Were the archive laws the same?
Keeping a box patched and secure isn't something most lay people want to mess with.
Now, people get hung up on it being a server. A server is just a computer with some additional services enabled. The hardware might not even vary from what you are reading this site with right now (assuming non-mobile). People get hung up with it being in a private residence, but I am guessing Hillary has better security at her home than most data-centers. So then it's only a matter of proving the box was maintained and uncompromised.
Rather than email people should be asking for access logs. Who had access to the server. Was remote administration enabled? What kind of firewall did she use? Was VPN access required? Where were the backups stored? Was the data encrypted?
At the end of the day, to me, it comes down to three real questions:
1. What was the purpose of having it?
2. Did she conduct business on it?
3. Was there classified material on there?
You can make up your own mind, but I have a hard time coming up with a reason why she would need it unless she was trying to circumvent rules. I mean, I have a personal server in my basement. I also run email on it, but I keep my work and personal email separate. I'd be fired it it was shown I was somehow using this box to circumvent work policy (my work does require work email to be on work accounts).
But even if you want to give her a pass on everything above and say, "She did nothing wrong!" you have to at least say it was a predictably stupid move. "Other politicians did this too!" isn't the best defense in the world. The same people that were pissed about Palin having a hotmail account are the same people that seem to want to give Hillary a pass. It's not a matter of hindsight here. It a matter of total obliviousness to how this would look. "Hey, I am thinking of running for president. Think people will have a problem with me running private server in my house?" Nah, go right ahead. "Hey, I think I might want to run for president someday, think giving speeches to Goldman Sachs at the cost of $675,000 will look bad?" Nah, go right ahead. It's like one of those cartoons where the person has an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, but man, she somehow got two stupid devils.
> You trust them to be compliant with record keeping laws.
Can I see the patch logs on that box? Can I see the what services were running on it? Can I get the records for who were admins? Can I get a history of who accessed it when?
You are talking about a candidate who has said she doesn't know what wiping a drive means, and said she believes the government needs to break encryption. I wouldn't hire her to be a student IT worker, let alone think she should be in charge of her own server that she admittedly conducted government business on.
Personally, I think the email thing is a big deal, even aside from it being used to allegedly circumvent rules, or besides it containing classified material, mostly because no one knows if it was administered correctly! But I also don't think it should be what takes her down (and it won't sans an indictment). It's just another one in a long line of avoidable mistakes that make her look bad.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why Bernie can win: "Not only has Sanders emerged as a serious threat to capture the nomination — his victory in New Hampshire was the largest in primary history — but his impact on the shape of the campaign has been almost the opposite of what experts imagined."
posted by dialetheia at 12:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, but the you have to think of the SCOTUS! and the world will end if the GOP gets the presidency arguments are pretty much a demand.
For proof of this look no further than the initial "Hillary Declares" post, when she was the presumptive nominee. dialethia brought this up a few days ago and pointed out how Hillary's support was always lackluster and hung mostly on SCOTUS. But anyone in that thread who talked about voting for anyone other than Hillary, or not voting at all, got jumped on. I was one of the people doing the jumping.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
For proof of this look no further than the initial "Hillary Declares" post, when she was the presumptive nominee. dialethia brought this up a few days ago and pointed out how Hillary's support was always lackluster and hung mostly on SCOTUS. But anyone in that thread who talked about voting for anyone other than Hillary, or not voting at all, got jumped on. I was one of the people doing the jumping.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also that thread is an episode of Bad Prognosticating Theatre.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 12:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
WaPo: As Republicans salivate over a possible Rubio-Haley ticket, a word of caution
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on February 18, 2016
You think the bigotry and misogyny are bad now. I can't imagine what it would be like with Rubio-Haley. They way she's been treated in the past has been sickening.
Example.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:10 PM on February 18, 2016
Example.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:10 PM on February 18, 2016
I've always thought of the wall as a typically stupid, topsy turvy way of dealing with illegal immigration. Who's hiring these people? Go after them.
Surrre. You can't - they're all big political donors. Or what phearlez said.
Seriously - the art of Republican immigration reform is looking like you're trying desperately to do something about illegal immigration while doing actually nothing about illegal immigration. Can't. The entire price structure of our economy is built on their low-cost labor.
Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate?
You don't have to. Never do you have to, but especially not in the primary. But if they were in our shoes, in the general. Republicans would. Their base will vote for Trump if he gets the nomination. And that's how they retain their power to set the agenda, their power to obstruct. The left repeatedly gives up its power by not acting together.
posted by Miko at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Surrre. You can't - they're all big political donors. Or what phearlez said.
Seriously - the art of Republican immigration reform is looking like you're trying desperately to do something about illegal immigration while doing actually nothing about illegal immigration. Can't. The entire price structure of our economy is built on their low-cost labor.
Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate?
You don't have to. Never do you have to, but especially not in the primary. But if they were in our shoes, in the general. Republicans would. Their base will vote for Trump if he gets the nomination. And that's how they retain their power to set the agenda, their power to obstruct. The left repeatedly gives up its power by not acting together.
posted by Miko at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
cjorgensen, my question is where do the right wing, conservative bigots GO if the choice is between Rubio/Haley and say Clinton/insert name here?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:12 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:12 PM on February 18, 2016
Oh dear baby jesus. I step away from Metafilter for just a few short hours and Donald Trump's campaign picks a theological fight with Pope Francis.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Their base will vote for Trump if he gets the nomination.
cite?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2016
cite?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2016
Gerald Friedman, the economist who's prediction of 5.3% GDP growth under Sanders' proposals has been skewered by former presidential economic advisors, responds.
posted by Trochanter at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 12:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
cite?
Not needed. They'll vote for whomever gets the nomination.
posted by Miko at 12:17 PM on February 18, 2016
Not needed. They'll vote for whomever gets the nomination.
posted by Miko at 12:17 PM on February 18, 2016
The left has had ~95% loyalty to Democrats at ~15% of the total electorate for the last 25 years. This is more consistent than moderates who define the winner by their swings, and conservatives who radicalized in Tea Party-driven midterms.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
The left repeatedly gives up its power by not acting together.
["Solidarity Forever" plays over a montage of destruction in Libya]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
["Solidarity Forever" plays over a montage of destruction in Libya]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course it's more consistent than moderates. The Tea Party is the closest the GOP coalition has come to breaking, but it hasn't broken yet.
posted by Miko at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by Miko at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2016
Not only will I vote so hard for Rubio/Haley, the mere possibility of it is tempting me to attend my state's Republican caucuses.
posted by corb at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
"moderates" as a voting bloc don't even really exist - there's nothing moderate about swing voters. They're a chaotic bunch and skew all over the map. They can't be said to have an ideology, and though they end up deciding most elections, they don't belong to a base and totally don't get political strategy, so they're not who I'm talking about.
posted by Miko at 12:21 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by Miko at 12:21 PM on February 18, 2016
Is Rubio your top choice out of these candidates or is that more about Haley? Or just love the combo of both?
posted by Drinky Die at 12:21 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 12:21 PM on February 18, 2016
RUBILEY
HABIO
yeah, they mash up good.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
HABIO
yeah, they mash up good.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's more about the long-term battle for the soul of the Republican Party. I believe that we can have conservative economic ideas without racism, and not just for their own ethnicity, but for their positions on the ethnicity of others, they are our best hope for it.
posted by corb at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regarding the server and FOIA - A private server doesn't need to comply with FOIA because it's not a government server. Doesn't matter if it's used by a government employee "accidentally" - It's not official government record. FOIA can only be invoked on the government side, that may have records of sending to or receiving from said server.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2016
The main tenet of Bernienomics seems to be collecting my donations and then NOT SENDING MY DAMN BUMPER STICKERS!!!!!
It looks like Gerald Friedman's wife got hers:
Then I testified about my work in front of the Senate, and that’s the one time I met him. I took on this analysis on my own, and reached out to the campaign to make sure I had my numbers right. I wasn’t paid. The Bernie Sanders sticker on my wife’s car, she paid for. I’ve gotten nothing from the campaign, but Ben and Jerry’s are supposedly coming to town next week, so maybe I’ll get some ice cream.
posted by Trochanter at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
It looks like Gerald Friedman's wife got hers:
Then I testified about my work in front of the Senate, and that’s the one time I met him. I took on this analysis on my own, and reached out to the campaign to make sure I had my numbers right. I wasn’t paid. The Bernie Sanders sticker on my wife’s car, she paid for. I’ve gotten nothing from the campaign, but Ben and Jerry’s are supposedly coming to town next week, so maybe I’ll get some ice cream.
posted by Trochanter at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regarding the server and FOIA - A private server doesn't need to comply with FOIA because it's not a government server. Doesn't matter if it's used by a government employee "accidentally" - It's not official government record. FOIA can only be invoked on the government side, that may have records of sending to or receiving from said server.
That's 100% absolutely wrong. I'll show my work if you show yours.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's 100% absolutely wrong. I'll show my work if you show yours.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Right, exactly - it was an attempt to circumvent FOIA so that her emails would not be subject to those transparency laws. Her argument is that all of the relevant emails went to people with government addresses and therefore nothing was really circumvented - but again, I assume that's one of the claims that the FBI is currently investigating.
posted by dialetheia at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 12:28 PM on February 18, 2016
Doesn't matter if it's used by a government employee "accidentally"
It does. At least one government official got zinged when a reporter learned of his "off the record" server.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:31 PM on February 18, 2016
It does. At least one government official got zinged when a reporter learned of his "off the record" server.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:31 PM on February 18, 2016
Of course it's more consistent than moderates. The Tea Party is the closest the GOP coalition has come to breaking, but it hasn't broken yet.
I'm pointing out that the non-voting liberal is largely a divisive myth, or more properly, a feature of internet echo chambers to magnify marginal voices. And significant numbers of conservatives did vote for Clinton and Obama.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:33 PM on February 18, 2016
I'm pointing out that the non-voting liberal is largely a divisive myth, or more properly, a feature of internet echo chambers to magnify marginal voices. And significant numbers of conservatives did vote for Clinton and Obama.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:33 PM on February 18, 2016
A private server doesn't need to comply with FOIA because it's not a government server ... it was an attempt to circumvent FOIA so that her emails would not be subject to those transparency laws.
This is incorrect. The FOIA does not apply to servers. It applies to official documents subject to record keeping laws. The medium or the location does not matter. Clinton was subject to record keeping laws regardless of where a server was located or where paper documents were located. She complied with those laws by turning over all records to the State Department for archival, the same as any government employee is required to turn over official documents for archival.
posted by JackFlash at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2016
This is incorrect. The FOIA does not apply to servers. It applies to official documents subject to record keeping laws. The medium or the location does not matter. Clinton was subject to record keeping laws regardless of where a server was located or where paper documents were located. She complied with those laws by turning over all records to the State Department for archival, the same as any government employee is required to turn over official documents for archival.
posted by JackFlash at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2016
Oh, yeah, I also totally contest the idea that there's nothing "unChristian" about opposing illegal immigration. There certainly is, it's just that most Christians are, essentially by definition, bad Christians, and the requirement to love our neighbors as ourselves - along with those about giving away a coat if you have more than one, blessing the persecuted, etc. - is something most of us mostly fail to follow through on. The Pope's not off base here, and the problem of immigration is the subject of a lot of theological discussion; it is really very difficult to both claim a Christian-based moral framework, draw on Biblical texts, and defend limits on immigration with logical consistency (though, again, plenty of people who self-identify as Christian do it without bothering with consistency, or just don't think about these things that hard). The only way to do it really is to take the "render unto Ceasar" path, but that doesn't let you off the hook for aiding immigrants and making sure they aren't hungry, abused, separated from their families, unjustly imprisoned, etc. Some links, admittedly from the side of the discussion that favors liberalized policies:
Illegal Immigration: Seeking a Christian Perspective: "..as people who have a vision for the fruitfulness of each human being, we have no desire to maintain a social system that keeps people from flourishing....God is not more committed to the well-being of someone who lives in El Paso, Texas than he is to someone who lives right across the border in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. As Christians, we must share God’s concern for and commitment to all people, regardless of national origin."
United Church of Christ Statement on Immigration: ..."As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors. The Bible is unambiguous in calling us to welcome aliens and strangers in our land, and to love them as we love ourselves. In these times, let us listen to the voice of the still-speaking God. We will learn how to respond to these new sisters and brothers residing among us."
Locations of Biblical References to Immigration
Open Borders: Christian Views on Immigration - includes links to other essays
posted by Miko at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Illegal Immigration: Seeking a Christian Perspective: "..as people who have a vision for the fruitfulness of each human being, we have no desire to maintain a social system that keeps people from flourishing....God is not more committed to the well-being of someone who lives in El Paso, Texas than he is to someone who lives right across the border in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. As Christians, we must share God’s concern for and commitment to all people, regardless of national origin."
United Church of Christ Statement on Immigration: ..."As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors. The Bible is unambiguous in calling us to welcome aliens and strangers in our land, and to love them as we love ourselves. In these times, let us listen to the voice of the still-speaking God. We will learn how to respond to these new sisters and brothers residing among us."
Locations of Biblical References to Immigration
Open Borders: Christian Views on Immigration - includes links to other essays
posted by Miko at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
> That's 100% absolutely wrong. I'll show my work if you show yours.
Maybe you misunderstood me - I did type that poorly. ANYONE can invoke the FOIA to make a request. A privately run server would not be something that one could make an request of - The request must be officially made regarding information that falls under the scope of "federal government" (that's what I meant by "invoke" and I see how it reads poorly upon review.) The private server does not fall directly under that scope. I'll admit that there may be some way of considering it "federal government" I'm not aware of - My knowledge of scope within this is very limited, as I haven't had to officially work under FOIA on any side of it. But because it doesn't fall officially within the scope of federal government, it is my understanding that you can't really request anything of it. Even if I'm wrong there, there's absolutely no way to prove actual compliance or accountability.
I'm judging this solely on the work I've done with other forms of audit and compliance, my reading of the law, and what I've historically seen with the FOIA. But I admit I could be wrong, as I don't have the direct experience - and I'd love to know where I am wrong on this.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:41 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe you misunderstood me - I did type that poorly. ANYONE can invoke the FOIA to make a request. A privately run server would not be something that one could make an request of - The request must be officially made regarding information that falls under the scope of "federal government" (that's what I meant by "invoke" and I see how it reads poorly upon review.) The private server does not fall directly under that scope. I'll admit that there may be some way of considering it "federal government" I'm not aware of - My knowledge of scope within this is very limited, as I haven't had to officially work under FOIA on any side of it. But because it doesn't fall officially within the scope of federal government, it is my understanding that you can't really request anything of it. Even if I'm wrong there, there's absolutely no way to prove actual compliance or accountability.
I'm judging this solely on the work I've done with other forms of audit and compliance, my reading of the law, and what I've historically seen with the FOIA. But I admit I could be wrong, as I don't have the direct experience - and I'd love to know where I am wrong on this.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:41 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, reading about FOIA there's no exemption or exclusion for private own equipment.
I work with state employees and we tell them all the time that moving state data to a personal device does not exempt it from requests, nor does creating it on such a device.
I also worked for a newspaper and we'd FOIA anything we knew existed. We didn't give a shit if it was personally owned.
"The Legislature is free to take up the matter," McKay wrote, "but as the statutes are currently written, private e-mail accounts may be used to conduct state business, subject to the same laws and regulations related to preservation as e-mails originating from state servers."
posted by cjorgensen at 12:41 PM on February 18, 2016
I work with state employees and we tell them all the time that moving state data to a personal device does not exempt it from requests, nor does creating it on such a device.
I also worked for a newspaper and we'd FOIA anything we knew existed. We didn't give a shit if it was personally owned.
"The Legislature is free to take up the matter," McKay wrote, "but as the statutes are currently written, private e-mail accounts may be used to conduct state business, subject to the same laws and regulations related to preservation as e-mails originating from state servers."
posted by cjorgensen at 12:41 PM on February 18, 2016
the non-voting liberal is largely a divisive myth
Pew: Nonvoters more liberal on many issues
posted by Miko at 12:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pew: Nonvoters more liberal on many issues
posted by Miko at 12:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thank you all for correcting me on this - I'm honestly surprised by that. Generally compliance requires a form of accountability... In this particular case, both the compliance and the accountability seem more voluntary - Voluntary compliance is largely ineffective.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:44 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:44 PM on February 18, 2016
Has a Pope ever said anything about a presidential candidate before? That seems like some unprecedented shit. If the Pope rebuked me, you'd never see my face in public again, and I'm an atheist.
Also, is this thread going to just keep going until the Nevada caucuses? It makes my phone cry, and even Chrome on my Core i5 desktop is wincing a bit.
posted by dis_integration at 12:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, is this thread going to just keep going until the Nevada caucuses? It makes my phone cry, and even Chrome on my Core i5 desktop is wincing a bit.
posted by dis_integration at 12:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
A privately run server would not be something that one could make an request of - The request must be officially made regarding information that falls under the scope of "federal government"…
I did read you wrong. Ironically though this increases why this was the dumb devil speaking in her ear. The idea that no one will want to know this stuff, or that she didn't need to preserve it, or that perhaps she wasn't qualified to administer, etc. So yeah, you might have to make a case as to why the logs and such are of interest from a data point of view I think that burden would be easy to meet.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:46 PM on February 18, 2016
I did read you wrong. Ironically though this increases why this was the dumb devil speaking in her ear. The idea that no one will want to know this stuff, or that she didn't need to preserve it, or that perhaps she wasn't qualified to administer, etc. So yeah, you might have to make a case as to why the logs and such are of interest from a data point of view I think that burden would be easy to meet.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:46 PM on February 18, 2016
It's more about the long-term battle for the soul of the Republican Party. I believe that we can have conservative economic ideas without racism, and not just for their own ethnicity, but for their positions on the ethnicity of others, they are our best hope for it.
Putting aside for the moment that his economic ideas are cuckoo-pants, I don't believe it this is true, seeing as how it's well-known that economic stances like his will solidify if not exacerbate societal racism. And even if it was, he still exhibits horrible misogyny (no rape/incest exemptions for abortion), dangerous anti-LGBT policies and violence (reversal of SSM, restrictions or removal of basic civil rights), flat-out climate change denial ("I'm not a scientist, man"), naked Islamophobia (shut down anyplace Muslims gather to be "inspired"), and plenty of other really shitty stances.
Not being blatantly racist while continuing and in some cases regressing on already-horrific past GOP nominees stances that present obvious dangers to individual citizens as well as humanity as a whole doesn't speak well on the soul Republican Party, long-term or no.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Putting aside for the moment that his economic ideas are cuckoo-pants, I don't believe it this is true, seeing as how it's well-known that economic stances like his will solidify if not exacerbate societal racism. And even if it was, he still exhibits horrible misogyny (no rape/incest exemptions for abortion), dangerous anti-LGBT policies and violence (reversal of SSM, restrictions or removal of basic civil rights), flat-out climate change denial ("I'm not a scientist, man"), naked Islamophobia (shut down anyplace Muslims gather to be "inspired"), and plenty of other really shitty stances.
Not being blatantly racist while continuing and in some cases regressing on already-horrific past GOP nominees stances that present obvious dangers to individual citizens as well as humanity as a whole doesn't speak well on the soul Republican Party, long-term or no.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pew: Nonvoters more liberal on many issues
Okay, but that poll was from 2010. I'm not convinced its findings are still relevant in 2016.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2016
Okay, but that poll was from 2010. I'm not convinced its findings are still relevant in 2016.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2016
Pew: Nonvoters more liberal on many issues
If anything, this supports Sanders' case that part of our failure on the left, especially in midterms, has been running to please centrists instead of trying to expand the voting base of the party by getting those more-liberal nonvoters on board.
posted by dialetheia at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
If anything, this supports Sanders' case that part of our failure on the left, especially in midterms, has been running to please centrists instead of trying to expand the voting base of the party by getting those more-liberal nonvoters on board.
posted by dialetheia at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
ideas are cuckoo-pants
totally using that in the next argument with my wife as a soft, but strong, descriptor
"Oh yea, well the way you load the dishwasher is straight up cuckoo-pants!!!!"
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
totally using that in the next argument with my wife as a soft, but strong, descriptor
"Oh yea, well the way you load the dishwasher is straight up cuckoo-pants!!!!"
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, is this thread going to just keep going until the Nevada caucuses? It makes my phone cry, and even Chrome on my Core i5 desktop is wincing a bit.
There's a Town Hall tonight with the Ds. Maybe someone will make one for that. (Not it. I'm mid-post on something muchmore important fuzzier.)
posted by Room 641-A at 12:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a Town Hall tonight with the Ds. Maybe someone will make one for that. (Not it. I'm mid-post on something much
posted by Room 641-A at 12:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
People are confusing two separate issues regarding email:
1. Security of classified information
2. Record keeping requirements and the FOIA.
Try to keep them straight.
Regarding the first, Hilliary Clinton was not maintaining the server any more than Barack Obama maintains the White House server. Both hired professionals to do that. There is no evidence that the Clinton server was ever breached. On the other hand, there have been many documented breaches of both the State Department and even the White House servers. So of the evidence at hand, the Clinton server was more secure.
But this is irrelevant. No email system is assumed by government policy to be secure and no .GOV email account is approved for classified information. So it makes no difference for security whether email is kept on a .GOV server or a private server. Neither is approved for classified information. An email Clinton sent or received from her private server, if it contains retro-actively classified information, is no different than a .GOV account as to security.
And regarding the second issue, Clinton has complied with record keeping and FOIA requirements, more so than any other politician in history. And in fact, they have been able to extract information from the Clinton servers that has disappeared from the State Department servers, so in that sense it has benefited the FOIA.
posted by JackFlash at 12:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
1. Security of classified information
2. Record keeping requirements and the FOIA.
Try to keep them straight.
Regarding the first, Hilliary Clinton was not maintaining the server any more than Barack Obama maintains the White House server. Both hired professionals to do that. There is no evidence that the Clinton server was ever breached. On the other hand, there have been many documented breaches of both the State Department and even the White House servers. So of the evidence at hand, the Clinton server was more secure.
But this is irrelevant. No email system is assumed by government policy to be secure and no .GOV email account is approved for classified information. So it makes no difference for security whether email is kept on a .GOV server or a private server. Neither is approved for classified information. An email Clinton sent or received from her private server, if it contains retro-actively classified information, is no different than a .GOV account as to security.
And regarding the second issue, Clinton has complied with record keeping and FOIA requirements, more so than any other politician in history. And in fact, they have been able to extract information from the Clinton servers that has disappeared from the State Department servers, so in that sense it has benefited the FOIA.
posted by JackFlash at 12:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
getting those more-liberal nonvoters on board
Tough part is it's really a behavioral problem. I don't know that politicking, of any kind, can solve the phenomenon of nonvoting.
This is why Tammany Hall gave out chicken dinners. As does my parent's town's Republican association, by the way.
posted by Miko at 12:55 PM on February 18, 2016
Tough part is it's really a behavioral problem. I don't know that politicking, of any kind, can solve the phenomenon of nonvoting.
This is why Tammany Hall gave out chicken dinners. As does my parent's town's Republican association, by the way.
posted by Miko at 12:55 PM on February 18, 2016
There is no evidence that the Clinton server was ever breached. On the other hand, there have been many documented breaches of both the State Department and even the White House servers. So of the evidence at hand, the Clinton server was more secure.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Fascinating coverage of NH voter ID law right now on MSNBC. They are taking Polaroids of voters to compare them later on.
In related news: Students And Veterans Turned Away From The Polls Under Wisconsin’s New Voter ID Law
posted by homunculus at 1:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
In related news: Students And Veterans Turned Away From The Polls Under Wisconsin’s New Voter ID Law
posted by homunculus at 1:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also that thread is an episode of Bad Prognosticating Theatre.
I don't know about that, perusing that thread I see Drinky Die linked to The Onion At Its Best: Hillary Clinton To Nation: ‘Do Not Fuck This Up For Me’
And that's right up there with "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over..." for prescience...
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know about that, perusing that thread I see Drinky Die linked to The Onion At Its Best: Hillary Clinton To Nation: ‘Do Not Fuck This Up For Me’
And that's right up there with "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over..." for prescience...
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Miko:
Strike 1: Cut multiple sentence fragments out of context for dishonest framing.
Strike 2: A link to a study about an undereducated and disenfranchised group where only 13% have given much thought about an election says next to nothing about liberal voter discipline. (For that, you need to look at likely voters who don't vote.)
Strike 3: A link to an article about the failure of Democratic leadership in midterm elections says next to nothing about liberal voter discipline.
Strike 4: Behavioral problem? Really? 60% have no education beyond high school. 43% have a family income of under $30K. 51% household unemployment in the last 12 months. 21% Hispanic or Latino. Only %27 follow government affairs most of the time. That looks a lot like a class and race problem.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Strike 1: Cut multiple sentence fragments out of context for dishonest framing.
Strike 2: A link to a study about an undereducated and disenfranchised group where only 13% have given much thought about an election says next to nothing about liberal voter discipline. (For that, you need to look at likely voters who don't vote.)
Strike 3: A link to an article about the failure of Democratic leadership in midterm elections says next to nothing about liberal voter discipline.
Strike 4: Behavioral problem? Really? 60% have no education beyond high school. 43% have a family income of under $30K. 51% household unemployment in the last 12 months. 21% Hispanic or Latino. Only %27 follow government affairs most of the time. That looks a lot like a class and race problem.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's easy to prove interest, but there's almost no way to know if something controlled privately has actually complied with requests.
When it comes to personal devices, all bets are off as soon as you start accessing any server controlled by an organization... That much I'm quite aware of. It can be similar for a work device that is talking to a personal server, but there are very bizarre grey areas there, and the risks are lower than using personal devices for work. I'm more clear with how these grey areas are handled from other forms of compliance - This usually comes down to "don't let these things happen" which is realistic to a point, but isn't very feasible when the usage of cell phones and email/mobile messaging. Typically, that can be dealt with via controls and record keeping on the server side.
The situation of a personal device used with a personal server, though, even if it's on a work device, can be much more difficult. If everything happened in side channels, it's usually either not technically a compliance violation (usually more of a breach of ethics or other code) or it's something that would carry heavy penalties, and generally require evidence from something either company controlled, or from a warrant.
The way I really understood all of this, I actually thought that anything that was submit from her side was either more voluntary, or as part of another regulation or order outside of the FOIA itself. That would actually be going beyond the scope of the FOIA as I had understood it.
There's no way to know how "secure" her server was from an network perspective. I'm sure it was a high value target. Most of the security of it would be against search and seizure, since it operated in a guarded private residence and outside of the network view of anyone on the governance side. There's no evidence it was breached because there's no really great way to know if it was or not, as opposed to the fact that we at least know that the federal servers were breached. A breach of security is not uncommon on a high profile target like the federal government, and it isn't always obvious if you've been breached. Given the server was set up by a single person who had absolutely no formal regulations or rules to comply with regarding security, who really knows - but I would be very surprised if it was more robust than the federal government.
These are all technicalities. My concerns with this were her initial handling of it, where it was really said to be "not illegal" but really seemed dodgy and shady, and the fact that there are open State Department and FBI investigations regarding this server. If nothing comes of those, great. And perhaps nothing will.
But more than that, it's not about if she kept records, or if she sent classified material - it's that she intentionally operated as much as she did outside of any oversight whatsoever, in a way where determining if there has been any wrongdoing is complicated by the lack of accountability. This is the same person who wants encryption to be breakable, I might add.
There are other issues to discuss with Clinton from a policy perspective that overshadow this, but this is still potentially an issue that could cause harm. The delays have not been helping the case.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
When it comes to personal devices, all bets are off as soon as you start accessing any server controlled by an organization... That much I'm quite aware of. It can be similar for a work device that is talking to a personal server, but there are very bizarre grey areas there, and the risks are lower than using personal devices for work. I'm more clear with how these grey areas are handled from other forms of compliance - This usually comes down to "don't let these things happen" which is realistic to a point, but isn't very feasible when the usage of cell phones and email/mobile messaging. Typically, that can be dealt with via controls and record keeping on the server side.
The situation of a personal device used with a personal server, though, even if it's on a work device, can be much more difficult. If everything happened in side channels, it's usually either not technically a compliance violation (usually more of a breach of ethics or other code) or it's something that would carry heavy penalties, and generally require evidence from something either company controlled, or from a warrant.
The way I really understood all of this, I actually thought that anything that was submit from her side was either more voluntary, or as part of another regulation or order outside of the FOIA itself. That would actually be going beyond the scope of the FOIA as I had understood it.
There's no way to know how "secure" her server was from an network perspective. I'm sure it was a high value target. Most of the security of it would be against search and seizure, since it operated in a guarded private residence and outside of the network view of anyone on the governance side. There's no evidence it was breached because there's no really great way to know if it was or not, as opposed to the fact that we at least know that the federal servers were breached. A breach of security is not uncommon on a high profile target like the federal government, and it isn't always obvious if you've been breached. Given the server was set up by a single person who had absolutely no formal regulations or rules to comply with regarding security, who really knows - but I would be very surprised if it was more robust than the federal government.
These are all technicalities. My concerns with this were her initial handling of it, where it was really said to be "not illegal" but really seemed dodgy and shady, and the fact that there are open State Department and FBI investigations regarding this server. If nothing comes of those, great. And perhaps nothing will.
But more than that, it's not about if she kept records, or if she sent classified material - it's that she intentionally operated as much as she did outside of any oversight whatsoever, in a way where determining if there has been any wrongdoing is complicated by the lack of accountability. This is the same person who wants encryption to be breakable, I might add.
There are other issues to discuss with Clinton from a policy perspective that overshadow this, but this is still potentially an issue that could cause harm. The delays have not been helping the case.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
As for Clinton's motivation, she set up the sever for her own use even before Obama became President and long before she became Secretary of State. So she simply continued to use the email account she had always used for non-classified information.
posted by JackFlash at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by JackFlash at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2016
Tough part is it's really a behavioral problem. I don't know that politicking, of any kind, can solve the phenomenon of nonvoting.
Here's an amazing idea. Perhaps put more work into addressing class structure, racism, and economic policy than creating fairy stories about the next iteration of PUMA.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's an amazing idea. Perhaps put more work into addressing class structure, racism, and economic policy than creating fairy stories about the next iteration of PUMA.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Serious question about the wall - is there a meaningful difference between the wall Trump wants to build vs. the fence that even Clinton seems proud to have voted for repeatedly? I am against both, for the record, I just think it's strange to see such fierce criticism of a physical barrier at the border when even Clinton is still touting her support for a fence. The most horribly racist part of Trump's immigration policies has always seemed to be his support for mass deportation - the wall is just his way of turning the fence that even many Democrats have supported into a real estate/construction boondoggle for himself.
posted by dialetheia at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Try to keep them straight.
I don't think I am mixing them up.
I specifically avoided making a judgement on the classification of the data. Mostly because I don't care.
I also don't really much give a shit about FOIA pertaining to this box.
What I do care about was the idea that someone as technically inept as Hillary is was the one calling the shots on how it was run. It's fine to have a professional doing it (and if you don't know what you are doing you should). But having the person writing your checks not have even a basic understanding of basic server admin terminologies shows she had no business being in charge of a server.
But again, all the above aside, even if everything was fully maintained by a professional, and it was all benign data, and everything was all roses, you still haven't explained why she didn't realize it would look bad, and why she felt she needed to have it in the first place.
And to top it off you have no way to show this box had any kind of auditing controls whatsoever.
> As for Clinton's motivation, she set up the sever for her own use even before Obama became President and long before she became Secretary of State. So she simply continued to use the email account she had always used for non-classified information.
Sure, which is why I pointed out a server is only a computer with different services running on it. They're great. Everyone that wants one should have one. But if you are going to have one perhaps don't conduct government business on it or people are going to wonder why. Also, it doesn't take the brightest spark to realize that a lot of the email from a Secretary of State will eventually be classified.
She had resources available to her to use her .gov email. The woman wasn't without a photo of her BB in hand for like a decade.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think I am mixing them up.
I specifically avoided making a judgement on the classification of the data. Mostly because I don't care.
I also don't really much give a shit about FOIA pertaining to this box.
What I do care about was the idea that someone as technically inept as Hillary is was the one calling the shots on how it was run. It's fine to have a professional doing it (and if you don't know what you are doing you should). But having the person writing your checks not have even a basic understanding of basic server admin terminologies shows she had no business being in charge of a server.
But again, all the above aside, even if everything was fully maintained by a professional, and it was all benign data, and everything was all roses, you still haven't explained why she didn't realize it would look bad, and why she felt she needed to have it in the first place.
And to top it off you have no way to show this box had any kind of auditing controls whatsoever.
> As for Clinton's motivation, she set up the sever for her own use even before Obama became President and long before she became Secretary of State. So she simply continued to use the email account she had always used for non-classified information.
Sure, which is why I pointed out a server is only a computer with different services running on it. They're great. Everyone that wants one should have one. But if you are going to have one perhaps don't conduct government business on it or people are going to wonder why. Also, it doesn't take the brightest spark to realize that a lot of the email from a Secretary of State will eventually be classified.
She had resources available to her to use her .gov email. The woman wasn't without a photo of her BB in hand for like a decade.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
That looks a lot like a class and race problem.
I absolutely don't disagree with you, but getting people to the polls despite their socioeconomic challenges is 100% a behavioral problem, especially in the short time available before this election. I don't appreciate your painting me like some tone deaf person - I understand the reasons people who are multiply disadvantaged don't vote. I'm pointing out that it's glib to say "well, just engage the nonvoters!" Rhetoric is not going to do that, and "addressing class structure, racism, and economic policy" is not a simple endeavor that's going to result in electing Bernie in nine months. I'm all for it, but it's kind of chicken/egg. We need to empower nonvoters in order to liberalize the electorate; in order to develop empowered voters, we need people to vote for liberal legislators to address those inequities.
In the short time, getting people who have an opinion, but don't vote, to the polls is behavioral. Someone has to create structures that remove barriers to voting and that increase their chances of knowing when, where, and how to vote, increase their chances of being registered, increase their chances of having transportation or wayfinding, etc. All those are behavioral problems. They are not solved with rhetoric or on message boards.
As for your other points, I think you're doing some wishful thinking about the nature of the electorate and its tendencies toward liberalism, but I'm not going to chase your goalposts around.
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I absolutely don't disagree with you, but getting people to the polls despite their socioeconomic challenges is 100% a behavioral problem, especially in the short time available before this election. I don't appreciate your painting me like some tone deaf person - I understand the reasons people who are multiply disadvantaged don't vote. I'm pointing out that it's glib to say "well, just engage the nonvoters!" Rhetoric is not going to do that, and "addressing class structure, racism, and economic policy" is not a simple endeavor that's going to result in electing Bernie in nine months. I'm all for it, but it's kind of chicken/egg. We need to empower nonvoters in order to liberalize the electorate; in order to develop empowered voters, we need people to vote for liberal legislators to address those inequities.
In the short time, getting people who have an opinion, but don't vote, to the polls is behavioral. Someone has to create structures that remove barriers to voting and that increase their chances of knowing when, where, and how to vote, increase their chances of being registered, increase their chances of having transportation or wayfinding, etc. All those are behavioral problems. They are not solved with rhetoric or on message boards.
As for your other points, I think you're doing some wishful thinking about the nature of the electorate and its tendencies toward liberalism, but I'm not going to chase your goalposts around.
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rhetoric is not going to do that
I don't know, I think telling poor people that we want to raise their wages to $15 minimum, give them free health insurance at the expense of the 1%, and send their kids to college by taxing Wall Street speculation might help.
posted by dialetheia at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't know, I think telling poor people that we want to raise their wages to $15 minimum, give them free health insurance at the expense of the 1%, and send their kids to college by taxing Wall Street speculation might help.
posted by dialetheia at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
I mean, this isn't a new argument - we had the same discussion back when Howard Dean said the main problem with ACA was that the rhetoric around it was elitist and targeted at think tanks and donors, not at the American people (and hilariously, I suggested in that thread in 2014 that Bernie Sanders provides a great example of how to talk to people about these issues in a non-elitist way). Ted Strickland made similar comments. I find their arguments pretty convincing, and I think the way that low-income less-educated voters are responding strongly to Sanders is at least circumstantial evidence for that assertion. Democrats' wonky think-tank orientation might help us make our case in the New York Times, but no, it isn't particularly convincing to low-income less-educated people. For that, our rhetoric needs to be more direct and more based in moral values - much the way that Sanders is talking about things.
posted by dialetheia at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
How and where are they going to hear that?
Do you think they're going to believe it?
I've done a lot of on-the-ground campaign work. I've talked lot of people, mostly with concentration on infrequent voters, since that's where the meat is (likely voters are under control, infrequent voters are up for grabs and sway elections). So I know a bit about what it takes to identify someone's potential interest in a topic or candidate and get them to the polls. When it comes right down to it, for disenfranchised voters, it's not about issues; it's about personal relationships, and ultimately, about physically moving people on election day from wherever they are sitting or standing to a polling place.
I think it's concerning that people think just describing some policies is going to make some very loosely tuned-in people suddenly get up and run for the polls. It takes a great deal more effort than that, and the effort is in a different direction than "look at these great policies!" Remember that many people cannot even name two candidates for president. Many of them have no idea what the issues at stake right now are. Many don't read the news or follow debates; it's not that relevant to their daily lives. Many don't work, so minimum wage is immaterial. Many are so busy they have no idea what's going on in politics, distrust everyone equally, and have noticed their lives don't change no matter who's in charge. Some are confused, have memory problems. Some are not functionally literate. People whose insurance problems are moot because of Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA have little reason to care about health insurance issues. College? Who goes to college?
These are the conversations you have with infrequent and non-voters. I think that even assuming the issues you name are even relevant to many infrequent voters and nonvoters hints at some shortsighted assumptions of the current approach to Democratic politicking.
posted by Miko at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do you think they're going to believe it?
I've done a lot of on-the-ground campaign work. I've talked lot of people, mostly with concentration on infrequent voters, since that's where the meat is (likely voters are under control, infrequent voters are up for grabs and sway elections). So I know a bit about what it takes to identify someone's potential interest in a topic or candidate and get them to the polls. When it comes right down to it, for disenfranchised voters, it's not about issues; it's about personal relationships, and ultimately, about physically moving people on election day from wherever they are sitting or standing to a polling place.
I think it's concerning that people think just describing some policies is going to make some very loosely tuned-in people suddenly get up and run for the polls. It takes a great deal more effort than that, and the effort is in a different direction than "look at these great policies!" Remember that many people cannot even name two candidates for president. Many of them have no idea what the issues at stake right now are. Many don't read the news or follow debates; it's not that relevant to their daily lives. Many don't work, so minimum wage is immaterial. Many are so busy they have no idea what's going on in politics, distrust everyone equally, and have noticed their lives don't change no matter who's in charge. Some are confused, have memory problems. Some are not functionally literate. People whose insurance problems are moot because of Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA have little reason to care about health insurance issues. College? Who goes to college?
These are the conversations you have with infrequent and non-voters. I think that even assuming the issues you name are even relevant to many infrequent voters and nonvoters hints at some shortsighted assumptions of the current approach to Democratic politicking.
posted by Miko at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think that even assuming the issues you name are even relevant to many infrequent voters and nonvoters hints at some shortsighted assumptions of the current approach to Democratic politicking.
Well, our experiences differ, I suppose - I canvass a lot too and most of the infrequent voters I talk to earn painfully low wages, don't have health insurance (23% of the people in my state still aren't covered - no wonder they hate Obamacare, it did nothing for them), and desperately want to send their kids to college. Frankly, I think your assertion that they are too stupid to understand their own challenges is the exact sort of elitism that turns people off from the party.
posted by dialetheia at 1:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, our experiences differ, I suppose - I canvass a lot too and most of the infrequent voters I talk to earn painfully low wages, don't have health insurance (23% of the people in my state still aren't covered - no wonder they hate Obamacare, it did nothing for them), and desperately want to send their kids to college. Frankly, I think your assertion that they are too stupid to understand their own challenges is the exact sort of elitism that turns people off from the party.
posted by dialetheia at 1:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Let's just get Cybersecurity Legend John McAffee to look at the server and be done with it while there's still time in the primary.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Frankly, I think your assertion that they are too stupid to understand their own challenges is the exact sort of elitism that turns people off from the party.
Oh, come on. That's really rude and not a true reflection of what I think.
Our experiences may have a lot to do with the difference between the urbanized Eastern seaboard and where you are, but I can say that they are real, that I sat in a lot of sessions with Obama organizers working on reaching these voters, and that I am not exaggerating their issues and problems. Nowhere, not in any place, did I say they were "stupid." I think that insinuation is really unfounded and awfully lousy on your part, and perhaps yours is the kind of elitism that's turning people off from your candidate. Or at least, his followers.
posted by Miko at 1:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, come on. That's really rude and not a true reflection of what I think.
Our experiences may have a lot to do with the difference between the urbanized Eastern seaboard and where you are, but I can say that they are real, that I sat in a lot of sessions with Obama organizers working on reaching these voters, and that I am not exaggerating their issues and problems. Nowhere, not in any place, did I say they were "stupid." I think that insinuation is really unfounded and awfully lousy on your part, and perhaps yours is the kind of elitism that's turning people off from your candidate. Or at least, his followers.
posted by Miko at 1:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Keep it cool in here, and keep it not-personal. We've gone around these issues for a long time and we have a long election season still to go.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Has a Pope ever said anything about a presidential candidate before? That seems like some unprecedented shit. If the Pope rebuked me, you'd never see my face in public again, and I'm an atheist.
Meh. If the Pope ever called me out I'd point out the deeply unchristian views the Church has on women and LGBT people and also the massive child abuse scandal.
/Catholic.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Meh. If the Pope ever called me out I'd point out the deeply unchristian views the Church has on women and LGBT people and also the massive child abuse scandal.
/Catholic.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The uninsured rate for non-elderly (because they qualify for other coverage) in Montana in 2014 seems to have been 15.8% according to this, and 14.4% after 2016 open enrollment, according to this. Maybe you're counting in some additional statistic.
posted by Miko at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by Miko at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2016
> As for Clinton's motivation, she set up the sever for her own use even before Obama became President and long before she became Secretary of State. So she simply continued to use the email account she had always used for non-classified information.
I would lose my job and face litigation personally - in addition to any penalties that the companies I work for would face - if I was caught using my personal account for doing business on their behalf. I am not a high ranking official in the executive branch. This is where I have a really hard time with this sort of justification of "she just did what she always did"
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would lose my job and face litigation personally - in addition to any penalties that the companies I work for would face - if I was caught using my personal account for doing business on their behalf. I am not a high ranking official in the executive branch. This is where I have a really hard time with this sort of justification of "she just did what she always did"
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
As for your other points, I think you're doing some wishful thinking about the nature of the electorate and its tendencies toward liberalism, but I'm not going to chase your goalposts around.
Pardon, but my goalposts have been fixed: minor changes in liberal voter discipline do not explain why Republicans win elections. There are simply not enough liberals in the United States to account for those votes. And crying chicken little about potential PUMAs (who were irrelevant the last two elections) is an unnecessary distraction.
Now if you want to move the goalposts, in fact, the entire playing field to talking about economic disenfranchisement, that's a welcome shift to a real problem. How can I help?
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pardon, but my goalposts have been fixed: minor changes in liberal voter discipline do not explain why Republicans win elections. There are simply not enough liberals in the United States to account for those votes. And crying chicken little about potential PUMAs (who were irrelevant the last two elections) is an unnecessary distraction.
Now if you want to move the goalposts, in fact, the entire playing field to talking about economic disenfranchisement, that's a welcome shift to a real problem. How can I help?
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This absurd video showed up in my instagram today. Is this tongue in cheek? If it is, I guess it's well done? But if it's not, ugh. Please don't make any more of these Bernie.
posted by dis_integration at 1:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dis_integration at 1:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meh. If the Pope ever called me out I'd point out the deeply unchristian views the Church has on women and LGBT people and also the massive child abuse scandal.
@RealDonaldTrump: PopeFrancis doubts my #Christian faith- Will come back crawling on his knees when #ISIS is about to tke #Rome. what a #looser! @Pontifex
posted by sour cream at 1:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
@RealDonaldTrump: PopeFrancis doubts my #Christian faith- Will come back crawling on his knees when #ISIS is about to tke #Rome. what a #looser! @Pontifex
posted by sour cream at 1:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm citing this community health needs assessment from health care advocates here in my state. It's possible that things have improved somewhat since that came out in 2015. It's also unclear whether your statistics point to open enrollment alone, or yearlong coverage - many people enroll in January only to lose their coverage in March when they fall behind on payments. That's how it worked for me, and I certainly don't have insurance - I was lucky enough not to be charged the Obamacare penalty because I was still too poor, so I guess at least I wasn't penalized for it. These health care disparities are very important driving factors in Montana having the highest suicide rate in the nation:
Lowney ran up most of his debts before Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms. They have been a big leap forward for many Americans by, among other things, preventing insurance companies from cutting people off mid-treatment or capping payments for expensive medications, such as for cancer. But even with subsidized rates for low-income families, a trip to the doctor can still prove expensive because most insurance policies require holders to pay the first few thousand dollars each year before coverage kicks in.posted by dialetheia at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
That has put many people in the position of paying for insurance but being unable to afford to go to the doctor.
According to the Butte-Silver Bow Community Health Needs Assessment for 2014 23% of people in Montana have no health insurance.
But the report said that even among those with insurance, nearly 40% faced obstacles to receiving needed healthcare. About one-third said they could not afford the cost of the doctor or prescription. Nearly 8% said they lacked transport to get to a clinic. More than 11% said they skipped or reduced prescription doses in order to save money.
Rhetoric is not going to do that, and "addressing class structure, racism, and economic policy" is not a simple endeavor that's going to result in electing Bernie in nine months.
First of all, I don't claim to be that much of a Bernie partisan.
Secondly, a good faith assumption that we're on the same side and engaged in organizations that try to address poverty on the local level as well as the national level beyond mere rhetoric would be a nice turn in this discussion.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
First of all, I don't claim to be that much of a Bernie partisan.
Secondly, a good faith assumption that we're on the same side and engaged in organizations that try to address poverty on the local level as well as the national level beyond mere rhetoric would be a nice turn in this discussion.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The debate seems to be legality vs. motives, and that isn't going to go anywhere. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to agree that it's not technically illegal and also think that it was really bad behavior - it's not like email is some brand new thing. This is the perspective I'm coming from.
I'm really done with the email thing at this point - like done talking about it on MeFi ever again, unless it actually does blow up into a new post of its own merits. There are larger issues, and I don't think this one thing should decide the election, but I think it's totally appropriate for it to guide someones opinions of a candidate, and I don't think it can just be ignored as nothing. I ultimately hope that if it ends up being Clinton in the primary, that it doesn't blow up to be anything of any substance.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm really done with the email thing at this point - like done talking about it on MeFi ever again, unless it actually does blow up into a new post of its own merits. There are larger issues, and I don't think this one thing should decide the election, but I think it's totally appropriate for it to guide someones opinions of a candidate, and I don't think it can just be ignored as nothing. I ultimately hope that if it ends up being Clinton in the primary, that it doesn't blow up to be anything of any substance.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the email thing is reflective of a dumb choice but I don't know that I would jump right to an effort to hide anything. I don't think I would reject the idea outright either, though in my experience in the field for 20+ years, people make bad decisions like this all the time for perfectly innocent reasons. It was legal, had been done by others, and presumably made their life easier or got them something else they wanted in some way. Prior to a month ago the only real conclusion I would have drawn about it was that it was typical of the Clinton operation's poor communication that it turned into much of a thing at all.
Now, the fact that subsequent looks into it seem to be turning up reasons to investigate conflicts of interest? That seems like a real thing and worth concern, but I'll hold my judgment till it produces something concrete. Again, it seems like the worst thing we can pin down on it as a certainty at this point is that this is a self-inflicted painpoint from handling things badly. Would this ever have come to this if the initial response to the request has been "emails from when I was SoS? Okay."
posted by phearlez at 2:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Now, the fact that subsequent looks into it seem to be turning up reasons to investigate conflicts of interest? That seems like a real thing and worth concern, but I'll hold my judgment till it produces something concrete. Again, it seems like the worst thing we can pin down on it as a certainty at this point is that this is a self-inflicted painpoint from handling things badly. Would this ever have come to this if the initial response to the request has been "emails from when I was SoS? Okay."
posted by phearlez at 2:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Based on the MSNBC roundup of responses from the Republican candidates and Limbaugh, you can expect the Pope thing to help Trump, not hurt him. They all support the wall, so do the primary voters.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:40 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 2:40 PM on February 18, 2016
Francis has already addressed climate change and poverty, so the political right isn't a big fan.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:10 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:10 PM on February 18, 2016
Hi guys. Did you know that Trump is actually a Democrat, according to Republicans who don't like him?
posted by clawsoon at 3:19 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 3:19 PM on February 18, 2016
@RealDonaldTrump: @pontifex obviously envious of my sky-high favorability ratings among #Christians. Get a life, Francis!
posted by sour cream at 3:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by sour cream at 3:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
This absurd video showed up in my instagram today. Is this tongue in cheek? If it is, I guess it's well done? But if it's not, ugh. Please don't make any more of these Bernie.
So true story, about five years ago I made my girlfriend get up with me at about 5:30 in the morning so we could watch Saturday morning cartoons. I figured it would be a nostalgic fun thing to do, but then I found out they no longer exist! Educational and Informational is the closest you get. Mo Rocka telling you about trains in reruns. I was mortified. I weep for kids these days.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
So true story, about five years ago I made my girlfriend get up with me at about 5:30 in the morning so we could watch Saturday morning cartoons. I figured it would be a nostalgic fun thing to do, but then I found out they no longer exist! Educational and Informational is the closest you get. Mo Rocka telling you about trains in reruns. I was mortified. I weep for kids these days.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
a good faith assumption that we're on the same side
Sure, though the reason I spoke up is that you didn't do the same for me, but leapt to the assumption that i I had no familiarity with those issues. In general, I'm really disappointed at how rapidly ad-hominem people ostensibly on the same side are willing to get. I will do my best to assume everyone's good faith, but have to note that it's only fair to do the same.
I think I can agree with you that there are not enough liberal voters, even if they did better at hanging together, and also note that there has been a longtime, overt GOP strategy to hang together. Not only do I see that because I read their stuff, I just got off the treadmill at the gym where I watched some GOP talking head on TV emphasize that: "we have no choice!" but to vote for whomever gets the nomination, because "the future of the conservative movement depends upon it."
Democrats tend to engage politics like it's an intellectual endeavor: if we just show everyone the evidence, and talk sense, why, they'll see this is the right thing to do! But electoral politics is fundamentally not intellectual. It is emotional and personal, and it's about identity, habits, and relationships.
posted by Miko at 3:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, though the reason I spoke up is that you didn't do the same for me, but leapt to the assumption that i I had no familiarity with those issues. In general, I'm really disappointed at how rapidly ad-hominem people ostensibly on the same side are willing to get. I will do my best to assume everyone's good faith, but have to note that it's only fair to do the same.
I think I can agree with you that there are not enough liberal voters, even if they did better at hanging together, and also note that there has been a longtime, overt GOP strategy to hang together. Not only do I see that because I read their stuff, I just got off the treadmill at the gym where I watched some GOP talking head on TV emphasize that: "we have no choice!" but to vote for whomever gets the nomination, because "the future of the conservative movement depends upon it."
Democrats tend to engage politics like it's an intellectual endeavor: if we just show everyone the evidence, and talk sense, why, they'll see this is the right thing to do! But electoral politics is fundamentally not intellectual. It is emotional and personal, and it's about identity, habits, and relationships.
posted by Miko at 3:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
We're done. I don't have the spoons to deal with this shit.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hi guys. Did you know that Trump is actually a Democrat, according to Republicans who don't like him?
According to the Board of Elections, however....
posted by mikelieman at 4:11 PM on February 18, 2016
According to the Board of Elections, however....
posted by mikelieman at 4:11 PM on February 18, 2016
As an employee of the executive branch, I'm bound by ethics rules which direct me to avoid the appearance of improper behavior as carefully as actual improper behavior. I believe it's because even the appearance of unethical behavior (even if the behavior itself was not necessarily unethical) by government employees can undermine the faith of the public in government institutions. Perhaps the Secretary of State is not bound by those rules, but I understand why there are plenty of people who are uncomfortable with the optics of Secretary Clinton's actions with respect to the e-mail situation.
posted by wintermind at 5:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 5:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
And the bank speeches. The banks can't give that much in donations to her campaign, but outright income is fine? Sure, perfectly legal, but if anyone else was taking these kinds of sums from banks and other countries just try getting a security clearance. Doesn't pass the appearance test.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 5:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
An email Clinton sent or received from her private server, if it contains retro-actively classified information
People keep saying this, "retroactively classified." It may be beside the points in this thread, but FYI that's not how classification works. Each email is not evaluated and judged, it's based on a whole class of things, hence the name.
A classification guide, such as CG-RN-1 for Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information, might say something like, any discussion that could reveal reactor shielding design is classified at X level.
So now I send an email and say, wow, thanks for the submarine tour! My favorite part was when you showed me the shielding. I never knew it was made of X-foot thick unobtanium! Neat!
Someone looking at that later would say uh, classified, dude. That's not retroactive. It was always classified, whether I knew it at the time or not. I imagine there are similar classes of things cabinet-level officials need to not be putting in general internet email.
posted by ctmf at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
People keep saying this, "retroactively classified." It may be beside the points in this thread, but FYI that's not how classification works. Each email is not evaluated and judged, it's based on a whole class of things, hence the name.
A classification guide, such as CG-RN-1 for Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information, might say something like, any discussion that could reveal reactor shielding design is classified at X level.
So now I send an email and say, wow, thanks for the submarine tour! My favorite part was when you showed me the shielding. I never knew it was made of X-foot thick unobtanium! Neat!
Someone looking at that later would say uh, classified, dude. That's not retroactive. It was always classified, whether I knew it at the time or not. I imagine there are similar classes of things cabinet-level officials need to not be putting in general internet email.
posted by ctmf at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yup. Everything should be on a government approved server because you have NO idea what might become sensitive information later on. If you are Secretary of State every communication should be viewed as classified until it isn't. Err on the side of caution.
posted by futz at 7:01 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by futz at 7:01 PM on February 18, 2016
It was always classified,
I'm uninformed here, but couldn't there be a situation like: "That deal with Formerfriendistan has really gone south. Let's lock everything about it down."
posted by Trochanter at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016
I'm uninformed here, but couldn't there be a situation like: "That deal with Formerfriendistan has really gone south. Let's lock everything about it down."
posted by Trochanter at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016
Everything should be on a government approved server because you have NO idea what might become sensitive information later on.
There are no government approved email servers for classified information, so insisting that all classified email should be on government approved .GOV servers makes no sense.
posted by JackFlash at 7:22 PM on February 18, 2016
There are no government approved email servers for classified information, so insisting that all classified email should be on government approved .GOV servers makes no sense.
posted by JackFlash at 7:22 PM on February 18, 2016
It would more likely be a thing like "contents of conversations with foreign heads of state" or "discussions that might reveal information about the US's bargaining position on deals with foreign countries."
I'm making those up out of my ass, but it would be general categories like that, not specifically information about that one Formerfriendistan thing. Even if somehow Formerfriendistan was determined to now be in a different category, it wouldn't be retroactive. What's out there is out there, best you could do is stop talking more about it.
There are no government approved email servers for classified information,
That's not 100% true. But it's not connected to the general internet, for sure.
posted by ctmf at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm making those up out of my ass, but it would be general categories like that, not specifically information about that one Formerfriendistan thing. Even if somehow Formerfriendistan was determined to now be in a different category, it wouldn't be retroactive. What's out there is out there, best you could do is stop talking more about it.
There are no government approved email servers for classified information,
That's not 100% true. But it's not connected to the general internet, for sure.
posted by ctmf at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ok, technically you're right. It's .mil
I'm betting .gov has something similar, since SIPRnet is specific to DoD. That was just an example.
posted by ctmf at 7:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm betting .gov has something similar, since SIPRnet is specific to DoD. That was just an example.
posted by ctmf at 7:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
My understanding is that that's what gov reliance on Blackberry for so long was about.
posted by rhizome at 7:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 7:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I weep for kids these days.
It's retro-ironic. Everyone knows what Saturday Morning Cartoons were, and most of those going to Caucus either remember them, or remember them flickering out and dying in the face of 24/7 kid programming from Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network and Boomerang and Disney XD. The cartoons sampled were 1930's black-and-white, which weren't even on TV for Gen-X'ers! It's making fun of how old Bernie is. It's kind of awesome. I love how there are black voices and faces featured in it. Bernie gets it.
My daughter has Netflix and YouTube Kids and an iPad 2 loaded with kid-friendly games and an older'n'her Blu-Ray player and a library of Disney as we're totes buying it for her, and not our parental Gen-X and Millennial asses, noooope.
She has hot-and-cold running children's entertainment and educational video on tap from when she wakes up until an hour before bedtime.
She has her choice of THOUSANDS of animated shows and live-action sitcoms for children. She can watch every episode of a series all in a row if she wants... and she does. A veritable panoply of brand-name marketing with which to face her peers. (She likes Batman, but is otherwise a Marvel girl. Her Favorite Disney QUEEN is Elsa, as she is currently the only Disney Queen who's vaguely heroic, and everyone knows Queens outrank princesses. Disney Channel execs will discover this in a few years.)
Her secret vice are educational math shows - Peg and Cat and Odd Squad and Team Umi Zoomi, and she had to learn the wretched Amazon interface for that one. Commitment.
Also, I once looked up illegal uploads of the Spider-Woman cartoon on YouTube when she was discovering Superheroes and wanted more shows just about the girl ones where the girls fight the same badguys as the guys, and she's been bugging me ever since to watch them again. Part of it is she really liked sitting in my lap with the iPad while I rediscovered them with her. The guy who uploaded them got ganked, and I don't know what to tell her.
It's like that Pete & Pete episode where Younger Pete hears a song from a band he is all about, but can't find the band to ask them to play it again after that one magical performance.
Yes. I have the full series on DVD. Valentine's Day gift, and when I knew I had to marry that girl...
Saturday Mornings are now when she gets to get out of the house and away from the screens to go on our weekly adventure - a nature walk, a bike ride, museum trip, library visit, etc. Saturday Afternoons are for playing with her neighborhood friends. Ditto for Sunday.
Feel the Bern. Caucus for Bernie. Repudiate and mock the Sanders-reviled "Bernie Bros." Let them know The Hill will legalize pot now that the wind swings in that direction, they don't have to go all RON PAUL on everyone.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's retro-ironic. Everyone knows what Saturday Morning Cartoons were, and most of those going to Caucus either remember them, or remember them flickering out and dying in the face of 24/7 kid programming from Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network and Boomerang and Disney XD. The cartoons sampled were 1930's black-and-white, which weren't even on TV for Gen-X'ers! It's making fun of how old Bernie is. It's kind of awesome. I love how there are black voices and faces featured in it. Bernie gets it.
My daughter has Netflix and YouTube Kids and an iPad 2 loaded with kid-friendly games and an older'n'her Blu-Ray player and a library of Disney as we're totes buying it for her, and not our parental Gen-X and Millennial asses, noooope.
She has hot-and-cold running children's entertainment and educational video on tap from when she wakes up until an hour before bedtime.
She has her choice of THOUSANDS of animated shows and live-action sitcoms for children. She can watch every episode of a series all in a row if she wants... and she does. A veritable panoply of brand-name marketing with which to face her peers. (She likes Batman, but is otherwise a Marvel girl. Her Favorite Disney QUEEN is Elsa, as she is currently the only Disney Queen who's vaguely heroic, and everyone knows Queens outrank princesses. Disney Channel execs will discover this in a few years.)
Her secret vice are educational math shows - Peg and Cat and Odd Squad and Team Umi Zoomi, and she had to learn the wretched Amazon interface for that one. Commitment.
Also, I once looked up illegal uploads of the Spider-Woman cartoon on YouTube when she was discovering Superheroes and wanted more shows just about the girl ones where the girls fight the same badguys as the guys, and she's been bugging me ever since to watch them again. Part of it is she really liked sitting in my lap with the iPad while I rediscovered them with her. The guy who uploaded them got ganked, and I don't know what to tell her.
It's like that Pete & Pete episode where Younger Pete hears a song from a band he is all about, but can't find the band to ask them to play it again after that one magical performance.
Yes. I have the full series on DVD. Valentine's Day gift, and when I knew I had to marry that girl...
Saturday Mornings are now when she gets to get out of the house and away from the screens to go on our weekly adventure - a nature walk, a bike ride, museum trip, library visit, etc. Saturday Afternoons are for playing with her neighborhood friends. Ditto for Sunday.
Feel the Bern. Caucus for Bernie. Repudiate and mock the Sanders-reviled "Bernie Bros." Let them know The Hill will legalize pot now that the wind swings in that direction, they don't have to go all RON PAUL on everyone.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eh, well, I guess so in a way. If you requested emails from me, before giving them to you it would be my responsibility to make sure they were releasable, and I'd be using the current classification guide at a minimum. I guess that could be considered "retroactive" if it was unclassified when written, but I couldn't give it to you now. That wouldn't mean the writer was in trouble, though.
Usually that works the other way, though. Someone asks for something that was classified long ago, and we're required to check and see if it's been since downgraded and give it up, rather than insisting on the original marking because it's more convenient for us.
posted by ctmf at 8:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Usually that works the other way, though. Someone asks for something that was classified long ago, and we're required to check and see if it's been since downgraded and give it up, rather than insisting on the original marking because it's more convenient for us.
posted by ctmf at 8:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
and Team Umi Zoomi, and she had to learn the wretched Amazon interface for that one. Commitment.
OMFG it makes me so angry I can't just get them on iTunes. They have three weirdo episodes on there and that's it. But gobs of them for Amazon Prime. Which normally, woo, free > notfree. But for not awful kids stuff I'll drop $20. But NOPE. WTF Nickelodeon?
See also: Why are the Alphabits not on iTunes? What is wrong with you, Beeb? Why make me use liberated content on Youtube that looks like it was rendered on a Colecovision?
posted by phearlez at 8:30 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
OMFG it makes me so angry I can't just get them on iTunes. They have three weirdo episodes on there and that's it. But gobs of them for Amazon Prime. Which normally, woo, free > notfree. But for not awful kids stuff I'll drop $20. But NOPE. WTF Nickelodeon?
See also: Why are the Alphabits not on iTunes? What is wrong with you, Beeb? Why make me use liberated content on Youtube that looks like it was rendered on a Colecovision?
posted by phearlez at 8:30 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate? It's tiresome you keep demanding we support a candidate we feel is bought and paid for by special interests.
OK, but by the same token, don't be surprised if Clinton supporters decide not to vote for Sanders, because THEY don't feel he's qualified for the job. I'm serious; if I decide not to vote at all should Bernie get the nod- and I'm really close to doing so- I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
Personally, the more I keep hearing Sanders supporters going negative, the less I'm inclined to vote for the guy. Does he even have any programs and proposals? Not that you can tell from here, because the only thing Sanders supporters can evidently talk about, is how horrible Clinton is.
Seriously, fuck this shit. I'm ready to check out of this election, and I KNOW what's at stake. But I have no interest in standing next to people who are practically calling me a war criminal.
posted by happyroach at 10:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, but by the same token, don't be surprised if Clinton supporters decide not to vote for Sanders, because THEY don't feel he's qualified for the job. I'm serious; if I decide not to vote at all should Bernie get the nod- and I'm really close to doing so- I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
Personally, the more I keep hearing Sanders supporters going negative, the less I'm inclined to vote for the guy. Does he even have any programs and proposals? Not that you can tell from here, because the only thing Sanders supporters can evidently talk about, is how horrible Clinton is.
Seriously, fuck this shit. I'm ready to check out of this election, and I KNOW what's at stake. But I have no interest in standing next to people who are practically calling me a war criminal.
posted by happyroach at 10:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I think we can all agree that running a negative campaign instead of an issues based on is bad, so there's that at least.
posted by Artw at 10:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Does he even have any programs and proposals?
In good faith yes, he has programs and proposals.
I think a major contributing factor in the attacks on Clinton's character is that she seems to be framing her campaign in terms of identity politics. She extols her virtues and strengths above all else. She emphasizes her gender. She uses the first person to start most sentences. She isn't campaigning so much on a particular platform or set of programs, she's campaigning on her particular identity and record. That's ok. It means to engage her means to exert skepticism on those vectors since those are the vectors she provides us and keeps coming back to.
posted by an animate objects at 10:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
In good faith yes, he has programs and proposals.
I think a major contributing factor in the attacks on Clinton's character is that she seems to be framing her campaign in terms of identity politics. She extols her virtues and strengths above all else. She emphasizes her gender. She uses the first person to start most sentences. She isn't campaigning so much on a particular platform or set of programs, she's campaigning on her particular identity and record. That's ok. It means to engage her means to exert skepticism on those vectors since those are the vectors she provides us and keeps coming back to.
posted by an animate objects at 10:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Does he even have any programs and proposals?
He does, but our society is too inundated with Clinton supporters trying to browbeat us into believing otherwise.
I'm serious; if I decide not to vote at all should Bernie get the nod- and I'm really close to doing so- I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
Future Supreme Court picks affect Sanders and Clinton supporters equally. If Sanders doesn't manage to have the nomination stolen away by superdelegates, I hope Clinton's people stop having a huff and remember that we are all in the same boat and that we all drown if it goes down.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
He does, but our society is too inundated with Clinton supporters trying to browbeat us into believing otherwise.
I'm serious; if I decide not to vote at all should Bernie get the nod- and I'm really close to doing so- I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
Future Supreme Court picks affect Sanders and Clinton supporters equally. If Sanders doesn't manage to have the nomination stolen away by superdelegates, I hope Clinton's people stop having a huff and remember that we are all in the same boat and that we all drown if it goes down.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, but by the same token, don't be surprised if Clinton supporters decide not to vote for Sanders
Come on now, let's dial it back. It'll all work out fine and there will be a D in the WH next year as long as people don't explode from whatever "Scanners" signal the election is apparently sending out in slow-motion. Knock wood.
posted by rhizome at 12:50 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Come on now, let's dial it back. It'll all work out fine and there will be a D in the WH next year as long as people don't explode from whatever "Scanners" signal the election is apparently sending out in slow-motion. Knock wood.
posted by rhizome at 12:50 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
If Sanders doesn't manage to have the nomination stolen away by superdelegates
There have been two states so far... the most likely outcome is still that Clinton wins based purely on voting. I know Sanders' supporters are feeling pretty good about his performance so far but let's not jump the gun; he's got a pretty big uphill battle.
posted by Justinian at 1:48 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
There have been two states so far... the most likely outcome is still that Clinton wins based purely on voting. I know Sanders' supporters are feeling pretty good about his performance so far but let's not jump the gun; he's got a pretty big uphill battle.
posted by Justinian at 1:48 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why won't you Clinton supporters realize that people don't want to vote for her, even as a tactical vote, because we don't feel she is a qualified candidate?
Because she's clearly qualified. Probably the most qualified candidate in decades. Her experience in multiple branches of government is unrivaled. Now, obviously there are other issues that make you unwilling to vote for her. But they don't have anything to do with whether she is qualified.
posted by Justinian at 1:50 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because she's clearly qualified. Probably the most qualified candidate in decades. Her experience in multiple branches of government is unrivaled. Now, obviously there are other issues that make you unwilling to vote for her. But they don't have anything to do with whether she is qualified.
posted by Justinian at 1:50 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Her experience in multiple branches of government is unrivaled.
Her failure to perform due diligence to protect us against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al.s fraud in depriving Congress of their lawful oversight in debate of the AUMF-Iraq is a showstopper. Due to her negligence, millions are now dead, and trillions have been wasted.
Bernie Sanders, please note, *did* properly assess the risk to our nation, warned everyone, and was not listened to then, despite being 100% correct.
Think of all the people who would be alive today if we had just listened to Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton then.
posted by mikelieman at 3:18 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Her failure to perform due diligence to protect us against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al.s fraud in depriving Congress of their lawful oversight in debate of the AUMF-Iraq is a showstopper. Due to her negligence, millions are now dead, and trillions have been wasted.
Bernie Sanders, please note, *did* properly assess the risk to our nation, warned everyone, and was not listened to then, despite being 100% correct.
Think of all the people who would be alive today if we had just listened to Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton then.
posted by mikelieman at 3:18 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
OK, but by the same token, don't be surprised if Clinton supporters decide not to vote for Sanders, because THEY don't feel he's qualified for the job. I'm serious; if I decide not to vote at all should Bernie get the nod- and I'm really close to doing so- I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
Probably not a decision to make before the primary season is even over, and not one to make on the basis of internet partisanship which tends to amplify cranks.
But I'm going to whine about the Supreme Court because I'm queer (by self identification) and because I'm not a Christian, regardless of who gets the nomination.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:32 AM on February 19, 2016
Probably not a decision to make before the primary season is even over, and not one to make on the basis of internet partisanship which tends to amplify cranks.
But I'm going to whine about the Supreme Court because I'm queer (by self identification) and because I'm not a Christian, regardless of who gets the nomination.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:32 AM on February 19, 2016
There have been two states so far... the most likely outcome is still that Clinton wins based purely on voting. I know Sanders' supporters are feeling pretty good about his performance so far but let's not jump the gun; he's got a pretty big uphill battle.
And yet, after only two states, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has already publicly declared he is casting his vote for Hillary, no matter how his state of Vermont votes, and even though currently the other candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is polling 76% in his home state. Which is Vermont. Trust me, Bernie's supporters are well aware it's an uphill battle, but it's not just about getting people to vote for him.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:08 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
And yet, after only two states, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has already publicly declared he is casting his vote for Hillary, no matter how his state of Vermont votes, and even though currently the other candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is polling 76% in his home state. Which is Vermont. Trust me, Bernie's supporters are well aware it's an uphill battle, but it's not just about getting people to vote for him.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:08 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
The American people are still sick and tired of hearing about these damn emails.
posted by Foosnark at 6:15 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Foosnark at 6:15 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, but by the same token, don't be surprised if Clinton supporters decide not to vote for Sanders, because THEY don't feel he's qualified for the job. I'm serious; if I decide not to vote at all should Bernie get the nod- and I'm really close to doing so- I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
I think you are taking my words out of context, but that's fine.
I'm consistent, so if you don't think Sanders is qualified to be president, and he gets the nod, you should not vote for him. If there is a candidate that better supports your beliefs you should give that person your vote. He or she earned it. You may still end up voting against the other guy, or you may vote tactically, but I would suggest you need to measure your motivations for voting and cast your ballot (or not) in the manner you see fit. You need to be able to live with your choices.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:31 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think you are taking my words out of context, but that's fine.
I'm consistent, so if you don't think Sanders is qualified to be president, and he gets the nod, you should not vote for him. If there is a candidate that better supports your beliefs you should give that person your vote. He or she earned it. You may still end up voting against the other guy, or you may vote tactically, but I would suggest you need to measure your motivations for voting and cast your ballot (or not) in the manner you see fit. You need to be able to live with your choices.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:31 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because she's clearly qualified. Probably the most qualified candidate in decades. Her experience in multiple branches of government is unrivaled. Now, obviously there are other issues that make you unwilling to vote for her. But they don't have anything to do with whether she is qualified.
Everyone gets to judge qualifications. I would suggest her position on Snowden and encryption alone disqualifies her. I also believe she is beholden to the financial industry and special interests, so if you expect reforms with Clinton in charge you will be disappointed. She's also not been the greatest advocate for free speech and some also take exception with her past positions on race, crime, marriage equity, war and The War on Drugs. Add in she never seems to be on the correct side of history until well after the fact. Death penalty anyone? And the only time she changes her mind is when a poll insists she has to.
I could go on, but I am going to suggest the qualifications for President of the United States is not a binary issue or we wouldn't bother with elections. We'd have a practicum and give it to the person who scores the highest. I'm not a single issue voter, but I am on the other side of enough of Clinton's positions to not view her as qualified. I am also not confident she'll be good for the country.
Do I believe Hillary is an intelligent accomplished candidate? Of course. Do I think she'll manage to be effective? No. If you think the GOP was obstructionist before, wait until they have Hillary to contend with. I feel like a vote for Hillary is a vote for the past. At best she'll be a placeholder, at worst she will further the negatives of the Obama administration.
I realize there are weasel words in the above (some, many, etc., but it's not hard to find those with these beliefs, and I left out the fringe crap), but my point isn't to actually argue her qualifications, but rather to point out "Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President" is not a universally held truth.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:58 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Everyone gets to judge qualifications. I would suggest her position on Snowden and encryption alone disqualifies her. I also believe she is beholden to the financial industry and special interests, so if you expect reforms with Clinton in charge you will be disappointed. She's also not been the greatest advocate for free speech and some also take exception with her past positions on race, crime, marriage equity, war and The War on Drugs. Add in she never seems to be on the correct side of history until well after the fact. Death penalty anyone? And the only time she changes her mind is when a poll insists she has to.
I could go on, but I am going to suggest the qualifications for President of the United States is not a binary issue or we wouldn't bother with elections. We'd have a practicum and give it to the person who scores the highest. I'm not a single issue voter, but I am on the other side of enough of Clinton's positions to not view her as qualified. I am also not confident she'll be good for the country.
Do I believe Hillary is an intelligent accomplished candidate? Of course. Do I think she'll manage to be effective? No. If you think the GOP was obstructionist before, wait until they have Hillary to contend with. I feel like a vote for Hillary is a vote for the past. At best she'll be a placeholder, at worst she will further the negatives of the Obama administration.
I realize there are weasel words in the above (some, many, etc., but it's not hard to find those with these beliefs, and I left out the fringe crap), but my point isn't to actually argue her qualifications, but rather to point out "Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President" is not a universally held truth.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:58 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't want to hear the Sander's supporters suddenly start to whine about the Supreme Court and crap.
Good to know it actually isn't all that important to prevent a Republican from nominating new Supreme Court justices.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:07 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Good to know it actually isn't all that important to prevent a Republican from nominating new Supreme Court justices.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:07 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I hear this rhetoric a lot. I get that it's important, but the republic will not fall if this happens. Hell, Scalia could have had another 15 years on the bench if he'd taken care of himself, and we were doing just fine under a conservative bench. Sure, not everything went the way everyone would have it, but again, the world did not end.
How many times in the past has a nomination not turned out to be the progressive (or conservative) that the President was hoping for? So there's no way to know if the next nomination will even end up being a liberal. Add in justices are constrained by the law. Sure, they get some latitude in interpreting what this means, but they generally don't disregard precedence entirely. In my mind, we had some of our best rulings from a conservative court. I doubt we'd have had marriage equity any earlier (for example).
None of my lawyer friends are living in fear of a boogyman judge. I don't see why the rest of us should either.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
How many times in the past has a nomination not turned out to be the progressive (or conservative) that the President was hoping for? So there's no way to know if the next nomination will even end up being a liberal. Add in justices are constrained by the law. Sure, they get some latitude in interpreting what this means, but they generally don't disregard precedence entirely. In my mind, we had some of our best rulings from a conservative court. I doubt we'd have had marriage equity any earlier (for example).
None of my lawyer friends are living in fear of a boogyman judge. I don't see why the rest of us should either.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
None of my lawyer friends are living in fear of a boogyman judge.
I'm guessing that none of your lawyer friends are sixteen and pregnant and scared out of their fucking minds because they live in the vast swath of America where being sixteen and pregnant means you are definitely going to have a baby, because of the last several decades of the Supreme Court looking the other way on "reasonable" restrictions on abortion that has had the "side" effect of reducing prenatal care to medieval levels.
posted by Etrigan at 8:26 AM on February 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm guessing that none of your lawyer friends are sixteen and pregnant and scared out of their fucking minds because they live in the vast swath of America where being sixteen and pregnant means you are definitely going to have a baby, because of the last several decades of the Supreme Court looking the other way on "reasonable" restrictions on abortion that has had the "side" effect of reducing prenatal care to medieval levels.
posted by Etrigan at 8:26 AM on February 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
That whole thing with the Voting Rights Act, that's just inconsequential and without impact on anyone then?
posted by Artw at 8:29 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:29 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Citizens United? All good with that?
posted by Miko at 8:33 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:33 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
And that whole global warming thing is just a fad. Who cares how the supreme court rules on Obama's climate change initiative?
posted by octothorpe at 8:35 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:35 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
You guys have some prognostication device the rest of us aren't privy to? So these cases would have gone the other way had Scalia only had the decency to die in Obama's first term?
That's the problem with the rhetoric of both sides. They are convinced the other is out to end them and take their stuff. Again, just because Obama nominates a justice doesn't mean that justice will be voting the way Obama (or you) would hope. And just because there's a liberal justice doesn't mean the outcome of cases are going to land your way. And just because there is a conservative judge doesn't mean they are going to disregard the rule of law.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:37 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the problem with the rhetoric of both sides. They are convinced the other is out to end them and take their stuff. Again, just because Obama nominates a justice doesn't mean that justice will be voting the way Obama (or you) would hope. And just because there's a liberal justice doesn't mean the outcome of cases are going to land your way. And just because there is a conservative judge doesn't mean they are going to disregard the rule of law.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:37 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
So these cases would have gone the other way had Scalia only had the decency to die in Obama's first term?
Well, uh, I think the answer is almost overwhelmingly likely yes.
posted by Miko at 8:40 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, uh, I think the answer is almost overwhelmingly likely yes.
posted by Miko at 8:40 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah, so you do have a crystal ball.
Thing is in every one of these cites there are legislative answers. Most people would argue that's the best place to address change regardless. Remember, both parties have the same definition an activist judge: An activist judge is one that doesn't vote in your favor.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:43 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thing is in every one of these cites there are legislative answers. Most people would argue that's the best place to address change regardless. Remember, both parties have the same definition an activist judge: An activist judge is one that doesn't vote in your favor.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:43 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
so you do have a crystal ball.
I have good sense, and I read a fair number of the opinions in major cases.
I can't agree with a "new boss, same as the old boss" assessment of the Supreme Court, just as I can't agree with it when it comes to the two major parties. These choices matter.
posted by Miko at 8:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have good sense, and I read a fair number of the opinions in major cases.
I can't agree with a "new boss, same as the old boss" assessment of the Supreme Court, just as I can't agree with it when it comes to the two major parties. These choices matter.
posted by Miko at 8:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, we have the Supreme Court exactly because there are "legislative answers." It's the check and balance on legislation. One doesn't obviate the need for the other.
posted by Miko at 8:46 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 8:46 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, this is "Bush is the same as Gore" magnified in stupidity by a thousand percent.
posted by Artw at 8:48 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:48 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Republicans have laid out a judicial agenda as part of the campaign so far. There's no reason to believe that they won't follow up on that agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda includes further undermining Roe, negating Obergefell, and expanding Hobby Lobby to permit broader religious-motivated discrimination.
None of those things are likely to end the republic, but they could continue to create problems for many of us for a full generation.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
None of those things are likely to end the republic, but they could continue to create problems for many of us for a full generation.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree they matter. I even said as much. And who said "new boss, same as the old boss"? And the fact that we do indeed have checks and balances is why I am not as concerned about the nominations as some.
I didn't say it was unimportant, but some people are making it sound more important than even their pick for president. Nominating a justice is only one thing a president may get to do. I am not going to let it dictate my vote. Your view may be different.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:52 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I didn't say it was unimportant, but some people are making it sound more important than even their pick for president. Nominating a justice is only one thing a president may get to do. I am not going to let it dictate my vote. Your view may be different.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:52 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, this is "Bush is the same as Gore" magnified in stupidity by a thousand percent.
I would suggest it's poor reading comprehension.
We're talking an unknown. You don't know who will be nominated or how that person will behave once affirmed. If you want to live in fear of this, go ahead, but I think it's a poor way to live life.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:54 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would suggest it's poor reading comprehension.
We're talking an unknown. You don't know who will be nominated or how that person will behave once affirmed. If you want to live in fear of this, go ahead, but I think it's a poor way to live life.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:54 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
More on the Gerald Friedman issue:
Why are big-shot liberal economists hippie-punching Bernie Sanders?
posted by Trochanter at 8:55 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why are big-shot liberal economists hippie-punching Bernie Sanders?
"I would have no quibble if the Very Serious Wonks took this approach, arguing that the model was no good for X, Y, and Z reasons, and here's a better one. Indeed, Friedman himself told The Week, "I would be delighted to have that discussion." But they're not doing that. Instead of actually lending their expertise to improve the analysis, they're jumping directly to political demands that Sanders humiliate himself and Friedman by bowing and scraping before their wonk overlords."
posted by Trochanter at 8:55 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
We're talking an unknown. You don't know who will be nominated or how that person will behave once affirmed.
Nobody could possibly guess! Except from stated intentions, prior behavior, etc... etc...
posted by Artw at 8:58 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nobody could possibly guess! Except from stated intentions, prior behavior, etc... etc...
posted by Artw at 8:58 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
That you can't know. Simple as that.
Take Srikanth Srinivasan for example. Let's pretend he could get through. Now tell me how he would have voted in each of the cases above. You can't, and if you say you can you still can't.
Sure, I'd rather Obama pick than someone on the GOP, and if not him, then I hope it's a Dem. president, but I still think basing your vote on this one power of the presidency is an idiotic way to pick your candidate. Your view may be different.
This may be the overriding factor in your vote and how you choose your party. I'm saying, while important, it shouldn't send people into a panicked frenzy.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:07 AM on February 19, 2016
Take Srikanth Srinivasan for example. Let's pretend he could get through. Now tell me how he would have voted in each of the cases above. You can't, and if you say you can you still can't.
Sure, I'd rather Obama pick than someone on the GOP, and if not him, then I hope it's a Dem. president, but I still think basing your vote on this one power of the presidency is an idiotic way to pick your candidate. Your view may be different.
This may be the overriding factor in your vote and how you choose your party. I'm saying, while important, it shouldn't send people into a panicked frenzy.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:07 AM on February 19, 2016
You know, I'm not particularly thrilled with either candidate - Sanders is doddering, Clinton is dull - but by the time the primaries get to California it will be decided already, so I don't really need to care. And I'm going to vote for whoever gets the nomination.
... but holy shit the Sanders fans sure as hell try to MAKE me dislike their candidate.
posted by tavella at 9:13 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
... but holy shit the Sanders fans sure as hell try to MAKE me dislike their candidate.
posted by tavella at 9:13 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think panic (or at least, a high level of concern) over the hatefulness of the Republican agenda regarding sexual, gender, and religious minorities is quite reasonable in this election.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:20 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:20 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
That you can't know. Simple as that.
Can you really know anything? What if everything your senses have ever told you is just, like, a simulation!?
posted by Green With You at 9:23 AM on February 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
Can you really know anything? What if everything your senses have ever told you is just, like, a simulation!?
posted by Green With You at 9:23 AM on February 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
The thing is, there are other appointments that will be made that will be as important as Supreme Court judges. Who's going to be AG? Who's going to to be Secretary of the Treasury?
Is that nothing? Under Obama we saw Timothy bloody Geithner. Tell me what good that did for any self respecting non-neoliberal. If we get another one of those, someone who's taking a couple years sabbatical from their regular job in the industry they're to be overseeing, how is that good?
Why should liberals who think how the economy is run is a really really important issue kowtow to that?
And what about the blind kissing up to Israel no matter what yahoo is in charge over there?
posted by Trochanter at 9:24 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is that nothing? Under Obama we saw Timothy bloody Geithner. Tell me what good that did for any self respecting non-neoliberal. If we get another one of those, someone who's taking a couple years sabbatical from their regular job in the industry they're to be overseeing, how is that good?
Why should liberals who think how the economy is run is a really really important issue kowtow to that?
And what about the blind kissing up to Israel no matter what yahoo is in charge over there?
posted by Trochanter at 9:24 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
We can be reasonably sure that a Democratic candidate would nominate a Justice who would most likely make different decisions in some cases than a Republican candidate's nomination would.
I believe that it is indeed true that a Democratic president would attempt to put through a compromise nominee, that would helpfully stand a chance of being affirmed, and will then hopefully further a progressive agenda. But I also believe that even if somehow we end up with another Scalia on the bench we'll be fine.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:26 AM on February 19, 2016
I believe that it is indeed true that a Democratic president would attempt to put through a compromise nominee, that would helpfully stand a chance of being affirmed, and will then hopefully further a progressive agenda. But I also believe that even if somehow we end up with another Scalia on the bench we'll be fine.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:26 AM on February 19, 2016
But I also believe that even if somehow we end up with another Scalia on the bench we'll be fine.
Who's 'we' and what's 'fine'?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:29 AM on February 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Who's 'we' and what's 'fine'?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:29 AM on February 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Not to harp on this, but we can't TRULY know what Sanders would do when if office, either. But that's no reason to not vote for him; we can look at his long record in public office and draw inferences from that.
Yeah but that's on the whole gig, and it's the direct result of the vote. Pick person X to be President, they become President, they do the job.
cjorgensen is talking about the fact that picking supremes is only one part of the gig, and the result of that one action is an indirect result with unpredictable results. See: Justice Kennedy.
Who's 'we' and what's 'fine'?
Asked and answered, councilor. You think cjorgensen's not assigning enough importance to the selection responsibility, fine, but he's repeatedly said above that he thinks a dem pick is better than a repub pick and that there are repercussions. This is haranguing.
posted by phearlez at 9:33 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah but that's on the whole gig, and it's the direct result of the vote. Pick person X to be President, they become President, they do the job.
cjorgensen is talking about the fact that picking supremes is only one part of the gig, and the result of that one action is an indirect result with unpredictable results. See: Justice Kennedy.
Who's 'we' and what's 'fine'?
Asked and answered, councilor. You think cjorgensen's not assigning enough importance to the selection responsibility, fine, but he's repeatedly said above that he thinks a dem pick is better than a repub pick and that there are repercussions. This is haranguing.
posted by phearlez at 9:33 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Like, to clarify, for example, if abortion is further restricted and more women are sent to prison or die during illegal abortions, then - no, the entire country will probably not collapse. Overall, things will probably keep chugging along, more or less, but I just flatly refuse to define that state of affairs as 'fine,' or my concern about that very real possibility as a 'panicked frenzy.'
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:35 AM on February 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:35 AM on February 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
But I also believe that even if somehow we end up with another Scalia on the bench we'll be fine.
Assuming the rest of the court stays as is? Well, we'll be no worse off than we have been for the last handful of years (some progressive advancements but some conservative advances). But what happens if RBG or Kennedy or Breyer dies? They're all getting up there in age. Two or three Scalias would surely be a problem, no?
posted by melissasaurus at 9:39 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Assuming the rest of the court stays as is? Well, we'll be no worse off than we have been for the last handful of years (some progressive advancements but some conservative advances). But what happens if RBG or Kennedy or Breyer dies? They're all getting up there in age. Two or three Scalias would surely be a problem, no?
posted by melissasaurus at 9:39 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Supreme Court's decisions are more lasting than any actions taken by a President. They materially shape our personal liberties. The risk of a conservative majority on the court is nothing short of chilling to me; it would mean thowing most progressive gains of the 20th century under the bus. I think underestimating the importance of the nominating power is a serious mistake.
posted by Miko at 9:40 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Miko at 9:40 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
But what happens if RBG or Kennedy or Breyer dies? They're all getting up there in age. Two or three Scalias would surely be a problem, no?
I think two or three Scalias would be a problem, but I think it's worth paying attention to the fact that two or three justices that are as liberal as he was conservative probably don't work up to being a solution.
Look at abortion, for example. The landscape of the world and medicine has changed in forty years and one of the things that was a part of RvW was the question of viability. That is going to be a problem regardless of ideological makeup, and yes it's a good reason to want a court with better opinions (hah) about women's rights and medical autonomy.
But it also points to the fact that we cannot deal with this just in the courts. We need to do things legislatively both with access and financial support, not just have a firebreak for the worst overreaches. That means medicaid in the states. It means state-level bulwarks against this gaming of clinic safety standards and admitting privileges which are really hard to cope with at the 10,000 yard distance of a supreme court decision.
Look at Citizen's United, which while problematic in what it resulted in is actually a point on a pretty consistent progression over 100 years from where we had no guarantees to commercial speech to where it's become almost as unfettered as political speech. For some of us, it's been a development in our own lifetimes where a company had a right to mention a rival product by name.
If we're really concerned with some of these principles we cannot pin our hopes for them going our way exclusively on supreme court decisions. Not only are they unable to do what we want, but they aren't even well predictable. My calculation is a little more concerned than cjorgensen's on the issue but I think it's getting kinda liberal circular firing squad in here over the assertions he's making about a longer/wider view.
posted by phearlez at 9:51 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think two or three Scalias would be a problem, but I think it's worth paying attention to the fact that two or three justices that are as liberal as he was conservative probably don't work up to being a solution.
Look at abortion, for example. The landscape of the world and medicine has changed in forty years and one of the things that was a part of RvW was the question of viability. That is going to be a problem regardless of ideological makeup, and yes it's a good reason to want a court with better opinions (hah) about women's rights and medical autonomy.
But it also points to the fact that we cannot deal with this just in the courts. We need to do things legislatively both with access and financial support, not just have a firebreak for the worst overreaches. That means medicaid in the states. It means state-level bulwarks against this gaming of clinic safety standards and admitting privileges which are really hard to cope with at the 10,000 yard distance of a supreme court decision.
Look at Citizen's United, which while problematic in what it resulted in is actually a point on a pretty consistent progression over 100 years from where we had no guarantees to commercial speech to where it's become almost as unfettered as political speech. For some of us, it's been a development in our own lifetimes where a company had a right to mention a rival product by name.
If we're really concerned with some of these principles we cannot pin our hopes for them going our way exclusively on supreme court decisions. Not only are they unable to do what we want, but they aren't even well predictable. My calculation is a little more concerned than cjorgensen's on the issue but I think it's getting kinda liberal circular firing squad in here over the assertions he's making about a longer/wider view.
posted by phearlez at 9:51 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Two or three Scalias would surely be a problem, no?
The proper plural for a group being, of course, a SCOTUS of Scalias.
Measured in Ninojerks, no doubt.
posted by phearlez at 9:52 AM on February 19, 2016
To further what phearlez is saying, address this shit before it gets to the SCOTUS. Show up and vote at midterms. Don't settle for crap candidates (vote in the primaries). Be vocal. Donate. Volunteer. Write letters. Confront your candidates. Ask questions. Protest.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:01 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 10:01 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
To further what phearlez is saying, address this shit before it gets to the SCOTUS. Show up and vote at midterms. Don't settle for crap candidates (vote in the primaries). Be vocal. Donate. Volunteer. Write letters. Confront your candidates. Ask questions. Protest.
I think the people in this thread are the people who do this. But if you live in a conservative area (or a gerrymandered area) you effectively have no political voice. People aren't pinning everything on SCOTUS because that's the best way to advance the country, we're doing it because we're desperate. I don't live in Texas; other than donating and general advocacy, I can't help the women affected by HB2 - the fact that Obama and not Romney won in 2012 directly affects those women's lives today.
SCOTUS is the lifeboat - it can save you when the ship is sinking; but if the structural integrity of your lifeboat is compromised, you're kind of SOL.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:20 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the people in this thread are the people who do this. But if you live in a conservative area (or a gerrymandered area) you effectively have no political voice. People aren't pinning everything on SCOTUS because that's the best way to advance the country, we're doing it because we're desperate. I don't live in Texas; other than donating and general advocacy, I can't help the women affected by HB2 - the fact that Obama and not Romney won in 2012 directly affects those women's lives today.
SCOTUS is the lifeboat - it can save you when the ship is sinking; but if the structural integrity of your lifeboat is compromised, you're kind of SOL.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:20 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
SCOTUS is the lifeboat - it can save you when the ship is sinking; but if the structural integrity of your lifeboat is compromised, you're kind of SOL.
The ship metaphor is fun:
Whereas Sanders argues that we can and must turn the ship away from the iceberg, Clinton argues that our ship can't sink with the right leadership.
Trump blames the passengers and the sharks.
Cruz is blaming mermaids
Rubio thinks if we hadn't made that right turn a few miles back we wouldn't be in this predicament and he is a strong leader who won't turn the ship no matter how much liberals yell.
Then Sanders takes a moment from yelling about icebergs to shout at the helicopters of departing 1%ers.
Sarah Palin paddles by on a raft, shouting some alliterative metaphor about ballast/balls
Jeb just sits there in a life jacket looking glum
posted by an animate objects at 10:43 AM on February 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
The ship metaphor is fun:
Whereas Sanders argues that we can and must turn the ship away from the iceberg, Clinton argues that our ship can't sink with the right leadership.
Trump blames the passengers and the sharks.
Cruz is blaming mermaids
Rubio thinks if we hadn't made that right turn a few miles back we wouldn't be in this predicament and he is a strong leader who won't turn the ship no matter how much liberals yell.
Then Sanders takes a moment from yelling about icebergs to shout at the helicopters of departing 1%ers.
Sarah Palin paddles by on a raft, shouting some alliterative metaphor about ballast/balls
Jeb just sits there in a life jacket looking glum
posted by an animate objects at 10:43 AM on February 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
You forgot Carson. He's giving lectures on the history of naval flag signaling in the ballroom.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
Or assumes it'll be fine because the berg is full of soft grain
posted by phearlez at 10:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 10:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
At least of them has to yell 'dive! Dive! Dive! We will go under the iceberg!!!!'
posted by ian1977 at 10:51 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 10:51 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Whereas Sanders argues that we can and must turn the ship away from the iceberg, Clinton argues that our ship can't sink with the right leadership.
Trump blames the passengers and the sharks.
Illustrated.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:52 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump blames the passengers and the sharks.
Illustrated.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:52 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Talking about the SCOTUS does not exclude concern about other appointments, legislative agendas, and elected offices.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:57 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:57 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Roberts and his conservative court have given us Citizens United, and more. It's not okay, it's horrible and damaging, and we need a better court. It's always an important election, it's always critical. There's no breathing room in this. The Right is powerful and Very Well Funded.
posted by theora55 at 11:01 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 11:01 AM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Talking about the SCOTUS does not exclude concern about other appointments, legislative agendas, and elected offices.
How strange that's never come up.
Do you think Sanders will appoint judges not to your satisfaction? 'Cause I've got serious doubts about Clinton's other appointments.
posted by Trochanter at 11:06 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
How strange that's never come up.
Do you think Sanders will appoint judges not to your satisfaction? 'Cause I've got serious doubts about Clinton's other appointments.
posted by Trochanter at 11:06 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
And hell, if it came to appointing someone who would seriously adjudicate against the economic status quo, I've got doubts about Clinton there, too.
posted by Trochanter at 11:10 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 11:10 AM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do you think Sanders will appoint judges not to your satisfaction? 'Cause I've got serious doubts about Clinton's other appointments.
Never?
Clinton as Secretary of State moved some things forward for LGBT people as a matter of policy that will likely be reversed by a Republican appointee. The Department of Education and Attorney General currently are key points of resistance to the enforcement of education bathroom bills, which are part of the Republican agenda this year. Any of the Republican nominees will likely make climate change denial an ideological test for whoever is running Energy, EPA, and NASA.
Now of course, we're months away from the election so I don't have any clear ideas or strong opinion about who should be appointed, but I do have strong opinions about who should NOT be doing the appointing.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:32 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Never?
Clinton as Secretary of State moved some things forward for LGBT people as a matter of policy that will likely be reversed by a Republican appointee. The Department of Education and Attorney General currently are key points of resistance to the enforcement of education bathroom bills, which are part of the Republican agenda this year. Any of the Republican nominees will likely make climate change denial an ideological test for whoever is running Energy, EPA, and NASA.
Now of course, we're months away from the election so I don't have any clear ideas or strong opinion about who should be appointed, but I do have strong opinions about who should NOT be doing the appointing.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:32 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
And hell, if it came to appointing someone who would seriously adjudicate against the economic status quo, I've got doubts about Clinton there, too.
Same here. As far as appointments go (beyond SCOTUS), appointing someone as Treasury Secretary who isn't heavily Wall Street-affiliated is my biggest priority. Clinton won't promise not to nominate someone from Wall Street (Hell, she's still claiming she's "unsure what Sanders means by Wall Street"). There's been speculation based on her senior campaign advisors that she would nominate Gary Gensler, another Goldman/Rubinite who lobbied for and helped pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which (among other terrible things) deregulated credit default swaps and helped get us into this mess in the first place. He's the guy they brought in to replace Brooksley Born when she tried to sound the alarm on derivatives, for god's sake.
posted by dialetheia at 11:44 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Same here. As far as appointments go (beyond SCOTUS), appointing someone as Treasury Secretary who isn't heavily Wall Street-affiliated is my biggest priority. Clinton won't promise not to nominate someone from Wall Street (Hell, she's still claiming she's "unsure what Sanders means by Wall Street"). There's been speculation based on her senior campaign advisors that she would nominate Gary Gensler, another Goldman/Rubinite who lobbied for and helped pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which (among other terrible things) deregulated credit default swaps and helped get us into this mess in the first place. He's the guy they brought in to replace Brooksley Born when she tried to sound the alarm on derivatives, for god's sake.
posted by dialetheia at 11:44 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also along those lines: Moderate Democrats helped Wall Street avoid regulation in the '90s. They're doing it again: "The lawmakers want to subject financial regulation to what’s known as "cost-benefit analysis," a practice currently used to weigh health, safety, and environmental regulations. Applying it to financial rules too may sound reasonable, but it’s not — and, in fact, could severely undermine Dodd-Frank and the entire post-crisis effort to rein in Wall Street."
posted by dialetheia at 12:11 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:11 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Speaking of not being qualified to be president: Donald Trump and the Central Park Five: the racially charged rise of a demagogue
posted by cjorgensen at 1:58 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 1:58 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
What did you do yesterday Trochanter?
Oh, you know. Sent a snippy tweet to Brad DeLong grousing about his pile on of Gerald Friedman. Got blocked by DeLong. Sent a screencap of the tweet to Gerald Friedman. Got retweeted by Friedman.
That kind of day... LOL SMDH
posted by Trochanter at 7:55 AM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh, you know. Sent a snippy tweet to Brad DeLong grousing about his pile on of Gerald Friedman. Got blocked by DeLong. Sent a screencap of the tweet to Gerald Friedman. Got retweeted by Friedman.
That kind of day... LOL SMDH
posted by Trochanter at 7:55 AM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
An Elegy for the Jeb Bush Campaign
Betrayed by all of his apparent strengths, the Republican said he would not sell out his principles to win the election and then proved it.posted by Joe in Australia at 6:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson are the only ones left standing, with Caligula in the lead.
posted by zarq at 7:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zarq at 7:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
wait tell me more about this caligula guy
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
The next Supreme Court justice? A horse.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
In other news, Dolores Huerta: ‘I don’t feel that Sanders’ people respect our community’
She claims that Sander's supporters prevented Spanish translation at a caucus in Nevada. There's differing accounts of what happened, but really, Sander's people need to do MAJOR damage control on this one.
Additional Information, there's differing accounts.
posted by happyroach at 10:03 PM on February 20, 2016
She claims that Sander's supporters prevented Spanish translation at a caucus in Nevada. There's differing accounts of what happened, but really, Sander's people need to do MAJOR damage control on this one.
Additional Information, there's differing accounts.
posted by happyroach at 10:03 PM on February 20, 2016
She claims that Sander's supporters prevented Spanish translation at a caucus in Nevada.
Snopes rated that completely false, with video evidence from multiple people. I hope this false rumor doesn't continue to spread now that there's video.
posted by dialetheia at 10:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Snopes rated that completely false, with video evidence from multiple people. I hope this false rumor doesn't continue to spread now that there's video.
posted by dialetheia at 10:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
She claims that Sander's supporters prevented Spanish translation at a caucus in Nevada.
Wow, the people out there playing Dirty Tricks are so tone-deaf they don't realize how insanely out of character this would have been for anyone coming out to support the Sanders Campaign.
posted by mikelieman at 11:14 PM on February 20, 2016
Wow, the people out there playing Dirty Tricks are so tone-deaf they don't realize how insanely out of character this would have been for anyone coming out to support the Sanders Campaign.
posted by mikelieman at 11:14 PM on February 20, 2016
Does anyone else find the need for Clinton's people to impugn anyone who does not support her as racist and sexist really tiresome and off-putting? It's starting to make me rethink my anyone-but-a-Republican vote.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:16 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:16 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's the part of her "pragmatic electability" that's the least pragmatic and the least electable, IMHO. She's stabbing herself to death with it and she thinks she's winning.
posted by Artw at 7:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
...Clinton's people...
Or maybe just someone not fooled by Bernie. There is a difference. One reason I find this election so dangerously repugnant is that there are two candidates with frenzied followers, but neither of them are Clinton's. She represents women for sure, but she is symbolic, and seen as flawed by her supporters. She doesn't campaign on a revolution, because like Obama, she is the revolution, but only by a notch, and it would be immodest anyway. She knows nothing will radically change for women except to validate their hopes. Campaigning for free health care or a great wall can always be considerations, but it also smells like doubling down on past failures, also known as denial. It always worked best when the candidate is not the savior, so we stay grounded in reality and nobody is disappointed. Saint Bernie and Devil Trump appear to be two sides of a supply-side coin, and it sometimes feels like we're voting for a cargo cult.
posted by Brian B. at 7:55 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or maybe just someone not fooled by Bernie. There is a difference. One reason I find this election so dangerously repugnant is that there are two candidates with frenzied followers, but neither of them are Clinton's. She represents women for sure, but she is symbolic, and seen as flawed by her supporters. She doesn't campaign on a revolution, because like Obama, she is the revolution, but only by a notch, and it would be immodest anyway. She knows nothing will radically change for women except to validate their hopes. Campaigning for free health care or a great wall can always be considerations, but it also smells like doubling down on past failures, also known as denial. It always worked best when the candidate is not the savior, so we stay grounded in reality and nobody is disappointed. Saint Bernie and Devil Trump appear to be two sides of a supply-side coin, and it sometimes feels like we're voting for a cargo cult.
posted by Brian B. at 7:55 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm just sick of small amounts of dumbasses on Twitter being sold of representational of groups of people, whether fandoms or political movements or whatever. There are jackasses on every side.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
She knows nothing will radically change for women
Change You Can't Believe In!
I don't know whether you're disclaiming positive or negative changes there but either assertion seems out of touch with reality, and as a Sanders supporter I don't think Clinton thinks this way.
posted by XMLicious at 9:45 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Campaigning for free health care
A slight correction, because being honest about the issues matter.
It's never been "Free Healthcare". Bernie Sanders simply points out that by getting middlemen who don't contribute to patient care out of the process, we have more than enough money to cover everyone who currently isn't.
I guess if you *are* a Health Insurer, that's the end of the world, and hence 'unworkable', but you know, I'm tired of Health Insurance Companies denying coverage to babies in NICU so their CEO's can buy a new yacht.
Since Hillary Clinton parties with them on their yachts, her tepid incrementalism isn't going to change that, is she?
posted by mikelieman at 10:05 AM on February 21, 2016 [12 favorites]
A slight correction, because being honest about the issues matter.
It's never been "Free Healthcare". Bernie Sanders simply points out that by getting middlemen who don't contribute to patient care out of the process, we have more than enough money to cover everyone who currently isn't.
I guess if you *are* a Health Insurer, that's the end of the world, and hence 'unworkable', but you know, I'm tired of Health Insurance Companies denying coverage to babies in NICU so their CEO's can buy a new yacht.
Since Hillary Clinton parties with them on their yachts, her tepid incrementalism isn't going to change that, is she?
posted by mikelieman at 10:05 AM on February 21, 2016 [12 favorites]
She claims that Sander's supporters prevented Spanish translation at a caucus in Nevada.
Snopes rated that completely false, with video evidence from multiple people. I hope this false rumor doesn't continue to spread now that there's video.
MSNBC just reported the story as true. Very disappointing.
posted by futz at 12:41 PM on February 21, 2016
Snopes rated that completely false, with video evidence from multiple people. I hope this false rumor doesn't continue to spread now that there's video.
MSNBC just reported the story as true. Very disappointing.
posted by futz at 12:41 PM on February 21, 2016
Gross. What ever happened to fact checking before spreading smears? Ugh.
posted by dialetheia at 12:51 PM on February 21, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 12:51 PM on February 21, 2016
Makes you wonder what sort of (*&% they were spreading when they were going door to door, or working the phones.
posted by Trochanter at 1:06 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 1:06 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Makes you wonder what sort of (*&% they were spreading when they were going door to door, or working the phones.
Mimeographs...
posted by mikelieman at 1:42 PM on February 21, 2016
Mimeographs...
posted by mikelieman at 1:42 PM on February 21, 2016
Oh, I'm sorry, I interpreted 'working the phones' as 'pre-a-phone-in-every-home' days.
Nevermind.
posted by mikelieman at 1:42 PM on February 21, 2016
Nevermind.
posted by mikelieman at 1:42 PM on February 21, 2016
Makes you wonder what sort of (*&% they were spreading when they were going door to door, or working the phones.
Communist...
posted by mikelieman at 1:43 PM on February 21, 2016
Communist...
posted by mikelieman at 1:43 PM on February 21, 2016
Does anyone else find the need for Clinton's people to impugn anyone who does not support her as racist and sexist really tiresome and off-putting? It's starting to make me rethink my anyone-but-a-Republican vote.
It's about as repugnant as the Sanders supporters who've not-so-subtly been imply that anyone who supports Clinton is a tool of Wall Street and a War Criminal.
For the last couple months here, I have seen nothing but negative campaigning from Sanders supporters against Clinton. And now they are shocked, SHOCKED that people are beginning negative campaigning in the other direction.
posted by happyroach at 2:29 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's about as repugnant as the Sanders supporters who've not-so-subtly been imply that anyone who supports Clinton is a tool of Wall Street and a War Criminal.
For the last couple months here, I have seen nothing but negative campaigning from Sanders supporters against Clinton. And now they are shocked, SHOCKED that people are beginning negative campaigning in the other direction.
posted by happyroach at 2:29 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Erm, Clintons a warhawk and very pro-wall street. As much as she has positions, these are positions of hers. Insisting that everyone automaticallly has to like those positions reinforces the impression that Clinton supporters are unable to deal with critisism and given complaint on false grounds.
I suggest giving it a rest unless you actually have something.
posted by Artw at 2:36 PM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
I suggest giving it a rest unless you actually have something.
posted by Artw at 2:36 PM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
Clinton's Wall Street ties and history of advocating intervention are her public record. Those are substantive issues and facts, not "attacks" - and certainly not comparable to demonstrably untrue smear campaigns on supporters.
posted by dialetheia at 2:41 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:41 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
And now they are shocked, SHOCKED that people are beginning negative campaigning in the other direction.
Your original, breathless comment turned out to be bullshit. Like, a complete fabrication. An honest stance at this point would involve a retraction of some sort. Ball's in your court.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:43 PM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
Your original, breathless comment turned out to be bullshit. Like, a complete fabrication. An honest stance at this point would involve a retraction of some sort. Ball's in your court.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:43 PM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
Campaigning for free health care or a great wall can always be considerations, but it also smells like doubling down on past failures
One of these things is pointless xenophobic madness. The other one is the norm throughout the developed world. The clear false equivalence doesn't aid your argument.
posted by howfar at 3:16 PM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
One of these things is pointless xenophobic madness. The other one is the norm throughout the developed world. The clear false equivalence doesn't aid your argument.
posted by howfar at 3:16 PM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
Snopes rated that completely false
Doesn't matter. A lie finishes the race while the truth is still tying its shoes.
posted by ambulocetus at 3:43 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Doesn't matter. A lie finishes the race while the truth is still tying its shoes.
posted by ambulocetus at 3:43 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why Do Young People Have Such Visceral Dislike for Hillary?
I almost feel bad posting that article, because it doesn't really matter. So she's dislike by the youth demographic and Bernie is beloved by them. Who cares, they don't vote. I'm surprised Slate even dedicated any space to this idea because youth also don't give a shit about journalism either.
I spend too much time arguing with youth on reddit that insist they vote, but I live in a college town and when I go caucus or vote no one under 30 is there. Or, if they are there it's like spotting a fox in the wild. Sure, it happens, but it's special and you tell people about it. When I raised this the defense was, "They probably went back home to vote!" On a Monday night they went home? Sure.
I did an informal poll of my friends that teach night classes and of three there were a total of 4 students that asked permission to miss classes to caucus. Out of 400 students. The rest were in class.
Find of mine in Nevada said there was exactly one young woman at his caucus. The rest were older than him (45 like myself). At my polling place there was many 10% youth. That's being generous.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:16 PM on February 21, 2016
I almost feel bad posting that article, because it doesn't really matter. So she's dislike by the youth demographic and Bernie is beloved by them. Who cares, they don't vote. I'm surprised Slate even dedicated any space to this idea because youth also don't give a shit about journalism either.
I spend too much time arguing with youth on reddit that insist they vote, but I live in a college town and when I go caucus or vote no one under 30 is there. Or, if they are there it's like spotting a fox in the wild. Sure, it happens, but it's special and you tell people about it. When I raised this the defense was, "They probably went back home to vote!" On a Monday night they went home? Sure.
I did an informal poll of my friends that teach night classes and of three there were a total of 4 students that asked permission to miss classes to caucus. Out of 400 students. The rest were in class.
Find of mine in Nevada said there was exactly one young woman at his caucus. The rest were older than him (45 like myself). At my polling place there was many 10% youth. That's being generous.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:16 PM on February 21, 2016
That's certainly a real forward thinking attitude and I see no problem with it whatsoever.
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Parenthetically, "The Youth don't vote" is great cover for rigging elections on the backend. e.g. Nixon/McGovern.
posted by mikelieman at 4:44 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 4:44 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
cjorgensen, I assume that having to caucus might have something to do with it. I phone banked for Sanders in Nevada and so many voters told me that they simply couldn't get to the caucus because they had to work at that time, couldn't find child care, etc. It was very disheartening. Making everyone show up at the same time and stand around for a few hours is even worse than voting on a Tuesday - not to even mention the public nature of the vote. I would love to see caucuses abolished altogether.
Young voters are more unreliable, definitely, but the idea that they simply don't show up at all is directly contradicted by Obama's success in 2008 and even in 2012. They're one of the most critical voting blocs on the left because they skew the most liberal - the kids should be some of our best allies. We should be looking at what we can do as a party to keep those voters engaged, not just assuming they won't show up and disparaging them as a group as I see so often (not that you were doing this). "Fuck the kids, they don't show up" is rather a self-fulfilling prophecy if it means nobody thinks it's worth doing any direct outreach or offering specific policy and they can just put up some lazy pandering instagram posts.
I also wish Democrats would put their money where their mouths are and dedicate more of their efforts to expanding voting rights - for example, in Oregon they just passed a law that registers every eligible person to vote automatically. The Democratic party should be fighting to reinstate the Voting Rights Act, expand automatic registration nationwide, expand absentee/vote-by-mail options, and declare election day a national holiday. Young people may be unreliable voters, but they also face many barriers to voting (time off, unstable employment, not remembering to register in time, etc). Removing some of those barriers would help more than the usual tedious entitled lectures we give the kids about the Supreme Court every few years, which seems to be our main Get Out The Vote strategy on the left these days.
Parenthetically, "The Youth don't vote" is great cover for rigging elections on the backend. c.f. Nixon/McGovern.
YES, thank you for saying that. Everyone blames the kids, nobody ever blames the Canuck letter or any of Nixon's other CREEP ratfucking expeditions. Ed Muskie would have been the nominee if they hadn't sabotaged him.
posted by dialetheia at 4:50 PM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
Young voters are more unreliable, definitely, but the idea that they simply don't show up at all is directly contradicted by Obama's success in 2008 and even in 2012. They're one of the most critical voting blocs on the left because they skew the most liberal - the kids should be some of our best allies. We should be looking at what we can do as a party to keep those voters engaged, not just assuming they won't show up and disparaging them as a group as I see so often (not that you were doing this). "Fuck the kids, they don't show up" is rather a self-fulfilling prophecy if it means nobody thinks it's worth doing any direct outreach or offering specific policy and they can just put up some lazy pandering instagram posts.
I also wish Democrats would put their money where their mouths are and dedicate more of their efforts to expanding voting rights - for example, in Oregon they just passed a law that registers every eligible person to vote automatically. The Democratic party should be fighting to reinstate the Voting Rights Act, expand automatic registration nationwide, expand absentee/vote-by-mail options, and declare election day a national holiday. Young people may be unreliable voters, but they also face many barriers to voting (time off, unstable employment, not remembering to register in time, etc). Removing some of those barriers would help more than the usual tedious entitled lectures we give the kids about the Supreme Court every few years, which seems to be our main Get Out The Vote strategy on the left these days.
Parenthetically, "The Youth don't vote" is great cover for rigging elections on the backend. c.f. Nixon/McGovern.
YES, thank you for saying that. Everyone blames the kids, nobody ever blames the Canuck letter or any of Nixon's other CREEP ratfucking expeditions. Ed Muskie would have been the nominee if they hadn't sabotaged him.
posted by dialetheia at 4:50 PM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
What do super delegates cost? Can we get some?
posted by Trochanter at 5:03 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 5:03 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
What do super delegates cost? Can we get some?
You can't just buy a super delegate silly, they have too much integrity for that. They protect the whole process from corruption by knowing what's best for the rest.
posted by an animate objects at 5:22 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
You can't just buy a super delegate silly, they have too much integrity for that. They protect the whole process from corruption by knowing what's best for the rest.
posted by an animate objects at 5:22 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Youth voting in college towns is skewed more than usual, especially if the college in question has a significant number of out-of-state students. For the four years I was a student in California, I was still registered to vote in Washington State, and was able to vote by absentee ballot. (At the time, WA had not yet switched from primaries to caucuses. If it had, I would not have been able to caucus.) I believe most of my classmates also voted by mail.
Even in-state students may vote absentee if they are registered to vote in their hometowns rather than at their college addresses.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:29 PM on February 21, 2016
Even in-state students may vote absentee if they are registered to vote in their hometowns rather than at their college addresses.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:29 PM on February 21, 2016
Super Delegates at Center of Democratic Nomination Fight Again
"The superdelegates became part of the Democratic nominating process in 1982 to ensure the Democratic party has input on who the nominee is. They wanted to prevent another election like 1972's when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination, but lost every state minus one.
Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existance.
"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.
Now, Devine's boss, who is running on an anti-establishment message is losing the superdelegate race. "
posted by madamjujujive at 5:39 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
"The superdelegates became part of the Democratic nominating process in 1982 to ensure the Democratic party has input on who the nominee is. They wanted to prevent another election like 1972's when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination, but lost every state minus one.
Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existance.
"It's pretty hard to win a nomination in a contested race and almost impossible to win without the superdelegeates," Devine said in 2008 in an interview on NPR.
Now, Devine's boss, who is running on an anti-establishment message is losing the superdelegate race. "
posted by madamjujujive at 5:39 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
In 2008, turnout among Americans age 18–29 was 49% (compared to 62% for the entire voting-age population) and they voted for Obama by a margin of 35 percentage points (compared to just 2 points for voters age 30+).
If you appeal convincingly to young voters, they will vote. And if you are Democrat running against a Republican, you are more likely to win the more they vote.
posted by mbrubeck at 6:18 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you appeal convincingly to young voters, they will vote. And if you are Democrat running against a Republican, you are more likely to win the more they vote.
posted by mbrubeck at 6:18 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sorry, correction: The turnout was 49% for age 18–24. (The census uses different age brackets than Pew Research.) The turnout for age 18–29 was higher, 51% according to a different source.
posted by mbrubeck at 6:24 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 6:24 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anecdotally, I saw a TON of young people at the Reno precinct I was at on Tuesday. The Bernie chair was probably 21-22. The Hillary chair wasn't much older.
Bernie won my precinct because the youth vote went 80/20 to Bernie. Older folks were probably 80/20 Hillary, and middle aged folks somewhere in between (but leaning Hillary). Their presence absolutely made the difference.
posted by zug at 9:27 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bernie won my precinct because the youth vote went 80/20 to Bernie. Older folks were probably 80/20 Hillary, and middle aged folks somewhere in between (but leaning Hillary). Their presence absolutely made the difference.
posted by zug at 9:27 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I ***kin love Yves Smith:
Krugman and His Gang’s Libeling of Economist Gerald Friedman for Finding That Conventional Models Show That Sanders Plan Could Work
Of course, we seem to be on to "OMG he criticized the CIA in the 70's!!@1@@!!" now...
posted by Trochanter at 1:42 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Krugman and His Gang’s Libeling of Economist Gerald Friedman for Finding That Conventional Models Show That Sanders Plan Could Work
Of course, we seem to be on to "OMG he criticized the CIA in the 70's!!@1@@!!" now...
posted by Trochanter at 1:42 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
That article is not very accurate in its depiction of the alleged smears. Having a big fight is fun, but it's also pointless and damaging.
posted by howfar at 2:00 PM on February 22, 2016
posted by howfar at 2:00 PM on February 22, 2016
No, it's pretty accurate.
posted by Trochanter at 2:07 PM on February 22, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 2:07 PM on February 22, 2016
e.g.
What the article says Krugman said: 'he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.”'
What Krugman said: 'If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.'
These are entirely different things. Saying that lashing out and divisive politics are damaging to the left is not the same thing as 'denouncing Sanders as a traitor'. There is no suggestion of that claim in the original text.
Or this: 'The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.”'
As an interpretation of this: 'And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.'
I'm sorry, but that's not the implicit message unless you're looking for it to be the implicit message. It's not in the text, it's in a reading of the text that wants to use it as an excuse to have a great big fight with the bad meanies on the other side.
Don't pretend that all this angry denunciation on both sides isn't fun, and don't pretend that it isn't avoidable. Above all, don't kid yourselves that this shit isn't damaging. This isn't aimed at Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters. It's aimed at everyone putting their emotional gratification ahead of political goals. Disagree, debate, decide - but don't pretend that this corrosive squabbling is necessary or useful.
posted by howfar at 2:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
What the article says Krugman said: 'he now denounced Sanders as a traitor to the progressives who was on his way “to making Donald Trump president.”'
What Krugman said: 'If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.'
These are entirely different things. Saying that lashing out and divisive politics are damaging to the left is not the same thing as 'denouncing Sanders as a traitor'. There is no suggestion of that claim in the original text.
Or this: 'The implicit message is that four famous economists had to be correct, therefore anyone who disagreed with them must be a conspiracy theorist who is “very much part of the problem.”'
As an interpretation of this: 'And if your response to these concerns is that they’re all corrupt, all looking for jobs with Hillary, you are very much part of the problem.'
I'm sorry, but that's not the implicit message unless you're looking for it to be the implicit message. It's not in the text, it's in a reading of the text that wants to use it as an excuse to have a great big fight with the bad meanies on the other side.
Don't pretend that all this angry denunciation on both sides isn't fun, and don't pretend that it isn't avoidable. Above all, don't kid yourselves that this shit isn't damaging. This isn't aimed at Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters. It's aimed at everyone putting their emotional gratification ahead of political goals. Disagree, debate, decide - but don't pretend that this corrosive squabbling is necessary or useful.
posted by howfar at 2:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
Krugman talked about "unicorns". He talked about "fantasy economics". He said Friedman was an outsider trying to ride the coattails of another outsider so he could have "a seat at the table".
And now you want an accord? You want to sling the mud and then call for harmony? You're worried that it's damaging to fight back? Forget it.
posted by Trochanter at 2:51 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
And now you want an accord? You want to sling the mud and then call for harmony? You're worried that it's damaging to fight back? Forget it.
posted by Trochanter at 2:51 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not Paul Krugman. Or a Clinton supporter. But this Internet toughguy routine that a lot of people on both sides have going on is a bad fucking idea, no matter how righteous everyone is feeling right now. Take the advice or don't, I can't force it on you.
posted by howfar at 3:14 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by howfar at 3:14 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
He said Friedman was an outsider trying to ride the coattails of another outsider so he could have "a seat at the table".
Heh. Krugman is a man well familiar with sour grapes and not getting a seat at the table, anyway:
Heh. Krugman is a man well familiar with sour grapes and not getting a seat at the table, anyway:
I wrote an op-ed piece endorsing [Bill Clinton's] economic plan, and met the candidate once. In the newspapers, of course, I was touted as a likely chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.posted by clawsoon at 3:20 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
In fact, however, key advisers to Clinton knew me from way back, and the memories were not friendly. Immediately after the election, Robert Reich -- the same policy entrepreneur I had attacked in 1983 -- was named head of the economic transition team. And to my dismay, it quickly became clear not only that I would be excluded from influence, which didn't bother me too much, but that the Clinton Administration was going to systematically prefer policy entrepreneurs to real experts.
As I said above, howfar, some of Sanders' supporters are trying REAL HARD to make me dislike him, despite me not having any strong opinions in the race.
posted by tavella at 3:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tavella at 3:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
And to my dismay, it quickly became clear not only that I would be excluded from influence, which didn't bother me too much, but that the Clinton Administration was going to systematically prefer policy entrepreneurs to real experts.
the salt is strong with this one.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:35 PM on February 22, 2016
the salt is strong with this one.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:35 PM on February 22, 2016
"Then it hit me like the hot kiss at the end of a wet fist. The old internet tough guy dodge. And like a sucker I'd walked right into it. The room went dark to the sound of a thousand Gregory Hineses tap dancing on my head..."
posted by Trochanter at 4:38 PM on February 22, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 4:38 PM on February 22, 2016
Also, just this afternoon I got the joke of Yves Smith's nom de guerre. Was I the last one on the planet? So ashamed.
posted by Trochanter at 4:49 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 4:49 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
As I said above, howfar, some of Sanders' supporters are trying REAL HARD to make me dislike him, despite me not having any strong opinions in the race.
I think I'm gonna start making that my mission. Maybe it will reverse psychology people into voting for him.
When Bernie Sanders rented tapes from Blockbuster, he didn't rewind them. And he showed up at opening and rented every copy of the newest release just so you couldn't see it.
Bernie Sanders' most used words are "moist" and "irregardless."
Bernie Sanders used his power as a Senator to blackmail Fox into canceling Firefly.
When Bernie Sanders is President, he is going to make internet porn illegal.
Bernie Sanders is in charge of customer support for Comcast.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:04 PM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think I'm gonna start making that my mission. Maybe it will reverse psychology people into voting for him.
When Bernie Sanders rented tapes from Blockbuster, he didn't rewind them. And he showed up at opening and rented every copy of the newest release just so you couldn't see it.
Bernie Sanders' most used words are "moist" and "irregardless."
Bernie Sanders used his power as a Senator to blackmail Fox into canceling Firefly.
When Bernie Sanders is President, he is going to make internet porn illegal.
Bernie Sanders is in charge of customer support for Comcast.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:04 PM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
As I said above, howfar, some of Sanders' supporters are trying REAL HARD to make me dislike him, despite me not having any strong opinions in the race.
I find it amazing that you only think that Sanders supporters are guilty of this. The only candidates I can think of that don't/didn't have some douchebags on their side have been O'Malley and Gilmore.
posted by Etrigan at 5:26 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I find it amazing that you only think that Sanders supporters are guilty of this. The only candidates I can think of that don't/didn't have some douchebags on their side have been O'Malley and Gilmore.
posted by Etrigan at 5:26 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
That would be an awesome tumblr, Drinky Die.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:27 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:27 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, sure, Etrigan. I should have added the qualifier "in this thread."
posted by tavella at 5:33 PM on February 22, 2016
posted by tavella at 5:33 PM on February 22, 2016
As I said above, howfar, some of Sanders' supporters are trying REAL HARD to make me dislike him, despite me not having any strong opinions in the race.
I find it amazing that you only think that Sanders supporters are guilty of this. The only candidates I can think of that don't/didn't have some douchebags on their side have been O'Malley and Gilmore.
To be fair, neither of them has douchebags on their sides because neither of them has anybody on their sides. :-P
posted by sallybrown at 5:38 PM on February 22, 2016
I find it amazing that you only think that Sanders supporters are guilty of this. The only candidates I can think of that don't/didn't have some douchebags on their side have been O'Malley and Gilmore.
To be fair, neither of them has douchebags on their sides because neither of them has anybody on their sides. :-P
posted by sallybrown at 5:38 PM on February 22, 2016
Bernie Sanders is in charge of customer support for Comcast.
Ouch.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:23 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Ouch.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:23 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie frequently makes non-trivial changes during the edit window.
posted by ctmf at 10:51 PM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 10:51 PM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
The only candidates I can think of that don't/didn't have some douchebags on their side have been O'Malley and Gilmore.
Did you miss O'Malley and Gilmore in your totals?
posted by cjorgensen at 8:42 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Did you miss O'Malley and Gilmore in your totals?
posted by cjorgensen at 8:42 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Knocking Down the "Firewall" Carl Beijer of the Baltimore Post Examiner on polling trends among black Americans.
Question: Is there enough time?
posted by Trochanter at 8:51 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Question: Is there enough time?
posted by Trochanter at 8:51 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie double dips in the vegetable platter.
Bernie rats you out for smuggling in reasonably priced movie snacks.
Bernie doesn't believe in spaying or neutering your pets.
Bernie east at Chick-fil-A.
Bernie likes Big Bang Theory and Scorpion, but hates The Wire and Deadwood.
Bernie insists on double bagging his groceries with both paper and plastic.
Bernie believes there should be a reboot of the Highlander franchise.
Bernie believes kids these days should "save it" until they are 70.
Bernie uses a Windows phone.
Bernie wants you to let go of his Eggo.
Bernie doesn't think anyone should leap tall buildings in a single bound (unless we all get to)!
Bernie swaps price tags at rummage sales.
Bernie has killed 10,000 kittens in his lifetime through masturbation.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:57 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie rats you out for smuggling in reasonably priced movie snacks.
Bernie doesn't believe in spaying or neutering your pets.
Bernie east at Chick-fil-A.
Bernie likes Big Bang Theory and Scorpion, but hates The Wire and Deadwood.
Bernie insists on double bagging his groceries with both paper and plastic.
Bernie believes there should be a reboot of the Highlander franchise.
Bernie believes kids these days should "save it" until they are 70.
Bernie uses a Windows phone.
Bernie wants you to let go of his Eggo.
Bernie doesn't think anyone should leap tall buildings in a single bound (unless we all get to)!
Bernie swaps price tags at rummage sales.
Bernie has killed 10,000 kittens in his lifetime through masturbation.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:57 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ooh, good ones! Thanks.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:42 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:42 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie still hasn't seen The Force Awakens.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:14 AM on February 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:14 AM on February 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I haven't seen The Force Awakens either!
Bernie slept with your best friend's girlfriend's sister.
Bernie bets on inside straights.
Bernie knows how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll® Pop and he's not telling!
Bernie told Neil deGrasse Tyson no one cares about the damn global warming!
Bernie is a closeted euchre player.
Bernie's second honeymoon was in Nebraska!
Bernie doesn't know the secret of The Crying Game.
Bernie calls Budweiser beer.
Bernie doesn't know the difference between grade A and grade B maple syrup.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:56 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie slept with your best friend's girlfriend's sister.
Bernie bets on inside straights.
Bernie knows how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll® Pop and he's not telling!
Bernie told Neil deGrasse Tyson no one cares about the damn global warming!
Bernie is a closeted euchre player.
Bernie's second honeymoon was in Nebraska!
Bernie doesn't know the secret of The Crying Game.
Bernie calls Budweiser beer.
Bernie doesn't know the difference between grade A and grade B maple syrup.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:56 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie both talks AND texts in movie theaters.
Bernie eats crackers in bed.
Bernie adds bad romcoms to your Netflix queue and rates them all five stars.
Bernie never replaces the empty toilet paper roll.
posted by mochapickle at 12:22 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie eats crackers in bed.
Bernie adds bad romcoms to your Netflix queue and rates them all five stars.
Bernie never replaces the empty toilet paper roll.
posted by mochapickle at 12:22 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie passes gas on the airplane.
Bernie takes the aisle seat then hogs both armrests.
Bernie drinks a Super Big Gulp before taking the window seat.
Bernie watches movies on his phone without headphones.
(I have a trip coming up so this stuff is on my mind...)
posted by phearlez at 12:54 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie takes the aisle seat then hogs both armrests.
Bernie drinks a Super Big Gulp before taking the window seat.
Bernie watches movies on his phone without headphones.
(I have a trip coming up so this stuff is on my mind...)
posted by phearlez at 12:54 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie still only uses character emoticons :o
Bernie rolls through stop signs
Bernie dozed off during a Bangles concert in 1985
Bernie never uses his turn signal
Bernie does not have his red wings
Bernie doesn't like IPAs
Bernie's ringtone is "Single Ladies"
Bernie doesn't like those chocolate coffee stout beers, either
posted by rhizome at 12:58 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie rolls through stop signs
Bernie dozed off during a Bangles concert in 1985
Bernie never uses his turn signal
Bernie does not have his red wings
Bernie doesn't like IPAs
Bernie's ringtone is "Single Ladies"
Bernie doesn't like those chocolate coffee stout beers, either
posted by rhizome at 12:58 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie still hasn't seen The Force Awakens.
Bernie read the spoilers and casually mentioned several of them to you before you had a chance to go.
posted by brianrobot at 2:13 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie read the spoilers and casually mentioned several of them to you before you had a chance to go.
posted by brianrobot at 2:13 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the chip installed in Bernie's head which broadcasts his thoughts.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:41 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by honestcoyote at 2:41 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie keeps asking you to go to his MLM presentation.
posted by ctmf at 7:18 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 7:18 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie came up with the marketing for New Coke.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:47 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:47 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie invented the selfie stick.
Bernie comes by your cube to make small talk when you're in the middle of a thing.
That person who noticed when you fully tripped on a curb in broad daylight and snickered at you? It was Bernie.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie comes by your cube to make small talk when you're in the middle of a thing.
That person who noticed when you fully tripped on a curb in broad daylight and snickered at you? It was Bernie.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 6:26 PM on February 23 [1 favorite +] [!]
Bernie stole your comment
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:06 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie obviously has not even my technopeasant command of HTML. He stole my purse but not my gold. As for reverse psychology, overdoses lead to Bernout. Too many wits are witty by half of a half of a half of a half.
posted by y2karl at 10:25 PM on February 23, 2016
posted by y2karl at 10:25 PM on February 23, 2016
Bernie borrowed your toothbrush
Bernie writes html with inline styles
Bernie invented CoffeeScript
posted by double block and bleed at 12:17 AM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie writes html with inline styles
Bernie invented CoffeeScript
posted by double block and bleed at 12:17 AM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie thinks it's ironic that it rained on your wedding day.
posted by taz at 12:49 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by taz at 12:49 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie bogarts your bong.
Bernie posts recipes to metatalk.
Bernie's nom de plume is Scott Adams.
Bernie takes candy from babies to give to less fortunate babies.
Bernie lied about cutting down a cherry tree.
Bernie eats gluten free as a fad!
Bernie deflates footballs for the New England Patriots. #Ballghazi!
Bernie never gives back the correct change for a dollar.
Bernie is secretly a democratic communist.
As a child Bernie ate his liver and onions and actually liked brussels sprouts.
Bernie is actually only 55, but has lived a hard life.
Bernie cheats at T-ball.
Bernie is a master at photoshop and put himself in the mars landing as well as many a civil rights protest.
Bernie wanted Mothra to win.
Bernie hates losing at Monopoly and won't let you quit even hours after it stopped being fun.
Bernie has an identical twin that he's never acknowledged.
Bernie takes the urinal next to you when there are others open.
Bernie likes his single malts with extra ice.
Bernie has already measured the White House for new curtains.
Bernie vacations at Colorado's only "clothes optional" ski resort.
Bernie is still on Windows XP.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:10 AM on February 24, 2016
Bernie posts recipes to metatalk.
Bernie's nom de plume is Scott Adams.
Bernie takes candy from babies to give to less fortunate babies.
Bernie lied about cutting down a cherry tree.
Bernie eats gluten free as a fad!
Bernie deflates footballs for the New England Patriots. #Ballghazi!
Bernie never gives back the correct change for a dollar.
Bernie is secretly a democratic communist.
As a child Bernie ate his liver and onions and actually liked brussels sprouts.
Bernie is actually only 55, but has lived a hard life.
Bernie cheats at T-ball.
Bernie is a master at photoshop and put himself in the mars landing as well as many a civil rights protest.
Bernie wanted Mothra to win.
Bernie hates losing at Monopoly and won't let you quit even hours after it stopped being fun.
Bernie has an identical twin that he's never acknowledged.
Bernie takes the urinal next to you when there are others open.
Bernie likes his single malts with extra ice.
Bernie has already measured the White House for new curtains.
Bernie vacations at Colorado's only "clothes optional" ski resort.
Bernie is still on Windows XP.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:10 AM on February 24, 2016
There's an old memory that's been running around in my head for a few months. It's from when Scharzenegger was playing "will he or won't he" about getting in the California governorship race.
There was a remote with some prognosticator and her statement was: "If Arnie runs, Arnie wins."
All on name recognition.
Also, two Trump pieces from Matt Taibbi:
How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable and Morning Blow: How Joe and Mika Became Trump's Lapdogs
posted by Trochanter at 7:33 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
There was a remote with some prognosticator and her statement was: "If Arnie runs, Arnie wins."
All on name recognition.
Also, two Trump pieces from Matt Taibbi:
How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable and Morning Blow: How Joe and Mika Became Trump's Lapdogs
posted by Trochanter at 7:33 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is a cool piece. Lots of good stuff.
Trump's victories aren't mysterious if you understand why people are angry
Jeb Lund
"There’s a great temptation to fume at the emptiness and banality of Trump’s statements and at the absence of traditional policy plans; it’s almost irresistible to seek some grander explanation for his success than that people like him.
But you don’t need some grand overarching political science theory. There are millions of miserable people in America who know exactly who engineered the shattering of their worlds, and Trump isn’t one of those people – and, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, everyone else in the field is running on the basis of their experience being one of those people.
"
And then Carl Beijer had some interesting tweets in response:
If you look at early/mid 20th c. poli-psy, people had interesting and productive analyses of populist anger. That's mostly gone today.
Basically the economists seem to have taken over poli psy, and they have less interesting things to say about cognition / emotion.
Journos and beltway figures have overwhelmingly bought into this freakonomics style analysis, so they don't have a good way to talk about it.
That is, if they even cared about it, which as Mobute rightly pointed out, they don't.
posted by Trochanter at 8:49 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump's victories aren't mysterious if you understand why people are angry
Jeb Lund
"There’s a great temptation to fume at the emptiness and banality of Trump’s statements and at the absence of traditional policy plans; it’s almost irresistible to seek some grander explanation for his success than that people like him.
But you don’t need some grand overarching political science theory. There are millions of miserable people in America who know exactly who engineered the shattering of their worlds, and Trump isn’t one of those people – and, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, everyone else in the field is running on the basis of their experience being one of those people.
"
And then Carl Beijer had some interesting tweets in response:
If you look at early/mid 20th c. poli-psy, people had interesting and productive analyses of populist anger. That's mostly gone today.
Basically the economists seem to have taken over poli psy, and they have less interesting things to say about cognition / emotion.
Journos and beltway figures have overwhelmingly bought into this freakonomics style analysis, so they don't have a good way to talk about it.
That is, if they even cared about it, which as Mobute rightly pointed out, they don't.
posted by Trochanter at 8:49 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Attention all "strategic" voters. All "lesser of two evils" voters:
Hillary's the longshot.
posted by Trochanter at 11:53 AM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary's the longshot.
posted by Trochanter at 11:53 AM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
This Huffington Post chart, compiling recent polls, shows not only that Clinton is deeply unpopular among the electorate, but becomes increasingly unpopular the more the public is exposed to her during this campaign:
I recall reading something a year or so ago that pointed out the same thing in regards to her Senate and 2008 campaigns. She starts out strong, but the more she campaigns the less popular she becomes. I can't find anything that says that when I search now, does anybody know if that was the case?
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2016
I recall reading something a year or so ago that pointed out the same thing in regards to her Senate and 2008 campaigns. She starts out strong, but the more she campaigns the less popular she becomes. I can't find anything that says that when I search now, does anybody know if that was the case?
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on February 24, 2016
I'm sure Hil supporters will do what's in the best interest of the party and vote Bernie. I mean, since you have to think about those Supreme Court chairs and such.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:43 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 12:43 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wasn't I saying something about "he'll raise your taxes" being the most effective attack on Sanders, despite the obvious need for American taxes to go up?
Asked whether they would continue to support Sanders' [single-payer healthcare] plan if their own taxes went up, under a third of initial supporters of the plan would keep backing it. About 4 out of 10 flipped to opposition.
posted by clawsoon at 8:55 AM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Asked whether they would continue to support Sanders' [single-payer healthcare] plan if their own taxes went up, under a third of initial supporters of the plan would keep backing it. About 4 out of 10 flipped to opposition.
posted by clawsoon at 8:55 AM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's interesting, clawsoon. I wonder what income level the people who changed their minds made - my understanding of his tax brackets is that taxes actually won't go up for >50% of households since they make less than $50k/year, which is the floor for tax increases in his plan IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised if someone making less than that had serious concerns if they thought it would actually raise their taxes.
It's all about the framing and the messenger though, I think - hell, Republicans nearly support single-payer if you tell them that Trump supports it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 25, 2016
It's all about the framing and the messenger though, I think - hell, Republicans nearly support single-payer if you tell them that Trump supports it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 25, 2016
It's bad-faith to say "Bernie is going to raise tax rates for healthcare" without also saying, "and since you won't have to pay for the HMO, you're going to save money -- oh and Small Businessmen? Your Healthcare payroll is now as easy as FICA... "
I don't know ONE HR person who wouldn't run towards that...
posted by mikelieman at 9:47 AM on February 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't know ONE HR person who wouldn't run towards that...
posted by mikelieman at 9:47 AM on February 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I'm 1000% in favor of single payer personally but Sanders's support for it is probably going to be one of the main GOP attacks on him, and it worries me. Republicans reflexively go to tax increasing arguments and they're super effective. Single payer advocates like Sanders can, and should, respond that it'll ultimately be less out of pocket than insurance costs would be, but you know the immediate response is going to be something like "And you believe that??? Obama told us you'd be able to keep your current plan if you like it, and that turned out to be a lie! Now they're trying to raise your taxes and they want you to believe that a big government takeover of the health care industry is going to be cheaper? You'd have to be stupid to believe that!" And I know that's bullshit, but I think it's going to be hard to counter effectively. And if you try, the GOP will just come back with all the talking points they used in the ACA fight even though they were bullshit then - you want us to be like Norway??? Rationing!!! Death panels!!! etc. - and they'll still be fresh in the public memory.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 10:38 AM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 10:38 AM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tiny sample, but what I got from posting the Intercept link on FB was "polls mean nothing".
Same here, when I posted it on a Democratic forum that boasts of being "reality based."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:59 AM on February 25, 2016
Same here, when I posted it on a Democratic forum that boasts of being "reality based."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:59 AM on February 25, 2016
Following Ashley Williams' BLM protest, the #whichHillary hashtag from her "bring them to heel" sign has been trending all morning.
posted by dialetheia at 11:13 AM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:13 AM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
As several people keep saying about Clinton (emails, etc), the facts don't matter when it comes to voting; only voters perceptions matter.
Except here is the facts aren't clear, or even when they are you can have reasonable disagreements on whether they mean anything negative or not. There's also a lot in that "etc."
posted by cjorgensen at 12:20 PM on February 25, 2016
Except here is the facts aren't clear, or even when they are you can have reasonable disagreements on whether they mean anything negative or not. There's also a lot in that "etc."
posted by cjorgensen at 12:20 PM on February 25, 2016
Sanders is a good campaigner and a good orator; he might be able to do a great job refuting that sort of attack. I could easily buy that argument. But mere appeal to the facts of his plan will be an insufficient defense come the general election.
Sanders doesn't have to rely on facts because he's selling the most compelling ideology. In fact I think the biggest challenge for him has been from Democrats, to exhibit granular details -- to which many of us feel he has risen. Republicans and Independents may also be interested in facts but ultimately they're going to make an emotional judgement and it's that emotional judgement that Sanders' campaign is very evidently well prepared to face. Best of all worlds is to pit Sanders' hopeful inclusiveness against Trump's spiteful vengefulness. Unless you really believe America has been lost to hatred, in which case why bother?
posted by an animate objects at 12:45 PM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders doesn't have to rely on facts because he's selling the most compelling ideology. In fact I think the biggest challenge for him has been from Democrats, to exhibit granular details -- to which many of us feel he has risen. Republicans and Independents may also be interested in facts but ultimately they're going to make an emotional judgement and it's that emotional judgement that Sanders' campaign is very evidently well prepared to face. Best of all worlds is to pit Sanders' hopeful inclusiveness against Trump's spiteful vengefulness. Unless you really believe America has been lost to hatred, in which case why bother?
posted by an animate objects at 12:45 PM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's bad-faith to say a lot of things, but that hasn't stopped Trump (or Cruz, or Rubio) from saying them.
Yeah, but you know, while a lie runs around the world, sunlight is the best disinfectant!
posted by mikelieman at 1:18 PM on February 25, 2016
Yeah, but you know, while a lie runs around the world, sunlight is the best disinfectant!
posted by mikelieman at 1:18 PM on February 25, 2016
and they want you to believe that a big government takeover of the health care industry is going to be cheaper?
Show of hands, how many people want to give up their Medicare?
posted by mikelieman at 1:21 PM on February 25, 2016
Show of hands, how many people want to give up their Medicare?
posted by mikelieman at 1:21 PM on February 25, 2016
Isn't Medicare like one of the most efficient and well-run of any government agency of all time?
posted by rhizome at 1:36 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 1:36 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
and they want you to believe that a big government takeover of the health care industry is going to be cheaper?
And Sanders should come back with: "It's not about the health care industry, it's about the insurance industry."
posted by Trochanter at 1:40 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Sanders should come back with: "It's not about the health care industry, it's about the insurance industry."
posted by Trochanter at 1:40 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
and they want you to believe that a big government takeover of the health care industry is going to be cheaper?
Both our private and public per capita spending on healthcare outstrip every other OECD nation, and for middling results. Look at the NHS (which I note the Conservatives are trying to strip-mine for their friends' profit)- they spend half what we do and get better overall outcomes. Imagine what we could do with the money we're already spending!
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:42 PM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Both our private and public per capita spending on healthcare outstrip every other OECD nation, and for middling results. Look at the NHS (which I note the Conservatives are trying to strip-mine for their friends' profit)- they spend half what we do and get better overall outcomes. Imagine what we could do with the money we're already spending!
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:42 PM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
> Show of hands, how many people want to give up their Medicare?
> Isn't Medicare like one of the most efficient and well-run of any government agency of all time?
> And Sanders should come back with: "It's not about the health care industry, it's about the insurance industry."
Hey, I agree with you guys! I still think this is going to be a compelling attack for the GOP. Remember during the ACA town halls when you'd see people with signs along the lines of "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"? People can receive and love government medical care without that disrupting their predisposition to hate the government and distrust the idea of things run by the government. And many people probably don't appreciate that the health care industry and the health insurance industry are separate concepts.
I hope that an animate objects is right about Democrats winning with a more compelling ideology, because a lot of Americans' minds are swayed more by base, reptile-brain level appeals than facts or nuanced arguments.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:00 PM on February 25, 2016
> Isn't Medicare like one of the most efficient and well-run of any government agency of all time?
> And Sanders should come back with: "It's not about the health care industry, it's about the insurance industry."
Hey, I agree with you guys! I still think this is going to be a compelling attack for the GOP. Remember during the ACA town halls when you'd see people with signs along the lines of "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"? People can receive and love government medical care without that disrupting their predisposition to hate the government and distrust the idea of things run by the government. And many people probably don't appreciate that the health care industry and the health insurance industry are separate concepts.
I hope that an animate objects is right about Democrats winning with a more compelling ideology, because a lot of Americans' minds are swayed more by base, reptile-brain level appeals than facts or nuanced arguments.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:00 PM on February 25, 2016
I think Sanders is already framing it the best way it could be framed - we pay more than any other country because those companies are paying politicians for the right to rip us off.
I have no idea how well people will respond to the tax issue but I think there is much more awareness of how screwed up our system is and how much money we waste on it than there was in the 90s, and probably even since the ACA. As long as he's able to get his message out about those taxes completely replacing health care premiums, which is a big if given the way the media has treated him so far, I think people would generally still support it. The internet also makes it easier to get messages out to people without e.g. CNN having to play along, but it also makes it easier to spread misinformation. Either way, no doubt, it's riskier than proposing nothing, which was basically Clinton's plan before this week (although maybe she's pivoted to supporting the public option now, at least?).
However, as someone with no health insurance, the risk seems worth it to me. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can afford to take care of their health. We are a very wealthy country and we already pay more than everyone else for care that is often worse quality.
posted by dialetheia at 2:15 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea how well people will respond to the tax issue but I think there is much more awareness of how screwed up our system is and how much money we waste on it than there was in the 90s, and probably even since the ACA. As long as he's able to get his message out about those taxes completely replacing health care premiums, which is a big if given the way the media has treated him so far, I think people would generally still support it. The internet also makes it easier to get messages out to people without e.g. CNN having to play along, but it also makes it easier to spread misinformation. Either way, no doubt, it's riskier than proposing nothing, which was basically Clinton's plan before this week (although maybe she's pivoted to supporting the public option now, at least?).
However, as someone with no health insurance, the risk seems worth it to me. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can afford to take care of their health. We are a very wealthy country and we already pay more than everyone else for care that is often worse quality.
posted by dialetheia at 2:15 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Speaking of healthcare costs in the US, I have a half-baked theory that they're only as high as they are because of advertising. Y'all are flooded with healthcare ads. People are working very hard to get you to spend as much as possible on healthcare, because they make a profit when you do. Some of that advertising is probably working. All of it put together is probably working very well.
When the government runs healthcare, it wants you to spend as little as possible on healthcare. Advertisements for hospitals, for example - beyond "we do good things, please give us donations" - are... non-existent? I've never seen one, anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 2:54 PM on February 25, 2016
When the government runs healthcare, it wants you to spend as little as possible on healthcare. Advertisements for hospitals, for example - beyond "we do good things, please give us donations" - are... non-existent? I've never seen one, anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 2:54 PM on February 25, 2016
When private enterprise practices cost control, it's efficiency.
When public healthcare practices cost control, it's death panels.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:55 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
When public healthcare practices cost control, it's death panels.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:55 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders had one of the best answers to the rationing question that I've heard in the Nevada town hall (well, except that he kept pronouncing rationing with a hard 'a' sound, for some reason):
posted by dialetheia at 3:14 PM on February 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
"Second of all, alright. You want to talk about rationing, you got 29 million people in this country who have no health insurance. How’s that for rationing. They can’t go to the doctor. And, then you got even more who are underinsured with high deductibles and high copayments. I have talked to doctors who have told me that people walk in the door extremely sick, and the doctors say, why didn’t you come in here six months ago when you first felt your symptoms? And people said, “I had no health insurance,” or, “I had a high deductible”. Chuck, some of those people die, or they end up in the hospital. You want to talk about rationing, that’s rationing. To answer your question. We spend almost three times more per person than the people in the U.K., 50% more than the people in France. We can have a world class healthcare system without waiting lines, spending the same amount of money we’re spending right now.The New Republic has a fantastic biographical piece on Sanders today: Bernie's Complaint: The reluctant roots of his radicalism.
If, for example, there are systems where if you needed a knee replacement, or something like that, you might have to wait for that. But, when you’re sick you go into the doctor when you need to go. My point is, Chuck, there’s massive rationing in America. It is rationing based on money. If you don’t have money, and you don’t have insurance, and you don’t have — you have a high deductible, and you don’t go to the doctor when you should. One out of five Americans today cannot afford prescription drugs their doctors write. What do you define that as? Other countries around the world make sure that the people have the medicine they need. When one out of five people can’t afford those prescriptions, man I call that rationing. We can do a lot better than we’re currently doing."
posted by dialetheia at 3:14 PM on February 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
the risk seems worth it to me.
The risk is losing the ACA and having something much worse take its place under a Republican president. That's really concerning to me, at a personal as well as societal level, if Bernie can't pull this off. I am in favor of his plan but I agree that he is very vulnerable to GOP attack on this, and to many voters, that two paragraphs of his great argumentation looks like a boring wall of text and many will tune out, or listen only to the messages they get from campaign ads, their friends and authority figures, and maybe talk radio or Fox News. It's a wonderful, strong, solid message but I am not at all confident it will get through. We haven't even begun to see what the GOP is going to sling, because they're holding it calmly while they watch the left slash at and weaken its own two candidates.
I mean, no one has to convince me that single payer is better. It's more a matter of convincing me that Sanders can convince a recalcitrant, Socialism-fearing, not-that-politically-sophisticated right-leaning electorate that it's better. And I'm not sure he will even get enough of their attention to do that. If he is nominated, this will be a very difficult uphill battle, and there will be no holds barred on the GOP side.
posted by Miko at 3:26 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The risk is losing the ACA and having something much worse take its place under a Republican president. That's really concerning to me, at a personal as well as societal level, if Bernie can't pull this off. I am in favor of his plan but I agree that he is very vulnerable to GOP attack on this, and to many voters, that two paragraphs of his great argumentation looks like a boring wall of text and many will tune out, or listen only to the messages they get from campaign ads, their friends and authority figures, and maybe talk radio or Fox News. It's a wonderful, strong, solid message but I am not at all confident it will get through. We haven't even begun to see what the GOP is going to sling, because they're holding it calmly while they watch the left slash at and weaken its own two candidates.
I mean, no one has to convince me that single payer is better. It's more a matter of convincing me that Sanders can convince a recalcitrant, Socialism-fearing, not-that-politically-sophisticated right-leaning electorate that it's better. And I'm not sure he will even get enough of their attention to do that. If he is nominated, this will be a very difficult uphill battle, and there will be no holds barred on the GOP side.
posted by Miko at 3:26 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The "no holds barred" Republican attacks are going to be either personal attacks on Sanders himself, or attacks on his policy proposals. Sanders doesn't really care about the personal attacks, because his campaign is less about him than about those policies. He's not going to freeze like Dukakis or Kerry, he's going to ignore that shit and keep pushing his message. The reason he's doing well is because so many people recognize that in the current situation, they're fucked. They want it changed. This is probably also why Trump is hot. The absolute last person those people want to vote for is someone representing the status quo.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:57 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:57 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
We haven't even begun to see what the GOP is going to sling, because they're holding it calmly while they watch the left slash at and weaken its own two candidates.
Which Republican primary have you been following? Any energy the "GOP" has is currently devoted to keeping Donald Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. (I put GOP in quotes because I'm not convinced there's a party left anymore: their nominating process is completely off the rails; the big money contributors who have carefully cultivated candidates for years have no influence or control over what's happening; their voter base coalition is at each other now; though they control both branches of Congress, those leaders have very little control over the party members there, either; and, daily, voters are given reason to see all of this clearly which is setting up an epic down-ticket disaster in November.) I don't think many Republicans have energy or time to spare for the Democratic primary right now, and if I were a member of the Republican party power structure I'd be anything but calm right now.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:28 PM on February 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Which Republican primary have you been following? Any energy the "GOP" has is currently devoted to keeping Donald Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. (I put GOP in quotes because I'm not convinced there's a party left anymore: their nominating process is completely off the rails; the big money contributors who have carefully cultivated candidates for years have no influence or control over what's happening; their voter base coalition is at each other now; though they control both branches of Congress, those leaders have very little control over the party members there, either; and, daily, voters are given reason to see all of this clearly which is setting up an epic down-ticket disaster in November.) I don't think many Republicans have energy or time to spare for the Democratic primary right now, and if I were a member of the Republican party power structure I'd be anything but calm right now.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:28 PM on February 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
...non-existent... here in Canada.
Bear in mind that there's a portion of our population that really, really wants to believe that euthanasia is the leading cause of death for the elderly in Sweden.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:45 PM on February 25, 2016
Bear in mind that there's a portion of our population that really, really wants to believe that euthanasia is the leading cause of death for the elderly in Sweden.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:45 PM on February 25, 2016
When in reality, the leading cause of death of elderly Swedes is losing chess matches to hooded psychopomps.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:51 PM on February 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:51 PM on February 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie pronounces ration just fine.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:15 PM on February 25, 2016
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:15 PM on February 25, 2016
It's more a matter of convincing me that Sanders can convince a recalcitrant, Socialism-fearing, not-that-politically-sophisticated right-leaning electorate that it's better.
But the electorate isn't right-leaning. The die hard voters, the reliable voters, they are right-leaning. But the electorate as a whole is not. That is why Democrats routinely win in elections with large turnout and routinely lose in elections with low turnout.
The question for the upcoming election is -- as usual -- all about turnout. Especially so given the way the electoral college favors the Democratic Party right now. The Republicans need to win every state they won in 2012 plus Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. If turnout is low -- especially in the swing states -- then the Republicans have a good chance of winning. But if turnout is high, the Democrats win.
So, no one should have to convince you that Sanders can convince recalcitrant right-leaning voters of anything. One should only need to convince you that Sanders can motivate left-leaning voters to actually vote. (Not that that's necessarily an easy sell. I think there are legitimate concerns about Sanders' ability to reach enough moderate, left-leaning voters. But it's not as hard, I think, as convincing right-leaning voters to back him.)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 6:47 PM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
But the electorate isn't right-leaning. The die hard voters, the reliable voters, they are right-leaning. But the electorate as a whole is not. That is why Democrats routinely win in elections with large turnout and routinely lose in elections with low turnout.
The question for the upcoming election is -- as usual -- all about turnout. Especially so given the way the electoral college favors the Democratic Party right now. The Republicans need to win every state they won in 2012 plus Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. If turnout is low -- especially in the swing states -- then the Republicans have a good chance of winning. But if turnout is high, the Democrats win.
So, no one should have to convince you that Sanders can convince recalcitrant right-leaning voters of anything. One should only need to convince you that Sanders can motivate left-leaning voters to actually vote. (Not that that's necessarily an easy sell. I think there are legitimate concerns about Sanders' ability to reach enough moderate, left-leaning voters. But it's not as hard, I think, as convincing right-leaning voters to back him.)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 6:47 PM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Debate twitter is getting pretty old.
posted by Trochanter at 7:11 PM on February 25, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 7:11 PM on February 25, 2016
Except Sally Jenkins tweeting random fruits for Carson's salad.
Sally Jenkins @sallyjenx 2m2 minutes ago
Boysenberry. Pomegranate.
Sally Jenkins @sallyjenx 18m18 minutes ago
Cantaloupe. Goji berry.
posted by Trochanter at 7:21 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sally Jenkins @sallyjenx 2m2 minutes ago
Boysenberry. Pomegranate.
Sally Jenkins @sallyjenx 18m18 minutes ago
Cantaloupe. Goji berry.
posted by Trochanter at 7:21 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders doesn't really care about the personal attacks
It doesn't matter whether he cares, only whether voters care.
That is why Democrats routinely win in elections with large turnout and routinely lose in elections with low turnout.
That's been said a dozen times or more in this thread alone, so sure, everyone is banking on that pattern, to the extent it exists, holding. You're right to be worried about middle-of-the-road folks - "moderates." The ones you might call, say, "right-leaning." Most Democrats, let's face it, are right-leaning.
posted by Miko at 7:36 PM on February 25, 2016
It doesn't matter whether he cares, only whether voters care.
That is why Democrats routinely win in elections with large turnout and routinely lose in elections with low turnout.
That's been said a dozen times or more in this thread alone, so sure, everyone is banking on that pattern, to the extent it exists, holding. You're right to be worried about middle-of-the-road folks - "moderates." The ones you might call, say, "right-leaning." Most Democrats, let's face it, are right-leaning.
posted by Miko at 7:36 PM on February 25, 2016
The ones you might call, say, "right-leaning." Most Democrats, let's face it, are right-leaning.
For some value of "right," sure. But we're talking about U.S. politics, here, not international politics. Do you really think that large turnout doesn't favor Democrats? If so, I'd like to see some evidence.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:44 PM on February 25, 2016
For some value of "right," sure. But we're talking about U.S. politics, here, not international politics. Do you really think that large turnout doesn't favor Democrats? If so, I'd like to see some evidence.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:44 PM on February 25, 2016
I'm saying that if Bernie feels a little too left for moderates/swing/peripheral voters, they're not going to turn out. Which would mean there wouldn't be a large turnout of Sanders voters.
I suppose the argument is that he will offset the moderate voters he alienates by bringing aboard new voters, but I am not sure there are enough new voters possible for him to engage to make up for the right-leaning people in the center, whatever you call them, who are going to feel nervous about the dramatic and sweeping changes he is proposing, but also won't vote Trump/Cruz/whomever, and are going to choose to sit it out. He also has no real avenue to fuel an Obama-08-like social cohesion among previously disenfranchised or marginalized voters that translates to GOTV. I am skeptical that his appeal is wide enough, even while recognizing that it is strong in particular sectors. It is going to take not just sanguine forecasts, but a lot of more difficult work, to win over the mushy middle and the generally politcally inactive in this one.
posted by Miko at 8:03 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I suppose the argument is that he will offset the moderate voters he alienates by bringing aboard new voters, but I am not sure there are enough new voters possible for him to engage to make up for the right-leaning people in the center, whatever you call them, who are going to feel nervous about the dramatic and sweeping changes he is proposing, but also won't vote Trump/Cruz/whomever, and are going to choose to sit it out. He also has no real avenue to fuel an Obama-08-like social cohesion among previously disenfranchised or marginalized voters that translates to GOTV. I am skeptical that his appeal is wide enough, even while recognizing that it is strong in particular sectors. It is going to take not just sanguine forecasts, but a lot of more difficult work, to win over the mushy middle and the generally politcally inactive in this one.
posted by Miko at 8:03 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to push a bit more, it seems to me that you are now just equivocating on "right-leaning." If what you mean is that most Democrats live near the dividing line but still on the left side of the U.S. right-left political divide, then okay. I can believe that. But if you're saying -- as I took you to be saying initially -- that most eligible voters in the U.S. are on the right side of the right-left political divide in the U.S., then I flatly don't believe it. It doesn't fit with a large Pew poll from 2014 that found 48% of Americans are Democrats or lean Democratic, while only 39% of Americans are Republican or lean Republican, which is pretty consistent with the 50/37 split they found in a similar poll in 2009. (The other 13% selected "No leaning.")
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:05 PM on February 25, 2016
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:05 PM on February 25, 2016
I suppose the argument is that he will offset the moderate voters he alienates by bringing aboard new voters, but I am not sure there are enough new voters possible for him to engage to make up for the right-leaning people in the center, whatever you call them ...
Let's just be clear. Your initial comment -- and this bit right here in your more recent one -- isn't about right-leaning Democrats. It's about a right-leaning electorate. Those are different things.
If you are talking about Democrats and Independents who lean left with respect to the left-right political divide but who are pretty close to the center, then I think you have a fair point. Sanders might have a hard time motivating them to go to the polls. At this point, the debate becomes one about where the bulk of the people live on the left-right spectrum and about who regularly votes and so on.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:14 PM on February 25, 2016
Let's just be clear. Your initial comment -- and this bit right here in your more recent one -- isn't about right-leaning Democrats. It's about a right-leaning electorate. Those are different things.
If you are talking about Democrats and Independents who lean left with respect to the left-right political divide but who are pretty close to the center, then I think you have a fair point. Sanders might have a hard time motivating them to go to the polls. At this point, the debate becomes one about where the bulk of the people live on the left-right spectrum and about who regularly votes and so on.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:14 PM on February 25, 2016
Let's leave "leaning" aside. First, this isn't about eligible voters, it's about people who actually do vote. Second, a certain number of moderates who might otherwise vote Democratic are not going to vote Sanders. Third, Sanders would have to find enough new voters who support him to counter that lack of participation. Fourth, the statistics you name there - 48% vs. 39% - include self-described "independents," who make up 39% of the Pew sample. That's the 39% we should be worried about. They decide all elections and will decide this one. Despite their "leanings," they are not a bloc I think it makes any sense to count on.
posted by Miko at 8:17 PM on February 25, 2016
posted by Miko at 8:17 PM on February 25, 2016
It's about a right-leaning electorate
Well, I guess it's time for some quibbling, but I'm sorry about confusion in my use of terms. Electorate means "everyone eligible to vote." I didn't use it accurately. Even so, keeping to the correct definition, the electorate, I would say, even those who don't vote but could, remains right-leaning in that it has not been particularly warm and nurturing toward socialism. Sanders is not just another Democrat. His socialism is something that even the Democratic Party has kept a distance from for many decades, and will be a new thing to consider for a large swath of the voting public - and something that has already been negatively tarred, quite effectively. And if we confine ourselves to just looking at likely or past Democratic voters and moderates/swing voters, there are many who are going to decide this is a bridge too far, especially when the horror scenarios start flying (and of course they will). I have already heard otherwise reasonable people, business owners, talk about migrating to the GOP nominee - whomever they may be - because of the costs of the ACA. So I think this is worth considering. Sanders is no shoo-in, and even if it all depends on turnout, that turnout is not going to be all that easy to get.
posted by Miko at 8:25 PM on February 25, 2016
Well, I guess it's time for some quibbling, but I'm sorry about confusion in my use of terms. Electorate means "everyone eligible to vote." I didn't use it accurately. Even so, keeping to the correct definition, the electorate, I would say, even those who don't vote but could, remains right-leaning in that it has not been particularly warm and nurturing toward socialism. Sanders is not just another Democrat. His socialism is something that even the Democratic Party has kept a distance from for many decades, and will be a new thing to consider for a large swath of the voting public - and something that has already been negatively tarred, quite effectively. And if we confine ourselves to just looking at likely or past Democratic voters and moderates/swing voters, there are many who are going to decide this is a bridge too far, especially when the horror scenarios start flying (and of course they will). I have already heard otherwise reasonable people, business owners, talk about migrating to the GOP nominee - whomever they may be - because of the costs of the ACA. So I think this is worth considering. Sanders is no shoo-in, and even if it all depends on turnout, that turnout is not going to be all that easy to get.
posted by Miko at 8:25 PM on February 25, 2016
Even so, keeping to the correct definition, the electorate, I would say, even those who don't vote but could, remains right-leaning in that it has not been particularly warm and nurturing toward socialism.
Argh. This is just blatant equivocating again. You're shifting around what you mean by "right-leaning" as it suits you. If you pointed to a poll showing that most registered voters leaned toward Republicans, it wouldn't be any good for me to come back saying, "Well sure, but the electorate is left-leaning because they don't embrace anarcho-capitalism." When we're talking about right and left in reference to U.S. politics, we're almost always talking about which of the two parties the voters lean toward and/or which collections of policies -- traditionally advocated differentially by those parties -- the voters lean toward.
That is why leaners matter, and why I will not agree to leave them out of the discussion. To quote Gallup now:
Which is why I've been saying that everything comes down to motivating people to vote. The Democrats need the unlikely voters to come out and vote.
Anyway, I agree with you when you say that Sanders is not a shoo-in. And I too am concerned about whether Sanders can get the needed turnout among people who are in the political center. (I'm concerned about whether Sanders can get the votes he needs to win the Democratic primary!) One thing that I don't know is how big that sub-population is. I don't know how the Independents polled by Pew and by Gallup divide up. How many lean Democrat from the center and how many lean Democrat from the left? And how would those centrists compare the ideological distance between them and Sanders to the distance between them and the GOP nominee? And how likely would they then be to actually vote? I don't know the answers to these questions. I'm not even sure what evidence there is respecting them.
You say, "if we confine ourselves to just looking at likely or past Democratic voters and moderates/swing voters, there are many who are going to decide this is a bridge too far, especially when the horror scenarios start flying (and of course they will)." For some value of "many" that is going to be true. But how many? I don't know. I don't think you do either.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:10 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Argh. This is just blatant equivocating again. You're shifting around what you mean by "right-leaning" as it suits you. If you pointed to a poll showing that most registered voters leaned toward Republicans, it wouldn't be any good for me to come back saying, "Well sure, but the electorate is left-leaning because they don't embrace anarcho-capitalism." When we're talking about right and left in reference to U.S. politics, we're almost always talking about which of the two parties the voters lean toward and/or which collections of policies -- traditionally advocated differentially by those parties -- the voters lean toward.
That is why leaners matter, and why I will not agree to leave them out of the discussion. To quote Gallup now:
Since partisan leaners often share similar attitudes to those who identify with a party outright, the relative proportions of identifiers plus leaners gives a sense of the relative electoral strength of the two political parties, since voting decisions almost always come down to a choice of the two major-party candidates.Again, when you look at the population at large, Democrats have a slight edge. As 538 points out: When you look at likely voters, Republicans typically have a slight edge. There are well-known mechanisms that make registered voters more likely to be left-of-center and likely voters more likely to be right-of-center.
Which is why I've been saying that everything comes down to motivating people to vote. The Democrats need the unlikely voters to come out and vote.
Anyway, I agree with you when you say that Sanders is not a shoo-in. And I too am concerned about whether Sanders can get the needed turnout among people who are in the political center. (I'm concerned about whether Sanders can get the votes he needs to win the Democratic primary!) One thing that I don't know is how big that sub-population is. I don't know how the Independents polled by Pew and by Gallup divide up. How many lean Democrat from the center and how many lean Democrat from the left? And how would those centrists compare the ideological distance between them and Sanders to the distance between them and the GOP nominee? And how likely would they then be to actually vote? I don't know the answers to these questions. I'm not even sure what evidence there is respecting them.
You say, "if we confine ourselves to just looking at likely or past Democratic voters and moderates/swing voters, there are many who are going to decide this is a bridge too far, especially when the horror scenarios start flying (and of course they will)." For some value of "many" that is going to be true. But how many? I don't know. I don't think you do either.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:10 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
What's wrong with the system is that everyone from campaign strategist, to media commentary, to the voter seems to be trying to game the elections, and formulate a winning strategy rather than simply voting for the candidate that best represents their views.
Sadly, it I don't believe it can be fixed.
posted by mikelieman at 9:35 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sadly, it I don't believe it can be fixed.
posted by mikelieman at 9:35 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course, that works to keep The Man in power. Every minute spent arguing about the campaign is one less that can be spent on the issues.
posted by mikelieman at 9:38 PM on February 25, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 9:38 PM on February 25, 2016
Even I am doing it right now. Although I could perhaps pivot to Campaign Finance Reform, Voter Rights and Redistricting, etc... But I won't...
A very dear, departed friend once said to me, "I don't discuss politics. Even discussing it **encourages Them**."
I do see his point.
posted by mikelieman at 9:40 PM on February 25, 2016
A very dear, departed friend once said to me, "I don't discuss politics. Even discussing it **encourages Them**."
I do see his point.
posted by mikelieman at 9:40 PM on February 25, 2016
Meh. Sometimes, it's just interesting to talk about political science. It's interesting to reflect on what the population is like where you live and to think about how the people around you will vote. Not everything has to be advocacy.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:42 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:42 PM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know. I don't think you do either.
I don't. But I do believe the American population is a mix of essentially conservative people, and people who don't think in a very sophisticated way about politics - overlapping categories, to be sure. Sanders is putting forward some policy ideas that delight liberals. There aren't that many true liberals. The proposition is that Sanders will appeal to essentially conservative and/or low-information voters and that will swing the election his way. I think that proposition should be much more carefully examined. I think that his ideas will play as far-too-left for the population, especially if he goes up against Trump, who draws on the same energy but feels less of a risk to some.
posted by Miko at 8:56 AM on February 26, 2016
I don't. But I do believe the American population is a mix of essentially conservative people, and people who don't think in a very sophisticated way about politics - overlapping categories, to be sure. Sanders is putting forward some policy ideas that delight liberals. There aren't that many true liberals. The proposition is that Sanders will appeal to essentially conservative and/or low-information voters and that will swing the election his way. I think that proposition should be much more carefully examined. I think that his ideas will play as far-too-left for the population, especially if he goes up against Trump, who draws on the same energy but feels less of a risk to some.
posted by Miko at 8:56 AM on February 26, 2016
But I do believe the American population is a mix of essentially conservative people
I fundamentally disagree, and you've offered no evidence for that claim. Jonathan Livengood's evidence is far more convincing. I'm going to try to at least provide a rationale. I found this article "Why America is moving to the left" to be really illuminating with respect to many of the electoral trends we're seeing this year. It isn't 2008 anymore, and it's not even 2012 (hell, many 'concerned' Democrats seem to think it's 1996 or 2000 again). At least so far in the primaries, there isn't a lot of evidence that there are even that many centrist voters out there at this point - certainly not voting in many of these primaries, as the issue in both primaries is that the centrists aren't really a winning electoral bloc anymore (as seen by Clinton's sprint to the left). The Republicans have turned into a rump party running on overt racism, not ideology (at least at the national level - they've always had a much stronger legislative branch, but even there I think their success seems artificially inflated compared to the popularity of their ideas due to their success with gerrymandering). "Independents" are leaners one way or the other, as Jonathan Livengood showed (it's a very standard analysis) and they are often motivated to leave the party by concerns about campaign finance and corruption, not because they're mushy-middle centrists (and incidentally, Sanders does dramatically better among registered independents than Clinton does, by huge margins in many cases). And Hillary Clinton has been tacking as hard to the left as she can to win the primary and it still might not be enough to win her the party - there is obvious substantial leftward pressure in the party right now, and some of it is on issues that both party bases largely agree on (the bailouts were wrong, free trade has not given us the jobs that were promised, and Wall Street is ripping us off, most notably).
There's a strong case to be made that the Obama administration did a great deal to shift the Overton window to the left in this country, that he was exactly the Reaganesque figure for the Left that he hoped he would be when he ran for office. On a hypothetical Rubio administration (the author's best example of a "reformocon"):
Anyway, I just don't see the evidence for your claim, Miko. To the extent that we appear to be a conservative country if you only look at Congress, I'd argue that it's due to gerrymandering, not the electorate's underlying opinions about governance. Further, I think Democrats need to be talking about expanding that electorate - if we take it for granted as you do that young and poor people don't vote, it will always be that way and we will continue to lose elections even though those people agree with us. We have to reach them and get them out to vote. That was the lesson we should have learned from 2008 and 2012 if we had been paying any attention. We needed to do that in 2014 and we failed.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 AM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
I fundamentally disagree, and you've offered no evidence for that claim. Jonathan Livengood's evidence is far more convincing. I'm going to try to at least provide a rationale. I found this article "Why America is moving to the left" to be really illuminating with respect to many of the electoral trends we're seeing this year. It isn't 2008 anymore, and it's not even 2012 (hell, many 'concerned' Democrats seem to think it's 1996 or 2000 again). At least so far in the primaries, there isn't a lot of evidence that there are even that many centrist voters out there at this point - certainly not voting in many of these primaries, as the issue in both primaries is that the centrists aren't really a winning electoral bloc anymore (as seen by Clinton's sprint to the left). The Republicans have turned into a rump party running on overt racism, not ideology (at least at the national level - they've always had a much stronger legislative branch, but even there I think their success seems artificially inflated compared to the popularity of their ideas due to their success with gerrymandering). "Independents" are leaners one way or the other, as Jonathan Livengood showed (it's a very standard analysis) and they are often motivated to leave the party by concerns about campaign finance and corruption, not because they're mushy-middle centrists (and incidentally, Sanders does dramatically better among registered independents than Clinton does, by huge margins in many cases). And Hillary Clinton has been tacking as hard to the left as she can to win the primary and it still might not be enough to win her the party - there is obvious substantial leftward pressure in the party right now, and some of it is on issues that both party bases largely agree on (the bailouts were wrong, free trade has not given us the jobs that were promised, and Wall Street is ripping us off, most notably).
There's a strong case to be made that the Obama administration did a great deal to shift the Overton window to the left in this country, that he was exactly the Reaganesque figure for the Left that he hoped he would be when he ran for office. On a hypothetical Rubio administration (the author's best example of a "reformocon"):
Would Rubio be a more conservative president than Obama? Of course. An era of liberal dominance doesn’t mean that the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans disappear. It means that on the ideological playing field, the 50-yard line shifts further left. It means the next Republican president won’t be able to return the nation to the pre-Obama era.You can actually already see this - but with Trump, not Rubio. His racism is ten times more overt because that's the way to grab the remaining people in the Republican base. That's what they actually care about, not Club for Growth strategies or mushy-middle centrist stuff. So he's pivoted on social, trade, and foreign policy issues - he's against interventions, he's against removing the pre-existing conditions clauses of Obamacare, he argues for saving and preserving Social Security, he wants to enforce fair trade so that we aren't hemorrhaging jobs, he hasn't said a word about gay marriage that I've seen, he talks about making sure we don't have people "dying in the street" because they don't have health care. Again, I know he doesn't have any intention of necessarily doing those things, and I know that his plans for doing them are terrible - please don't take any of this as any kind of defense of Trump - but even that agenda is further left in terms of social and foreign policy (again, beyond the horrible racism) than some Democrats that have run for office in my lifetime. What Trump is exposing about Republicans is that they don't even believe their own kool-aid on economic issues - the base was just in it for the cultural and racial resentment.
That’s what happened when Dwight Eisenhower followed Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Ike moderated the growth in government expansion that had begun in the 1930s, but he didn’t return American politics to the 1920s, when the GOP opposed any federal welfare state at all. He in essence ratified the New Deal. It’s also what happened when Bill Clinton followed Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. By passing punitive anticrime laws, repealing restrictions on banks, signing NAFTA, cutting government spending to balance the budget, reforming welfare, and declaring that the “era of big government is over,” Clinton acknowledged that even a Democratic president could not revive the full-throated liberalism of the 1960s and ’70s. He ratified Reaganism.
Barack Obama sought the presidency hoping to be the Democrats’ Reagan: a president who changed America’s ideological trajectory. And he has changed it. He has pushed the political agenda as dramatically to the left as Reagan pushed it to the right, and, as under Reagan, the public has acquiesced more than it has rebelled. Reagan’s final victory came when Democrats adapted to the new political world he had made, and there is reason to believe that the next Republican president will find it necessary to make similar concessions to political reality.
Anyway, I just don't see the evidence for your claim, Miko. To the extent that we appear to be a conservative country if you only look at Congress, I'd argue that it's due to gerrymandering, not the electorate's underlying opinions about governance. Further, I think Democrats need to be talking about expanding that electorate - if we take it for granted as you do that young and poor people don't vote, it will always be that way and we will continue to lose elections even though those people agree with us. We have to reach them and get them out to vote. That was the lesson we should have learned from 2008 and 2012 if we had been paying any attention. We needed to do that in 2014 and we failed.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 AM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
you've offered no evidence for that claim
It's a belief, not a claim. I think that folks like yourselves are vastly overestimating the shift to the left. And I see more effort spent to convince people like me I'm wrong about that than I experience in daily life to convince people to vote Sanders. He's not making a big dent. Trump is. And I'm not looking at Congress - I'm looking at Facebook, I'm eavesdropping in restaurants, I'm listening to local radio, I'm asking my friends and acquaintances what they think and what they're hearing.
I think it's going to be a lot harder than you think.
posted by Miko at 11:03 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a belief, not a claim. I think that folks like yourselves are vastly overestimating the shift to the left. And I see more effort spent to convince people like me I'm wrong about that than I experience in daily life to convince people to vote Sanders. He's not making a big dent. Trump is. And I'm not looking at Congress - I'm looking at Facebook, I'm eavesdropping in restaurants, I'm listening to local radio, I'm asking my friends and acquaintances what they think and what they're hearing.
I think it's going to be a lot harder than you think.
posted by Miko at 11:03 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
we take it for granted as you do that young and poor people don't vote, it will always be that way and we will continue to lose elections even though those people agree with us. We have to reach them and get them out to vote.
Oh, and I agree with this. It's all about getting out the vote, and that's what worked in 2008, for sure, but it was a lot of work. I only just got my first Sanders mailer today; that's absolutely the first contact I've had from anyone involved with the campaign, and I'm a lifelong Dem registered with the party and I vote in every election. I have seen no one at the grocery store, no rallies. Our primary is Tuesday. It's admittedly not a state that it's in question for the general, but given that he has to fight for the nomination, there's something wrong with that.
posted by Miko at 11:05 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I agree with this. It's all about getting out the vote, and that's what worked in 2008, for sure, but it was a lot of work. I only just got my first Sanders mailer today; that's absolutely the first contact I've had from anyone involved with the campaign, and I'm a lifelong Dem registered with the party and I vote in every election. I have seen no one at the grocery store, no rallies. Our primary is Tuesday. It's admittedly not a state that it's in question for the general, but given that he has to fight for the nomination, there's something wrong with that.
posted by Miko at 11:05 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
(and finally)
His racism is ten times more overt because that's the way to grab the remaining people in the Republican base
and, sadly, it is grabbing a lot of people in the mushy middle, too.
posted by Miko at 11:07 AM on February 26, 2016
His racism is ten times more overt because that's the way to grab the remaining people in the Republican base
and, sadly, it is grabbing a lot of people in the mushy middle, too.
posted by Miko at 11:07 AM on February 26, 2016
What Trump is exposing about Republicans is that they don't even believe their own kool-aid on economic issues - the base was just in it for the cultural and racial resentment.
I think it's just become more obvious. The Republicans have run an ongoing Southern Strategy against Black and Brown people using overt and more subtle dogwhistle politics since Nixon, laying claim to the Democrats' previous racist legacy.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's just become more obvious. The Republicans have run an ongoing Southern Strategy against Black and Brown people using overt and more subtle dogwhistle politics since Nixon, laying claim to the Democrats' previous racist legacy.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that anybody thinks it will be "easy" is a straw man. I'm not arguing it will be easy by any means, and I don't understand how you'd get that from Sanders either - he's very up front about the fact that we will need to change the way people engage with politics first before we would have any chance of enacting legislation (though again, not all change happens through legislation). He's actively trying to change the way we engage with politics right now, from grassroots campaign finance to youth engagement, and doing a far better job of it than any of the other Democrats.
I'm simply pushing back on the many, many assertions in this thread that it's fundamentally impossible. I don't believe that, and I think anyone who does believe that has given up. Maybe Sanders would be doing better if everyone who agreed with him tried to work toward those goals, instead of arguing that it's not worth trying because it will be difficult. Maybe we're talking past each other because you think I believe that all we have to do is get Sanders elected and all the problems will be solved - I don't think that at all. I think our politics are in dire shape and we need popular movements akin to the civil rights movements of the 60s in order to even begin to address our urgent and existential problems as a country, and that Sanders is the only one realistic enough to acknowledge that. If you listen carefully, that is what Sanders is arguing, too.
The argument from futility reminds me of this fantastic journal article I read about the liberal arguments used to argue against civil rights in the 60s, "Reactionary rhetoric and liberal legal academia." The article is specifically about attitudes toward legal means of achieving social and political change, but the reactionary argument from futility has been jumping out at me all year after reading this piece (not to accuse anyone here of being reactionary, just that this argument from futility against the social change that Sanders argues for has been prevalent even among people who claim to agree with his values):
"As celebrations mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is essential to recover the arguments mainstream critics made in opposing what has become a sacrosanct piece of legislation. Prominent legal scholarship now appears to misapprehend the nature of that mainstream opposition, contending it assumed more aggressive forms than it actually did. Upon examining the actual arguments respected figures wielded against the Civil Rights Act during the 1960s, certain patterns of argumentation become almost immediately apparent. Mainstream critics consistently opposed the legislation not by challenging it head on, but instead by employing three standard arguments that Professor Albert O. Hirschman’s The Rhetoric of Reaction identified as sounding variously in perversity, futility, and jeopardy. ...
When liberals propose ideas for social improvement, Hirschman observed, opponents frequently react to the proposal by asserting it will: intensify the very problem it attempts to remedy, and thus prove perverse; fail to achieve the desired reform, and thus prove futile; and/or threaten to undermine a more fundamental value, and thus jeopardize some earlier, hard-earned societal accomplishment. ...
Second, the futility thesis, which is almost diametrically opposed to the perversity thesis, contends that efforts to reform society will fail to produce change altogether, or produce only superficial change, because of deep-seated societal foundations that simply cannot be altered. Where perversity rhetoric assumes a world brimming with uncertainty, futility rhetoric sees a world of intractability. “In [the futility] scenario,” Hirschman explained, “human actions or intentions are frustrated, not because they unleash a series of side effects, but because they pretend to change the unchangeable, because they ignore the basic structures of society.” Mere mortals are powerless to transform ironclad laws. Under the futility view, the status quo is king, and he cannot be dethroned. The futility argument’s patron saint is Edmund Burke, the French Revolution skeptic who famously warned would-be reformers to recall “the eternal constitution of things.” Indeed, it is no accident, in Hirschman’s estimation, that the futility thesis received its classic articulation in the French Revolution’s aftermath: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose"
posted by dialetheia at 11:33 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm simply pushing back on the many, many assertions in this thread that it's fundamentally impossible. I don't believe that, and I think anyone who does believe that has given up. Maybe Sanders would be doing better if everyone who agreed with him tried to work toward those goals, instead of arguing that it's not worth trying because it will be difficult. Maybe we're talking past each other because you think I believe that all we have to do is get Sanders elected and all the problems will be solved - I don't think that at all. I think our politics are in dire shape and we need popular movements akin to the civil rights movements of the 60s in order to even begin to address our urgent and existential problems as a country, and that Sanders is the only one realistic enough to acknowledge that. If you listen carefully, that is what Sanders is arguing, too.
The argument from futility reminds me of this fantastic journal article I read about the liberal arguments used to argue against civil rights in the 60s, "Reactionary rhetoric and liberal legal academia." The article is specifically about attitudes toward legal means of achieving social and political change, but the reactionary argument from futility has been jumping out at me all year after reading this piece (not to accuse anyone here of being reactionary, just that this argument from futility against the social change that Sanders argues for has been prevalent even among people who claim to agree with his values):
"As celebrations mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is essential to recover the arguments mainstream critics made in opposing what has become a sacrosanct piece of legislation. Prominent legal scholarship now appears to misapprehend the nature of that mainstream opposition, contending it assumed more aggressive forms than it actually did. Upon examining the actual arguments respected figures wielded against the Civil Rights Act during the 1960s, certain patterns of argumentation become almost immediately apparent. Mainstream critics consistently opposed the legislation not by challenging it head on, but instead by employing three standard arguments that Professor Albert O. Hirschman’s The Rhetoric of Reaction identified as sounding variously in perversity, futility, and jeopardy. ...
When liberals propose ideas for social improvement, Hirschman observed, opponents frequently react to the proposal by asserting it will: intensify the very problem it attempts to remedy, and thus prove perverse; fail to achieve the desired reform, and thus prove futile; and/or threaten to undermine a more fundamental value, and thus jeopardize some earlier, hard-earned societal accomplishment. ...
Second, the futility thesis, which is almost diametrically opposed to the perversity thesis, contends that efforts to reform society will fail to produce change altogether, or produce only superficial change, because of deep-seated societal foundations that simply cannot be altered. Where perversity rhetoric assumes a world brimming with uncertainty, futility rhetoric sees a world of intractability. “In [the futility] scenario,” Hirschman explained, “human actions or intentions are frustrated, not because they unleash a series of side effects, but because they pretend to change the unchangeable, because they ignore the basic structures of society.” Mere mortals are powerless to transform ironclad laws. Under the futility view, the status quo is king, and he cannot be dethroned. The futility argument’s patron saint is Edmund Burke, the French Revolution skeptic who famously warned would-be reformers to recall “the eternal constitution of things.” Indeed, it is no accident, in Hirschman’s estimation, that the futility thesis received its classic articulation in the French Revolution’s aftermath: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose"
posted by dialetheia at 11:33 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
~40% of those who vote reflexively cast their ballots for the Obstructionist party. The GOP resists change and progress and liberal ideas. Their members vote for and financially support candidates who proudly and loudly do everything they can to thwart any effort to alter the status quo and revert much of the progress made towards equality made in the last 50 years. This tendency has gotten stronger in the last three decades, not less, helped by a viciously partisan environment fed by tea party-supporting media outlets and pundits. An environment in which Republicans are refusing to vet a potential Supreme Court Justice before he or she is even nominated by a Democratic President.
The GOP has broad support from the voting public. They have to, or their candidates wouldn't be elected consistently. They wouldn't have control of the House and Senate.
The path to the Oval Office is littered with former candidates with strong left-wing agendas. Eugene McCarthy. Henry Wallace. George McGovern. Ralph Nader. I worry that Sanders would join the list, and don't want to wake up in January to President Cruz or Trump. That would be calamitous.
To win, Sanders will require widespread support from Democrats, and not just from the younger demographic. He will need the support of racial minorities and women. Because GOP voters are going to jam the polls to cast their votes against him.
His early results have been promising (he did very well in Nevada, which surprised me) but they're nowhere near a slam dunk. So for now at least, I'm supporting Hillary. Sanders needs to convince people he has a shot at the Presidency by winning primaries in many key states.
Once Super Tuesday and the open primaries are over we'll have a much better idea of his potential in the general. The next dates to watch are March 15th. April 19. June 7th.
posted by zarq at 12:51 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
The GOP has broad support from the voting public. They have to, or their candidates wouldn't be elected consistently. They wouldn't have control of the House and Senate.
The path to the Oval Office is littered with former candidates with strong left-wing agendas. Eugene McCarthy. Henry Wallace. George McGovern. Ralph Nader. I worry that Sanders would join the list, and don't want to wake up in January to President Cruz or Trump. That would be calamitous.
To win, Sanders will require widespread support from Democrats, and not just from the younger demographic. He will need the support of racial minorities and women. Because GOP voters are going to jam the polls to cast their votes against him.
His early results have been promising (he did very well in Nevada, which surprised me) but they're nowhere near a slam dunk. So for now at least, I'm supporting Hillary. Sanders needs to convince people he has a shot at the Presidency by winning primaries in many key states.
Once Super Tuesday and the open primaries are over we'll have a much better idea of his potential in the general. The next dates to watch are March 15th. April 19. June 7th.
posted by zarq at 12:51 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
The GOP has broad support from the voting public. They have to, or their candidates wouldn't be elected consistently. They wouldn't have control of the House and Senate.
This is the part I specifically disagree with. They dominate the House because they are better at gerrymandering and had state legislature advantages in 2010, and they dominate the Senate because we left young and marginal voters on the sidelines in 2014. To me those are clear issues with our electoral strategy, not a direct reflection of voters' underlying attitudes, especially not at the national level. They are obstructionist precisely because they have to please their ever-shrinking base, and that's the only way to do it.
In many ways, we're talking in circles - I agree with everything you're saying about the people who actually vote now, in the context of heavily gerrymandered districts. What I am saying, and what Sanders is arguing, is that 60% of this country doesn't vote, and leaving those people on the table is a stupid electoral strategy. I grew up poor/working-class and know lots of people who don't vote. Nearly all of them don't vote because they believe the system is already rigged against them, that their votes don't matter, and that politicians are all liars anyway. Someone like Bernie Sanders, who is actually trustworthy, doesn't take corporate money, and understands why they've disengaged with the political process actually has a chance at getting them involved again, where someone like Clinton does not.
The thing that ultimately bothers me about the electability arguments from people who otherwise support everything he stands for but won't support his movement is that the arguments are circular and self-fulfilling. Yes, he will need that support - and he won't get it if people who agree with his vision for America don't get out and help make it happen. He talks about it constantly: he's not going to get all of this done, he can only do it if people like us, who claim to agree with his goals, actually believe that it is possible and get out there and try to make it happen. To the extent that we fail to do that, we make it impossible.
Besides, I would love to hear Clinton supporters talk about their plans for winning in November, because "she sorts out in the center of a conventional-wisdom reductionist left-right axis" doesn't do it for me, especially in a year when the usual left/right boundaries are being pushed hard and the pundits have been wrong about everything. Young people tend to strongly dislike her, 54% of the country has an unfavorable opinion of her (compared to only 40% favorable), and 60% of voters think she's not honest and trustworthy, compared to 36% who believe she is honest. 1/5 voters' first word to describe her is "dishonest" or "liar." and only 50% of Democrats even use a positive term when asked that question. Her favorability ratings are perfectly in line with losing candidates since 1992. History is also littered with milquetoast centrist candidates who nobody cared enough about to elect (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). I feel the same way you do about Sanders, frankly: she's vastly underperformed her electoral expectations so far, and we'll see if she has what it takes to attract young voters, poor voters, and white voters, who we will desperately need to hold onto the Rust Belt states in the general election.
posted by dialetheia at 2:23 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is the part I specifically disagree with. They dominate the House because they are better at gerrymandering and had state legislature advantages in 2010, and they dominate the Senate because we left young and marginal voters on the sidelines in 2014. To me those are clear issues with our electoral strategy, not a direct reflection of voters' underlying attitudes, especially not at the national level. They are obstructionist precisely because they have to please their ever-shrinking base, and that's the only way to do it.
In many ways, we're talking in circles - I agree with everything you're saying about the people who actually vote now, in the context of heavily gerrymandered districts. What I am saying, and what Sanders is arguing, is that 60% of this country doesn't vote, and leaving those people on the table is a stupid electoral strategy. I grew up poor/working-class and know lots of people who don't vote. Nearly all of them don't vote because they believe the system is already rigged against them, that their votes don't matter, and that politicians are all liars anyway. Someone like Bernie Sanders, who is actually trustworthy, doesn't take corporate money, and understands why they've disengaged with the political process actually has a chance at getting them involved again, where someone like Clinton does not.
The thing that ultimately bothers me about the electability arguments from people who otherwise support everything he stands for but won't support his movement is that the arguments are circular and self-fulfilling. Yes, he will need that support - and he won't get it if people who agree with his vision for America don't get out and help make it happen. He talks about it constantly: he's not going to get all of this done, he can only do it if people like us, who claim to agree with his goals, actually believe that it is possible and get out there and try to make it happen. To the extent that we fail to do that, we make it impossible.
Besides, I would love to hear Clinton supporters talk about their plans for winning in November, because "she sorts out in the center of a conventional-wisdom reductionist left-right axis" doesn't do it for me, especially in a year when the usual left/right boundaries are being pushed hard and the pundits have been wrong about everything. Young people tend to strongly dislike her, 54% of the country has an unfavorable opinion of her (compared to only 40% favorable), and 60% of voters think she's not honest and trustworthy, compared to 36% who believe she is honest. 1/5 voters' first word to describe her is "dishonest" or "liar." and only 50% of Democrats even use a positive term when asked that question. Her favorability ratings are perfectly in line with losing candidates since 1992. History is also littered with milquetoast centrist candidates who nobody cared enough about to elect (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). I feel the same way you do about Sanders, frankly: she's vastly underperformed her electoral expectations so far, and we'll see if she has what it takes to attract young voters, poor voters, and white voters, who we will desperately need to hold onto the Rust Belt states in the general election.
posted by dialetheia at 2:23 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
The thing that ultimately bothers me about the electability arguments from people who otherwise support everything he stands for but won't support his movement
Not sure if this is directed at me, but I don't support everything Sanders stands for. In particular, I'm not convinced that his immigration plan is realistic. I have reservations about his positions on certain matters of foreign policy, as well as his level of experience in that arena. I think he should be a much stronger advocate of more stringent gun control, and I am uncomfortable with the way he has connected mental health to gun violence in messages on social media and in a couple of speeches. Providing additional funding to mental health programs is great. By all means. Saying it in the same breath as your positions on gun control is not. I'm also not yet convinced that he would be able to work better with a Republican Congress than Clinton.
I don't support everything Clinton stands for, either, although my concerns with her positions on various issues are mostly different. But that's neither here nor there.
Yes, he will need that support - and he won't get it if people who agree with his vision for America don't get out and help make it happen.
Yes. I said as much above! :)
Worth noting: The state I'm in will go Blue no matter what. New York has been mostly Blue since the Great Depression, and hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984. The only vote I'm going to cast which will make any difference in this election other than add a "+1" to an already guaranteed result is during the primary, which in NY is April 19th. And I have plenty of time to make up my mind before then, by observing how much of a turnout Sanders attracts and whether people turn out to vote for him during other primaries.
I want a Democrat to win. I won't vote for any Democratic candidate in a primary that I think can't win the general.
About the polls....
We have no idea, not a blessed clue what's going to happen over the next few months. We don't know what scandals will arise, or what attacks will hit home. We don't know what campaign trail revelations or gaffes might derail a candidate. Remember John McCain in 2008. Six months ago, Jeb Bush was the front runner. About the only thing we can be certain about is that the status quo on February 26th is not going to be the status quo in two months. Polls can be useful predictive tools. But they aren't infallible and can't account for unexpecteds.
He needs to get through more primaries.
I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general. I will not vote for a Republican Presidential candidate. Personally, I think it would be stupid as all hell to cut off my own nose to spite my face if a candidate I supported for the Democratic nomination loses. If he wins, then he has my vote. If he doesn't then Clinton will.
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not sure if this is directed at me, but I don't support everything Sanders stands for. In particular, I'm not convinced that his immigration plan is realistic. I have reservations about his positions on certain matters of foreign policy, as well as his level of experience in that arena. I think he should be a much stronger advocate of more stringent gun control, and I am uncomfortable with the way he has connected mental health to gun violence in messages on social media and in a couple of speeches. Providing additional funding to mental health programs is great. By all means. Saying it in the same breath as your positions on gun control is not. I'm also not yet convinced that he would be able to work better with a Republican Congress than Clinton.
I don't support everything Clinton stands for, either, although my concerns with her positions on various issues are mostly different. But that's neither here nor there.
Yes, he will need that support - and he won't get it if people who agree with his vision for America don't get out and help make it happen.
Yes. I said as much above! :)
Worth noting: The state I'm in will go Blue no matter what. New York has been mostly Blue since the Great Depression, and hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984. The only vote I'm going to cast which will make any difference in this election other than add a "+1" to an already guaranteed result is during the primary, which in NY is April 19th. And I have plenty of time to make up my mind before then, by observing how much of a turnout Sanders attracts and whether people turn out to vote for him during other primaries.
I want a Democrat to win. I won't vote for any Democratic candidate in a primary that I think can't win the general.
About the polls....
We have no idea, not a blessed clue what's going to happen over the next few months. We don't know what scandals will arise, or what attacks will hit home. We don't know what campaign trail revelations or gaffes might derail a candidate. Remember John McCain in 2008. Six months ago, Jeb Bush was the front runner. About the only thing we can be certain about is that the status quo on February 26th is not going to be the status quo in two months. Polls can be useful predictive tools. But they aren't infallible and can't account for unexpecteds.
He needs to get through more primaries.
I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the general. I will not vote for a Republican Presidential candidate. Personally, I think it would be stupid as all hell to cut off my own nose to spite my face if a candidate I supported for the Democratic nomination loses. If he wins, then he has my vote. If he doesn't then Clinton will.
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
What I am saying, and what Sanders is arguing, is that 60% of this country doesn't vote, and leaving those people on the table is a stupid electoral strategy.
We're in total agreement. What I want to know is: what's the strategy? What's the winning ground-game strategy he has for this? I don't see it here, locally; I don't see it in concrete proposals, and I don't see it in what sounds like high-minded but wishful "we'll just explain his great policies!" thinking from some of his supporters. I want to know what the tactics are. That's why Obama won: killer fucking tactics. Killer data, killer software, killer messaging, killer volunteer recruitment, killer record-keeping, killer ground plan - all tightly organized and rigorously well-managed start to finish. I'm not sure I'm seeing as much of that from Sanders right now as I am from even Clinton, let alone Obama, especially at this point in the process.
We have no idea, not a blessed clue what's going to happen over the next few months.
Truest thing said in this thread. This isn't a scientific process and isn't perfectly predictable. The rougher road lies ahead. We're in a very unclear moment. I share zarq's conviction that the most major outcome I require of this election is that a Democrat win. I'm not ready to push personal ideology over that critical necessity. I'll have to vote Tuesday, and I am planning to vote Sanders for a variety of reasons - mainly that I've been a pretty much lifelong Democratic Socialist and want my first chance to vote for one - but I would really like to see a lot more assurance that he has incredibly good campaign managers and a well-thought-out plan to win that goes beyond "we have better ideas," because God knows that's not what wins elections.
posted by Miko at 8:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
We're in total agreement. What I want to know is: what's the strategy? What's the winning ground-game strategy he has for this? I don't see it here, locally; I don't see it in concrete proposals, and I don't see it in what sounds like high-minded but wishful "we'll just explain his great policies!" thinking from some of his supporters. I want to know what the tactics are. That's why Obama won: killer fucking tactics. Killer data, killer software, killer messaging, killer volunteer recruitment, killer record-keeping, killer ground plan - all tightly organized and rigorously well-managed start to finish. I'm not sure I'm seeing as much of that from Sanders right now as I am from even Clinton, let alone Obama, especially at this point in the process.
We have no idea, not a blessed clue what's going to happen over the next few months.
Truest thing said in this thread. This isn't a scientific process and isn't perfectly predictable. The rougher road lies ahead. We're in a very unclear moment. I share zarq's conviction that the most major outcome I require of this election is that a Democrat win. I'm not ready to push personal ideology over that critical necessity. I'll have to vote Tuesday, and I am planning to vote Sanders for a variety of reasons - mainly that I've been a pretty much lifelong Democratic Socialist and want my first chance to vote for one - but I would really like to see a lot more assurance that he has incredibly good campaign managers and a well-thought-out plan to win that goes beyond "we have better ideas," because God knows that's not what wins elections.
posted by Miko at 8:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure I'm seeing as much of that from Sanders right now as I am from even Clinton, let alone Obama, especially at this point in the process.
A couple thoughts.
posted by an animate objects at 8:35 PM on February 26, 2016
A couple thoughts.
posted by an animate objects at 8:35 PM on February 26, 2016
I'm in Massachusetts. Like I said - my first direct contact from the campaign was yesterday.
The Sanders ascent is built on deft use of the campaign tools first developed a decade ago by fellow Vermonter Howard Dean.
..Great?
I've seen no invite to a Sanders house party. And I should be his target. This should have his core supporters worried!
posted by Miko at 8:40 PM on February 26, 2016
The Sanders ascent is built on deft use of the campaign tools first developed a decade ago by fellow Vermonter Howard Dean.
..Great?
I've seen no invite to a Sanders house party. And I should be his target. This should have his core supporters worried!
posted by Miko at 8:40 PM on February 26, 2016
an animate objects...I appreciate your effort, but we should bring a critical eye to this stuff. So, Sanders has an iphone app that replaces....a clipboard? Great. That's about the minimum I'd expect of people canvassing today, to have an iphone/iPad app instead of paper. "Let's get an app to replace a clipboard!" is something even the hoary old guys in my industry have managed to figure out - it's not exactly killer crunching.
And the NYT article - so there is a bot on Slack. There is an interactive map. Interactive maps with links to events and signups aren't new or particular groundbreaking things. Obama developed that kind of map in 2008 - it was new then. This is a good thing, but let's please not overstate how incredible this is. By now, this is minimum standard tech. I'm not sure I see why this is going to be more effective than Obama's efforts, especially on a less responsive audience than he enjoyed.
posted by Miko at 8:47 PM on February 26, 2016
And the NYT article - so there is a bot on Slack. There is an interactive map. Interactive maps with links to events and signups aren't new or particular groundbreaking things. Obama developed that kind of map in 2008 - it was new then. This is a good thing, but let's please not overstate how incredible this is. By now, this is minimum standard tech. I'm not sure I see why this is going to be more effective than Obama's efforts, especially on a less responsive audience than he enjoyed.
posted by Miko at 8:47 PM on February 26, 2016
Have you spent any time on the subreddit? Used the dialer? There are some very resource efficient, sophisticated things happening in a way that wasn't possible 8 years ago.
The other thing is that most of Sanders' advantage is his use of social media. Presumably he's not spending tons of cash on flyers because tweets and the like are free. (Any active facebook user under 30 is getting Bernie 24/7.) His social media presence is absolutely killer. And social media is many people's primary information source nowadays. So for as much as he has been ignored by the conventional mediums he's king of the internet. And the internet, as he well recognizes, is the future of politics.
posted by an animate objects at 8:52 PM on February 26, 2016
The other thing is that most of Sanders' advantage is his use of social media. Presumably he's not spending tons of cash on flyers because tweets and the like are free. (Any active facebook user under 30 is getting Bernie 24/7.) His social media presence is absolutely killer. And social media is many people's primary information source nowadays. So for as much as he has been ignored by the conventional mediums he's king of the internet. And the internet, as he well recognizes, is the future of politics.
posted by an animate objects at 8:52 PM on February 26, 2016
...and as to the "futility thesis," I'm a historian; I don't need any particular paper to be aware that every single progressive move in American history has been preceded by a chorus of people who said it could never happen. That's not the interesting bit: the interesting bit is how the strategy was developed to overcome these very predictable, very standard human tendencies to resist and retard change. Because those tendencies have always been with us, and they're with us now.We can't just dismiss these factors as "bad thinking," but recognize that they're predictable tropes and strategize around them.
Also, I think in your discussion of the perversity and futility theses you are giving short shrift to the jeopardy thesis, which is where a lot of people hesitant to vote Sanders are coming from. There is a great deal at risk, and it's reasonable to make that assessment. Politics is about choice-making, and something is always at risk in a choice. Finally, just because these arguments can be rhetorically categorized, it is fallacy to say they were wrong. They were not wrong on their face. Some efforts in the hundred-plus-year history of Civil Rights were futile. Some did make pernicious trade-offs, and were thus perverse. And some did jeopardize hard-earned accomplishments.
posted by Miko at 8:59 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, I think in your discussion of the perversity and futility theses you are giving short shrift to the jeopardy thesis, which is where a lot of people hesitant to vote Sanders are coming from. There is a great deal at risk, and it's reasonable to make that assessment. Politics is about choice-making, and something is always at risk in a choice. Finally, just because these arguments can be rhetorically categorized, it is fallacy to say they were wrong. They were not wrong on their face. Some efforts in the hundred-plus-year history of Civil Rights were futile. Some did make pernicious trade-offs, and were thus perverse. And some did jeopardize hard-earned accomplishments.
posted by Miko at 8:59 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have you spent any time on the subreddit? Used the dialer? There are some very resource efficient, sophisticated things happening in a way that wasn't possible 8 years ago.
No. Because I'm not campaigning for him. Aren't these tools for people campaigning for him? My question to you is, how are you planning to reach people who aren't campaigning for him? Because they don't care about what tools are available to campaigners. Dailer? looks awesome. I've gotten 0 calls. Again: my primary is Tuesday.
His social media presence is absolutely killer.
I don't know if you think I'm 107 or something, but I'm aware of the presence - I'm an active Twitter user, power user even, and Facebook user with multiple accounts, politically active across a number of issues. I did follow Bernie on FB for a while, but I unliked his feed because enough already.
Again, please think about the insularity of these methods. I know it's easy to reach a couple of particular demographics with Bernie's message. What are the ideas for reaching outside these easy circles? Where am I seeing the impact of his canvassing ? Why haven't people I know, who are definitely persuadable, been contacted? Why is his visibility so low among people who haven't opted in to his feed because they are already sympathetic or have been brought in by their friends? That's not going to work! He needs a more diverse appeal. This is a real and serious campaign problem and the more I see the disconnect between the true believers and the actual ground game that might promise to expand his base of support, the more I worry about supporting this candidate for the nomination. If he can't win Dems, he's going to be hopeless against the opposition.. It's got to go beyond the core supporters. It's really, really not there yet. Those of you who are deep into the campaign really need to give that some thought.
posted by Miko at 9:08 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
No. Because I'm not campaigning for him. Aren't these tools for people campaigning for him? My question to you is, how are you planning to reach people who aren't campaigning for him? Because they don't care about what tools are available to campaigners. Dailer? looks awesome. I've gotten 0 calls. Again: my primary is Tuesday.
His social media presence is absolutely killer.
I don't know if you think I'm 107 or something, but I'm aware of the presence - I'm an active Twitter user, power user even, and Facebook user with multiple accounts, politically active across a number of issues. I did follow Bernie on FB for a while, but I unliked his feed because enough already.
Again, please think about the insularity of these methods. I know it's easy to reach a couple of particular demographics with Bernie's message. What are the ideas for reaching outside these easy circles? Where am I seeing the impact of his canvassing ? Why haven't people I know, who are definitely persuadable, been contacted? Why is his visibility so low among people who haven't opted in to his feed because they are already sympathetic or have been brought in by their friends? That's not going to work! He needs a more diverse appeal. This is a real and serious campaign problem and the more I see the disconnect between the true believers and the actual ground game that might promise to expand his base of support, the more I worry about supporting this candidate for the nomination. If he can't win Dems, he's going to be hopeless against the opposition.. It's got to go beyond the core supporters. It's really, really not there yet. Those of you who are deep into the campaign really need to give that some thought.
posted by Miko at 9:08 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know much of anything about his campaign mechanics. I just don't think it's fair to frame his lack of visibility as being somehow his fault, or raise anecdotes of lite contact as evidence of campaign negligence. It's uphill, it's always been uphill, it'll be uphill to the bitter end. Uphill means he doesn't have all the resources and name recognition and massive head starts and assumptions of success. He doesn't get the media attention and when he does he doesn't get the benefit of any doubts. Recognizing all this is fundamental to any consideration for how well his campaign is or isn't faring. So maybe you look at all that and you're still gravely concerned; even then I would suggest getting involved rather than criticizing his efforts from the porch. It's an exciting campaign full of very ambitious, thoughtful people and they'd love to have you.
I'm sorry to assume you're not active on social media; it just feels like most mefites treat facebook like church (for easter and christmas.)
posted by an animate objects at 10:08 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry to assume you're not active on social media; it just feels like most mefites treat facebook like church (for easter and christmas.)
posted by an animate objects at 10:08 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
His social media presence is absolutely killer.
Social media presence doesn't mean a whole lot on its own, though, since it reaches a (relatively) closed circle. It only becomes meaningful when it leads directly to off-line action that explicitly involves outreach beyond the true-believer inner circle.
Tweets don't vote any more than yard signs do.
posted by dersins at 11:05 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Social media presence doesn't mean a whole lot on its own, though, since it reaches a (relatively) closed circle. It only becomes meaningful when it leads directly to off-line action that explicitly involves outreach beyond the true-believer inner circle.
Tweets don't vote any more than yard signs do.
posted by dersins at 11:05 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not convinced that his immigration plan is realistic. I have reservations about his positions on certain matters of foreign policy, as well as his level of experience in that arena.
Bernie Sanders was 100% right about the AUMF-Iraq, and Hillary Clinton was 100% wrong.
We can't take the chance of another Hillary Clinton foreign policy error causing that much death and destruction again, can we?
posted by mikelieman at 11:09 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders was 100% right about the AUMF-Iraq, and Hillary Clinton was 100% wrong.
We can't take the chance of another Hillary Clinton foreign policy error causing that much death and destruction again, can we?
posted by mikelieman at 11:09 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, I should add, this is part of why the Obama campaigns (especially the 2012 one, when the magic was gone and the ground-game was very grind-it-out) had such an effective digital media effort: because every message was also a call to offline action.
posted by dersins at 11:11 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 11:11 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just don't think it's fair to frame his lack of visibility as being somehow his fault, or raise anecdotes of lite contact as evidence of campaign negligence.
It's definitely fair. Visibility is the basis of what campaigning is, and he is responsible for the quality of his campaign. If he is not contacting me, on paper a persuadable voter and one important to capture on Tuesday (there's no way he'd know if I'm a Hillary or Bernie supporter based on my voting record), there is a real problem. I'm low-hanging fruit. There's very little visible action locally. I've seen one sign, one bumper sticker. No house party invitations, no links to the local Dems Facebook page which I'm on, no rallies, no door-knocking, no phone calls. This isn't promising. If he's not visible to people who are persuadable and who can be convinced to vote on election day, he will lose. His entire strategy, according to our in-thread pundits, depends on getting out the vote and firing up a base. And this is the easy part; this is getting registered Democrats out to secure him the nomination!
What dersins says is important. Obama won his Presidency on the ground, through face-to-face interaction. It was about reaching out of the inner circle and reaching beyond the middle class and information-consuming audience. That isn't going to change for Sanders, especially because he really needs voters who are marginalized and disenfranchised. A great number of those people are not hanging around on Facebook talking about politics, or going to happy hours and watching parties.
posted by Miko at 8:46 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's definitely fair. Visibility is the basis of what campaigning is, and he is responsible for the quality of his campaign. If he is not contacting me, on paper a persuadable voter and one important to capture on Tuesday (there's no way he'd know if I'm a Hillary or Bernie supporter based on my voting record), there is a real problem. I'm low-hanging fruit. There's very little visible action locally. I've seen one sign, one bumper sticker. No house party invitations, no links to the local Dems Facebook page which I'm on, no rallies, no door-knocking, no phone calls. This isn't promising. If he's not visible to people who are persuadable and who can be convinced to vote on election day, he will lose. His entire strategy, according to our in-thread pundits, depends on getting out the vote and firing up a base. And this is the easy part; this is getting registered Democrats out to secure him the nomination!
What dersins says is important. Obama won his Presidency on the ground, through face-to-face interaction. It was about reaching out of the inner circle and reaching beyond the middle class and information-consuming audience. That isn't going to change for Sanders, especially because he really needs voters who are marginalized and disenfranchised. A great number of those people are not hanging around on Facebook talking about politics, or going to happy hours and watching parties.
posted by Miko at 8:46 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and as to "maybe get involved" - that's another kind of privilege talking, and it's important to recognize that. First, you don't know what I am doing. Second, I'm not "on the porch," I'm a graduate student currently writing my thesis, working FT, with an intergenerational family that has needs. It's rather insulting to suggest that my lack of involvement is due to laziness; that kind of hauteur is alienating. There is no real time available for me to jump into a campaign properly without making unacceptable personal sacrifices. I have given a tremendous amount of personal time to elections over the last decade and more, and I need to curtail that right now while I produce important work that will effect my career and earnings for the rest of my life. Third, as you can tell I'm not wholly sold on Sanders. I'm voting for him on Tuesday, because I am wholly sold on his political philosophy; but I'm absolutely not sold on his efficacy and realpolitik, so I am doing it with trepidation. My main concern is that a Democrat gain the office. I'm quite nervous that if he can't rally a majority convincingly on Super Tuesday, he definitely can't do it in the general. So, on the whole, I have neither the time nor the true-believer status to campaign for either candidate in the primary. I think what's most important right now is to observe the wash of public opinion in the aggregate; it's more important to me to see which candidate has the right kind of draw and the most effective campaign, so that I can then support that person in the general.
People with time, limited other commitments, and passion are the basis of a campaign. Anyone who has all three should probably be spending a lot of time on Sanders' campaign (and not just on message boards and Facebook! That's not campaigning!). But I'm not one of those people. I have been one, to some degree or another, in every election from 1992 to 2012, but it is someone else's turn right now, and that's something that happens to good people in life. Ultimately, one predictor of a campaign's success is the number and quality of volunteers it can engage and retain. The volunteers are the voices, faces, and hands of the candidate. I haven't had any interaction with a Sanders volunteer (other than here, but this is not where I vote). Knowing something of campaign volunteering as I do, I am wondering where the volunteers are, the people doing the role that I know is so essential because I have done it, why I don't see more of them, and why their outreach is so minimal. It's a reasonable critique. In other words, I think people who are concerned that I'm not involved as a campaigner should be redoubling their efforts to get more others involved. Some people can be moved to direct action. I can't do much of that right now. So that means that there ought to be more relentless efforts to find two people who can be moved to action for every one of me, whose life situation is prohibitive. It's a real situation and a campaign problem and challenge, not a moral failing. The strategy needs to understand this.
When I think about 2008 (just because that was definitely the finest campaign yet run in my lifetime), I had people coming at me from every direction - volunteers, but also friends and relatives who had become volunteers and were donating and were sharing that information everywhere and emailing me their challenges and encouragments to donate and getting me signed on with [State] for Obama and Obama for America. So far, this is a pale shadow of what that groundswell looked like.
posted by Miko at 9:04 AM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
People with time, limited other commitments, and passion are the basis of a campaign. Anyone who has all three should probably be spending a lot of time on Sanders' campaign (and not just on message boards and Facebook! That's not campaigning!). But I'm not one of those people. I have been one, to some degree or another, in every election from 1992 to 2012, but it is someone else's turn right now, and that's something that happens to good people in life. Ultimately, one predictor of a campaign's success is the number and quality of volunteers it can engage and retain. The volunteers are the voices, faces, and hands of the candidate. I haven't had any interaction with a Sanders volunteer (other than here, but this is not where I vote). Knowing something of campaign volunteering as I do, I am wondering where the volunteers are, the people doing the role that I know is so essential because I have done it, why I don't see more of them, and why their outreach is so minimal. It's a reasonable critique. In other words, I think people who are concerned that I'm not involved as a campaigner should be redoubling their efforts to get more others involved. Some people can be moved to direct action. I can't do much of that right now. So that means that there ought to be more relentless efforts to find two people who can be moved to action for every one of me, whose life situation is prohibitive. It's a real situation and a campaign problem and challenge, not a moral failing. The strategy needs to understand this.
When I think about 2008 (just because that was definitely the finest campaign yet run in my lifetime), I had people coming at me from every direction - volunteers, but also friends and relatives who had become volunteers and were donating and were sharing that information everywhere and emailing me their challenges and encouragments to donate and getting me signed on with [State] for Obama and Obama for America. So far, this is a pale shadow of what that groundswell looked like.
posted by Miko at 9:04 AM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Dominant Media, "Left-Leaning" Economists and the Illusion of Consensus
Article pointed out by Gerald Friedman (@gfriedma) who is turning out to be a good follow.
posted by Trochanter at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Since the former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers published their letter, many on the left have stared at the names of signatories and asked, since when do these people advocate for "the progressive agenda," which they claim to be fighting for in their letter?
Take, for instance, Austan Goolsbee, a signatory of the letter and chair of the CEA from 2010 to 2011. Goolsbee is currently a faculty member of the economics department at the University of Chicago, considered the hub of neoclassical economics and known for producing work that his ally Krugman once called, "the product of a Dark Age of macroeconomics in which hard-won knowledge has been forgotten."
Article pointed out by Gerald Friedman (@gfriedma) who is turning out to be a good follow.
posted by Trochanter at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mikelieman: Clinton has pretty much disowned her vote to authorize force in Iraq. I respect that. The decision to start that war was a complete and utter clusterfuck.
The easiest response to your comment, however, is to look at Sanders' vote to approve US involvement in the NATO-led, indiscriminate bombing of Kosovo in 1999. Which was also a humanitarian disaster. A decade-plus later, we can only hope both of them have learned from their mistakes.
His current rhetoric with regard to foreign policy is the same one all anti-establishment candidates use when they run for office: "Judgement is more important than experience." Except, it's not. Ideally, experience informs one's judgement. When that doesn't happen, we get Presidents like George W. Bush.
And Sanders does have some experience. He spent years in Congress. It's not like he's a political naif. His record is also interesting to look over. He voted against the Iraq war but then voted to continue funding it. In much the same way he voted against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, and later voted to continue funding it.
And I get it. The man used his judgement and hopefully his experience to make decisions. He chose to continue funding programs and a war he initially opposed. I've personally argued on mefi in the past that we had a moral obligation to try and finish what we began in Iraq. But I think it adds much-needed nuance and perspective to the argument you're making.
There are many leadership skills we need in a good President. One is that they make good decisions. But of equal importance is the self-awareness to acknowledge when they have screwed up and need a course correction.
posted by zarq at 9:46 AM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
The easiest response to your comment, however, is to look at Sanders' vote to approve US involvement in the NATO-led, indiscriminate bombing of Kosovo in 1999. Which was also a humanitarian disaster. A decade-plus later, we can only hope both of them have learned from their mistakes.
His current rhetoric with regard to foreign policy is the same one all anti-establishment candidates use when they run for office: "Judgement is more important than experience." Except, it's not. Ideally, experience informs one's judgement. When that doesn't happen, we get Presidents like George W. Bush.
And Sanders does have some experience. He spent years in Congress. It's not like he's a political naif. His record is also interesting to look over. He voted against the Iraq war but then voted to continue funding it. In much the same way he voted against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, and later voted to continue funding it.
And I get it. The man used his judgement and hopefully his experience to make decisions. He chose to continue funding programs and a war he initially opposed. I've personally argued on mefi in the past that we had a moral obligation to try and finish what we began in Iraq. But I think it adds much-needed nuance and perspective to the argument you're making.
There are many leadership skills we need in a good President. One is that they make good decisions. But of equal importance is the self-awareness to acknowledge when they have screwed up and need a course correction.
posted by zarq at 9:46 AM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
If he is not contacting me, on paper a persuadable voter and one important to capture on Tuesday (there's no way he'd know if I'm a Hillary or Bernie supporter based on my voting record), there is a real problem. I'm low-hanging fruit.
To get a little more granular, it's probably fine that his campaign hasn't contacted you with you with a turnout message, but troubling that they haven't reached out as part of their vol recruit effort.
I mean, look: I'm not exactly the world's biggest expert on this stuff (far from it!) but for the 2012 cycle I worked with and for people who actually are, and that experience taught me a lot about how campaigns actually function on the ground.
I don't know exactly how the Sanders analytics team is calculating scores, but I do have enough experience with campaign data to know that they take party registration, voting history, age, gender, location, etc. into account, at the absolute bare minimum. Your voting history and demographic profile probably give you a turnout score in the high 90's (out of 100, if that's how the Sanders team is doing it), so they likely assume you don't need to be turned out.
Additionally, if you've been politically active since '92, I'm guessing you are somewhere in the general vicinity of the same age as I am, or not too many years younger (1992 was my first chance to vote in a Presidential campaign, at the age of 21). It is possible that, based on this, the Sanders folks may be assigning you a lower primary support score than if you were, say, 25 (i.e. they might have you profiled as a Clinton supporter or leaner). In their eyes, this might also disqualify you for a turnout contact, since for turnout you want to target people with high likelihood of support but low likelihood of actually voting.
This all makes sense to me. What is potentially troubling though, is the lack of volunteer recruiting contact. If the campaigns you've volunteered for in the past were at all assiduous about their data (and I can assure you that the Obama campaign was), every volunteer shift you worked was recorded somewhere, which means it is highly probable that you are tagged as a likely volunteer in someone's database. (Of course it's not certain that the Sanders campaign has access to that, depending on what campaigns you've volunteered with, but if any of them involved working directly with the state or local party, they probably do. )
While reaching out to the 25-and-under crowd makes perfect sense for Sanders' turnout effort, it doesn't bode well if that's also where his campaign is trying to recruit all their volunteers. To (again) use the Obama ground game as a comparison point, although he got the young people excited and involved, a huge part of his turnout effort rested on the backs of the 40-and-older (a LOT older, in many cases-- most of the power volunteers I encountered were comfortably over 60) core of volunteers who are the folks who actually get shit done on the ground for Dem campaigns.
Sanders can't win in November without getting younger folks to actually vote, but he also can't win without getting people in the Miko-to-my-mom age range (roughly 40 - 70, making some perhaps unfair assumptions about Miko) working the phones and knocking doors for him, which is how you get those pesky 20-year-olds to actually show up at the polls. A kickass social media presence doesn't really help recruit those 60-year-old power volunteers (yes , of course there are exceptions)-- the ones who will absolutely bust their asses for a campaign, working up to 40 hours per week or more, for free, through November.
posted by dersins at 10:18 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
To get a little more granular, it's probably fine that his campaign hasn't contacted you with you with a turnout message, but troubling that they haven't reached out as part of their vol recruit effort.
I mean, look: I'm not exactly the world's biggest expert on this stuff (far from it!) but for the 2012 cycle I worked with and for people who actually are, and that experience taught me a lot about how campaigns actually function on the ground.
I don't know exactly how the Sanders analytics team is calculating scores, but I do have enough experience with campaign data to know that they take party registration, voting history, age, gender, location, etc. into account, at the absolute bare minimum. Your voting history and demographic profile probably give you a turnout score in the high 90's (out of 100, if that's how the Sanders team is doing it), so they likely assume you don't need to be turned out.
Additionally, if you've been politically active since '92, I'm guessing you are somewhere in the general vicinity of the same age as I am, or not too many years younger (1992 was my first chance to vote in a Presidential campaign, at the age of 21). It is possible that, based on this, the Sanders folks may be assigning you a lower primary support score than if you were, say, 25 (i.e. they might have you profiled as a Clinton supporter or leaner). In their eyes, this might also disqualify you for a turnout contact, since for turnout you want to target people with high likelihood of support but low likelihood of actually voting.
This all makes sense to me. What is potentially troubling though, is the lack of volunteer recruiting contact. If the campaigns you've volunteered for in the past were at all assiduous about their data (and I can assure you that the Obama campaign was), every volunteer shift you worked was recorded somewhere, which means it is highly probable that you are tagged as a likely volunteer in someone's database. (Of course it's not certain that the Sanders campaign has access to that, depending on what campaigns you've volunteered with, but if any of them involved working directly with the state or local party, they probably do. )
While reaching out to the 25-and-under crowd makes perfect sense for Sanders' turnout effort, it doesn't bode well if that's also where his campaign is trying to recruit all their volunteers. To (again) use the Obama ground game as a comparison point, although he got the young people excited and involved, a huge part of his turnout effort rested on the backs of the 40-and-older (a LOT older, in many cases-- most of the power volunteers I encountered were comfortably over 60) core of volunteers who are the folks who actually get shit done on the ground for Dem campaigns.
Sanders can't win in November without getting younger folks to actually vote, but he also can't win without getting people in the Miko-to-my-mom age range (roughly 40 - 70, making some perhaps unfair assumptions about Miko) working the phones and knocking doors for him, which is how you get those pesky 20-year-olds to actually show up at the polls. A kickass social media presence doesn't really help recruit those 60-year-old power volunteers (yes , of course there are exceptions)-- the ones who will absolutely bust their asses for a campaign, working up to 40 hours per week or more, for free, through November.
posted by dersins at 10:18 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Any active facebook user under 30 is getting Bernie 24/7.
This is 100% true but it's also 100% irritating.
posted by sallybrown at 10:23 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is 100% true but it's also 100% irritating.
posted by sallybrown at 10:23 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Judgement is more important than experience." Except, it's not. Ideally, experience informs one's judgement. When that doesn't happen, we get Presidents like George W. Bush.
Your opinion. W had neither experience nor judgement, so he's not a useful example. As you point out, Sanders has a lot of experience. Clinton also has lots of experience. Why are so many of her judgements bad ones?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:38 AM on February 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Your opinion. W had neither experience nor judgement, so he's not a useful example. As you point out, Sanders has a lot of experience. Clinton also has lots of experience. Why are so many of her judgements bad ones?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:38 AM on February 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yes, exactly. Forget Iraq, I'd like to hear Clinton supporters address her terrible judgment on Libya. Her foreign policy is fundamentally neoconservative.
posted by dialetheia at 12:11 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 12:11 PM on February 27, 2016
His record is also interesting to look over. He voted against the Iraq war but then voted to continue funding it. In much the same way he voted against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, and later voted to continue funding it.
For me, that's more of an issue that funding for say, Veteran's Healthcare is amended to a bill for funding the Iraq war.
But that's apples to oranges. *I* knew Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumfeld, Powell, et. al. were full of shit. All of my friends knew they were full of shit. Bernie Sanders knew they were full of shit.
Yet Hillary Clinton didn't know they were full of shit?
Sorry, but that's "George W. Bush" levels of "incompetence" at best.
posted by mikelieman at 12:31 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
For me, that's more of an issue that funding for say, Veteran's Healthcare is amended to a bill for funding the Iraq war.
But that's apples to oranges. *I* knew Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumfeld, Powell, et. al. were full of shit. All of my friends knew they were full of shit. Bernie Sanders knew they were full of shit.
Yet Hillary Clinton didn't know they were full of shit?
Sorry, but that's "George W. Bush" levels of "incompetence" at best.
posted by mikelieman at 12:31 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
dersins, I've had that experience of working with campaign data too, and you may be right that I'm not prioritized for the turnout messaging (to be fair, I haven't heard a peep from Clinton's campaign either, so maybe I should be more impressed with my one Sanders mailer). But you're right, I'm all over the records as a heavy-time Obama vol and also one for my senators so it's strange not to have had that outreach. I'm also surprised not to have any direct contact asking for Sanders campaign donations as I am also certainly on donor lists.
And still, it's not just me that I'm thinking about - it's what I'm seeing around me, and it's awfully quiet as far as Sanders messaging and activity, among my peers in particular. And you're absolutely right on about the risk of leaving aside the 60+ "power volunteers"- retired people have a lot of time and passion - and also about the need to have a more age-vertical targeting system.
posted by Miko at 12:53 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
And still, it's not just me that I'm thinking about - it's what I'm seeing around me, and it's awfully quiet as far as Sanders messaging and activity, among my peers in particular. And you're absolutely right on about the risk of leaving aside the 60+ "power volunteers"- retired people have a lot of time and passion - and also about the need to have a more age-vertical targeting system.
posted by Miko at 12:53 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
But of equal importance is the self-awareness to acknowledge when they have screwed up and need a course correction.
Voted for the Iraq AUMF, then engineered the overthrow of Gaddafi and the creation of a failed state in Libya, then supported giving the Saudis weapons after it became clear they were complicit in atrocities in Bahrain and Yemen. Even now she still supports regime change in Syria, apparently completely incapable of understanding the consequences of creating yet another power vacuum.
Her embrace of Kissinger's support just makes even more clear that no matter how many people die, she is incapable of learning the limits of American military interventionism. Quite frankly, it looks like at least when it comes to the Middle East, even Donald Trump seems to be a faster learner. That is terrifying.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Voted for the Iraq AUMF, then engineered the overthrow of Gaddafi and the creation of a failed state in Libya, then supported giving the Saudis weapons after it became clear they were complicit in atrocities in Bahrain and Yemen. Even now she still supports regime change in Syria, apparently completely incapable of understanding the consequences of creating yet another power vacuum.
Her embrace of Kissinger's support just makes even more clear that no matter how many people die, she is incapable of learning the limits of American military interventionism. Quite frankly, it looks like at least when it comes to the Middle East, even Donald Trump seems to be a faster learner. That is terrifying.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
dersins, I've had that experience of working with campaign data too
I just re-read what I posted and it had kind of a patronizingly "let me tell you how it really is" tone, for which I apologize. That was not my intent.
What I meant was simply to establish my own qualifications for talking about this stuff, not to imply that you don't have those qualifications. In restrospect, what I ended up communicating was closer to the latter than the former, though.
Sorry.
posted by dersins at 1:13 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just re-read what I posted and it had kind of a patronizingly "let me tell you how it really is" tone, for which I apologize. That was not my intent.
What I meant was simply to establish my own qualifications for talking about this stuff, not to imply that you don't have those qualifications. In restrospect, what I ended up communicating was closer to the latter than the former, though.
Sorry.
posted by dersins at 1:13 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
No worries at all - my tone was meant to be "yeah, you're right." I had forgotten quite a bit about the metrics systems and you did a great job outlining them.
posted by Miko at 1:16 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 1:16 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio all get foreign policy advice from same firm
Are neocons getting ready to ally with Hillary Clinton?, featuring Robert Kagan who recently endorsed Clinton
posted by dialetheia at 1:24 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are neocons getting ready to ally with Hillary Clinton?, featuring Robert Kagan who recently endorsed Clinton
posted by dialetheia at 1:24 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Benghazi won't stick to Clinton, but the disastrous Libya intervention should
posted by dialetheia at 1:34 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 1:34 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a shame @TheDemocrats haven't made a sliver of the Get Out the Vote effort as made in '08. Reason? New registrations = Bernie Votes
(Obviously bias but the sentiment sticks for me)
posted by an animate objects at 1:51 PM on February 27, 2016
(Obviously bias but the sentiment sticks for me)
posted by an animate objects at 1:51 PM on February 27, 2016
tweeting about how other people aren't doing enough GOTV work is just I don't even know
posted by dersins at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dersins at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
The DNC isn't supporting Bernie's campaign. The DNC appears to favor Clinton's candidacy. There is plenty of evidence in this thread and those prior. I don't think it's terribly unfair to criticize the DNC for exhibiting bias and behaving in a way that disproportionately advantages Clinton's campaign.
posted by an animate objects at 1:58 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by an animate objects at 1:58 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is right - welfare reform doubled extreme poverty
Hillary Clinton, lobbying for welfare reform, calls welfare recipients "deadbeats"
posted by dialetheia at 2:05 PM on February 27, 2016
Hillary Clinton, lobbying for welfare reform, calls welfare recipients "deadbeats"
posted by dialetheia at 2:05 PM on February 27, 2016
At this point in '08 the Obama campaign was registering the fuck out of new voters.
Not the party, the campaign. The party got involved after the nomination was sewn up.
If @Chicago4Bernie want to see new voters registered, they need to get out onto the fucking streets and register new voters, not sit on their asses and tweet about how other people aren't doing it for them.
Or maybe I guess they could post some memes. That will help.
posted by dersins at 2:06 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not the party, the campaign. The party got involved after the nomination was sewn up.
If @Chicago4Bernie want to see new voters registered, they need to get out onto the fucking streets and register new voters, not sit on their asses and tweet about how other people aren't doing it for them.
Or maybe I guess they could post some memes. That will help.
posted by dersins at 2:06 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Tweeting isn't exactly difficult. One can use Twitter and be an involved, proactive activist. I don't understand this idea that anyone using Twitter for mass communication must be a lazy person sitting on their ass.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:15 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:15 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
One can use Twitter and be an involved, proactive activist.
Well, yes, of course one can. Just as, for prior generations of voters, one could have a yard sign and also be involved in ways that are productive.
The problem lies in the folks who use yard signs / bumper stickers / tweets / memes / facebook shares / whatever as a substitute for action, the ones who say "look, I am doing something-- I'm showing my support," and think that they are accomplishing something beyond social signalling to other members of the in-group. Using Twitter to literally complain that "those other people aren't helping us" smacks much more of that type of "activism" than of the kind that actually gets people registered and then to the polls.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.
posted by dersins at 2:36 PM on February 27, 2016
Well, yes, of course one can. Just as, for prior generations of voters, one could have a yard sign and also be involved in ways that are productive.
The problem lies in the folks who use yard signs / bumper stickers / tweets / memes / facebook shares / whatever as a substitute for action, the ones who say "look, I am doing something-- I'm showing my support," and think that they are accomplishing something beyond social signalling to other members of the in-group. Using Twitter to literally complain that "those other people aren't helping us" smacks much more of that type of "activism" than of the kind that actually gets people registered and then to the polls.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.
posted by dersins at 2:36 PM on February 27, 2016
Where does the "I hope I'm wrong" sentiment stem from? It's been a reaction to Bernie's campaign from the get go. Is there some kind of liberal masochism that prevents the left from embracing the change it wants?
I mean surely we all agree that Bernie is a more progressive candidate, even if Clinton is also categorically Progressive. Surely we all agree that universal healthcare is important, that campaign financing is totally bonkers, that the minimum wage is much too low, that interventionism is bad news. In all the ways that Clinton and Sanders differ, aside from gun control, he is "more correct."
And he's exactly what the Democratic party needs: a candidate who draws the young voters and independents to the polls. If he isn't doing this to your satisfaction, I would contend that all he needs is time and winning the nomination would give him exactly that. As well as inevitable media coverage that would give him such a tremendous boost. And the resources of the DNC, who would be forced to support him.
He can handle criticism (his Hardball performance at U-Chicago was solid.) His record is clean as a whistle. He's experienced, energetic, thoughtful and articulate. Why the hell aren't democrats lining up behind him?
Maybe fear of the unknown. Maybe acquiescence to the status quo. Maybe the stakes don't feel high enough. Or maybe the party would rather have the kind of politician Clinton is. And that last one is what terrifies me. That's why the Democratic party might be losing an entire generation of voters by nominating her, because it's not about her, it's about the kind of politician she is and what being that kind of politician represents.
posted by an animate objects at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean surely we all agree that Bernie is a more progressive candidate, even if Clinton is also categorically Progressive. Surely we all agree that universal healthcare is important, that campaign financing is totally bonkers, that the minimum wage is much too low, that interventionism is bad news. In all the ways that Clinton and Sanders differ, aside from gun control, he is "more correct."
And he's exactly what the Democratic party needs: a candidate who draws the young voters and independents to the polls. If he isn't doing this to your satisfaction, I would contend that all he needs is time and winning the nomination would give him exactly that. As well as inevitable media coverage that would give him such a tremendous boost. And the resources of the DNC, who would be forced to support him.
He can handle criticism (his Hardball performance at U-Chicago was solid.) His record is clean as a whistle. He's experienced, energetic, thoughtful and articulate. Why the hell aren't democrats lining up behind him?
Maybe fear of the unknown. Maybe acquiescence to the status quo. Maybe the stakes don't feel high enough. Or maybe the party would rather have the kind of politician Clinton is. And that last one is what terrifies me. That's why the Democratic party might be losing an entire generation of voters by nominating her, because it's not about her, it's about the kind of politician she is and what being that kind of politician represents.
posted by an animate objects at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Democrats who are uncritical of corruption scare me just as much as Republicans who are scared of brown people. Xenophobia and complacency are quick bedfellows.
posted by an animate objects at 3:03 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by an animate objects at 3:03 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Where does the "I hope I'm wrong" sentiment stem from?
Well, I can't speak for anything other than the specific context in which I used it. I used it to mean:
I hope I am wrong in my suspicion that all the online political activism I'm seeing is just a bunch of tweets and shares, signifying nothing.
I hope I am wrong, and that everyone in my Facebook feed posting dank memes several times a day actually is out there registering voters on the weekends.
I hope I am wrong to fear that those folks, whoever they support in the primary, may stay home in November if their candidate of choice doesn't get the nomination.
No, for reals, I really do hope that I am wrong.
Like, a lot.
posted by dersins at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I can't speak for anything other than the specific context in which I used it. I used it to mean:
I hope I am wrong in my suspicion that all the online political activism I'm seeing is just a bunch of tweets and shares, signifying nothing.
I hope I am wrong, and that everyone in my Facebook feed posting dank memes several times a day actually is out there registering voters on the weekends.
I hope I am wrong to fear that those folks, whoever they support in the primary, may stay home in November if their candidate of choice doesn't get the nomination.
No, for reals, I really do hope that I am wrong.
Like, a lot.
posted by dersins at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is to say, and now I will leave you all in peace for a while, that it's the world and political climate of the Clintons and Bushes endorsement/encouragement that has led in great part to the rise of Donald Trump. These are two sides to the same coin; corruption begets fear begets hatred.
posted by an animate objects at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by an animate objects at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like this one tonight is a big one.
posted by Trochanter at 3:13 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 3:13 PM on February 27, 2016
No, for reals, I really do hope that I am wrong.
And I want to be very clear that there is absolutely nothing generational or age-related about this. The folks I am talking about remind me of nothing so much as the people who in 2012 came into the campaign office for bumper stickers and yard signs, and, when asked about phone banking or canvassing, explained that what they're doing is "raising awareness for the candidate" or some nonsense. I mean, come on-- they're a rich old person who lives in a rich old person neighborhood in Portland. Anyone who who lives in their goddam neighborhood and sees their goddam sign probably doesn't need to be made "aware" of the goddam President.
That's what my Facebook feed meme-posters remind me of.
posted by dersins at 3:22 PM on February 27, 2016
And I want to be very clear that there is absolutely nothing generational or age-related about this. The folks I am talking about remind me of nothing so much as the people who in 2012 came into the campaign office for bumper stickers and yard signs, and, when asked about phone banking or canvassing, explained that what they're doing is "raising awareness for the candidate" or some nonsense. I mean, come on-- they're a rich old person who lives in a rich old person neighborhood in Portland. Anyone who who lives in their goddam neighborhood and sees their goddam sign probably doesn't need to be made "aware" of the goddam President.
That's what my Facebook feed meme-posters remind me of.
posted by dersins at 3:22 PM on February 27, 2016
For what it's worth, my mom, almost 70, lives in a rich old person neighborhood and she said she's voting for Bernie on Tuesday because people seem so excited about him on Reddit.
posted by peeedro at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
It is, but I don't disagree with your point in general, it's just one anecdote to the contrary.
posted by peeedro at 6:24 PM on February 27, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:24 PM on February 27, 2016
Where does the "I hope I'm wrong" sentiment stem from?
-Having been let down by the tactics of the most progressive candidate before, and by the public's lack of reception for them
-Understanding that if the campaign really isn't that strong, he'll lose the general, and things will get worse for everyone
-Not being terribly encouraged by the way the campaign is going so far
But I do, really, also hope I am wrong. I hope there's a sudden catching fire, reflecting great work, that will increase overall confidence.
The DNC isn't supporting Bernie's campaign.
It's not actually their job to do so. They are supposed to be pursuing a general voter expansion project and voting rights defense project - at least it's been on their docket for a while - but they aren't tasked with running registration drives or supporting one candidate or other who's vying for the nomination, they are tasked mainly with developing the party platform and supporting candidates for Democratic office once they become Democratic Party nominees. They will run drives, mostly through state and local Democratic committees, once there is a nominee for the general. Meanwhile, anyone can register voters, and campaigns need to do so. It's a classic campaign activity. How to Run a Voter Registration Drive. Another version in PDF from Rock the Vote. Hey, here's the skeletal remains of one from MyBarackObama.co, from 2008. I see some Bernie activity, when I Google, to get people into the primary process to vote Bernie for the nomination, but not a lot.
posted by Miko at 9:29 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
-Having been let down by the tactics of the most progressive candidate before, and by the public's lack of reception for them
-Understanding that if the campaign really isn't that strong, he'll lose the general, and things will get worse for everyone
-Not being terribly encouraged by the way the campaign is going so far
But I do, really, also hope I am wrong. I hope there's a sudden catching fire, reflecting great work, that will increase overall confidence.
The DNC isn't supporting Bernie's campaign.
It's not actually their job to do so. They are supposed to be pursuing a general voter expansion project and voting rights defense project - at least it's been on their docket for a while - but they aren't tasked with running registration drives or supporting one candidate or other who's vying for the nomination, they are tasked mainly with developing the party platform and supporting candidates for Democratic office once they become Democratic Party nominees. They will run drives, mostly through state and local Democratic committees, once there is a nominee for the general. Meanwhile, anyone can register voters, and campaigns need to do so. It's a classic campaign activity. How to Run a Voter Registration Drive. Another version in PDF from Rock the Vote. Hey, here's the skeletal remains of one from MyBarackObama.co, from 2008. I see some Bernie activity, when I Google, to get people into the primary process to vote Bernie for the nomination, but not a lot.
posted by Miko at 9:29 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
DNC vice chair resigns, endorses Sanders, blasts Clinton’s “interventionist, regime change policies”
"Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic National Committee, which has been accused of pro-Hillary bias, to support Bernie"
Gabbard had apparently been at odds with Wasserman Schultz over debate scheduling as well.
posted by Trochanter at 7:55 AM on February 29, 2016
"Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic National Committee, which has been accused of pro-Hillary bias, to support Bernie"
Gabbard had apparently been at odds with Wasserman Schultz over debate scheduling as well.
posted by Trochanter at 7:55 AM on February 29, 2016
Democrats who are uncritical of corruption scare me just as much as Republicans who are scared of brown people. Xenophobia and complacency are quick bedfellows.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. First, I'm not sure how many Democrats are uncritical of corruption. Second, I'm not at all sure that corruption has the same moral valence as racism. But, mostly, I'm not sure how complacency and xenophobia are related. Can you expand how you think the one leads to the other?
posted by OmieWise at 8:30 AM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure I understand this comment. First, I'm not sure how many Democrats are uncritical of corruption. Second, I'm not at all sure that corruption has the same moral valence as racism. But, mostly, I'm not sure how complacency and xenophobia are related. Can you expand how you think the one leads to the other?
posted by OmieWise at 8:30 AM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be simultaneously supportive of Bernie Sanders and Narendra Modi. One is a progressive by virtually all measures, and the other is an outright fascist.
posted by bardophile at 9:01 AM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bardophile at 9:01 AM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be simultaneously supportive of Bernie Sanders and Narendra Modi.
Ignorance? And I don't mean that in a bad way. I am ignorant of all kinds of things. I love being ignorant. I take no pride in my ignorance though and try to correct it when I can. I just love there are new things to do and learn, and ending ignorance is one of my favorite things.
So this said, I had no idea of Modi's background or biography. As I learn more I am not enamored with her positions.
I was supportive of her bailing on the DNC and endorsing Sanders. Now it's a matter whether or not she's a bad enough person to where Sanders should be distancing himself from said endorsement, and honesty, I still don't know enough to judge.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:23 PM on March 2, 2016
Ignorance? And I don't mean that in a bad way. I am ignorant of all kinds of things. I love being ignorant. I take no pride in my ignorance though and try to correct it when I can. I just love there are new things to do and learn, and ending ignorance is one of my favorite things.
So this said, I had no idea of Modi's background or biography. As I learn more I am not enamored with her positions.
I was supportive of her bailing on the DNC and endorsing Sanders. Now it's a matter whether or not she's a bad enough person to where Sanders should be distancing himself from said endorsement, and honesty, I still don't know enough to judge.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:23 PM on March 2, 2016
Ha ha! Case in point. I thought you were talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Same analysis though. I don't think most people know of these people.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:26 PM on March 2, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 12:26 PM on March 2, 2016
I thought you were talking about Tulsi Gabbard.
We were talking about her. After bardophile posted that piece I spent about 45 minutes reading about her. She is really problematic along all sorts of dimensions, not someone I think is going to do Sanders any favor.
posted by Miko at 2:14 PM on March 2, 2016
We were talking about her. After bardophile posted that piece I spent about 45 minutes reading about her. She is really problematic along all sorts of dimensions, not someone I think is going to do Sanders any favor.
posted by Miko at 2:14 PM on March 2, 2016
https://shadowproof.com/2010/10/17/politics-tulsi-gabbard-tamayo-stealth-candidate-in-hawaii/
Bernie beware!! Gabbard has voted with GOP in rejecting healthcare, Syrian refugees ... and? She is classic DINO. Her constituency in Hawaii is mainly the disgruntled "third wave missionaries" (Big Box church/evangelists who are mostly single issue voters) - there is no real Republican Party in Hawaii, so the Gabbards - ever opportunistic - just switched. Her father, Mike Gabbard has been a loyal follower of cult leader Chris Butler - as like Tulsi & all around her http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/20/1056467/-
The cult is ultra conservative, thus the evangelical appeal - Mike Gabbard is famous for his vicious fight against LGBT in Hawaii (Tulsi had some choice quotes on that topic)
The DNC did not lose much with this dramatic resignation.
posted by Surfurrus at 7:05 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie beware!! Gabbard has voted with GOP in rejecting healthcare, Syrian refugees ... and? She is classic DINO. Her constituency in Hawaii is mainly the disgruntled "third wave missionaries" (Big Box church/evangelists who are mostly single issue voters) - there is no real Republican Party in Hawaii, so the Gabbards - ever opportunistic - just switched. Her father, Mike Gabbard has been a loyal follower of cult leader Chris Butler - as like Tulsi & all around her http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/20/1056467/-
The cult is ultra conservative, thus the evangelical appeal - Mike Gabbard is famous for his vicious fight against LGBT in Hawaii (Tulsi had some choice quotes on that topic)
The DNC did not lose much with this dramatic resignation.
posted by Surfurrus at 7:05 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Shows you something about the DNC just how high up she was in the first place. The very heart. Co-chair.
posted by Trochanter at 7:48 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 7:48 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
IF we're not getting bamboozled as we speak. Sounds like quite the place, the DNC.
posted by Trochanter at 7:50 PM on March 2, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 7:50 PM on March 2, 2016
That article is a piece of shit. It's all about her parents. It's from 2010. WTF's going on here?
posted by Trochanter at 8:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 8:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's complicated. Apologies, these are all one source, but they contain links to others.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/05/gabbards-upcoming-florida-gig-raises-eyebrows/
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/the-faces-of-tulsi-gabbard-gop-buddy-friend-of-india-obama-critic/
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/krishna-cult-rumors-still-dog-tulsi-gabbard/
posted by Surfurrus at 8:42 PM on March 2, 2016
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/05/gabbards-upcoming-florida-gig-raises-eyebrows/
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/the-faces-of-tulsi-gabbard-gop-buddy-friend-of-india-obama-critic/
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/krishna-cult-rumors-still-dog-tulsi-gabbard/
posted by Surfurrus at 8:42 PM on March 2, 2016
That article is a piece of shit. It's all about her parents. It's from 2010. WTF's going on here?
Yeah, just Google her, you'll find more than enough that you probably won't want to waste more pixels defending her. For me, 2 or 3 videos about Lord Krishna's promise were kind of enough.
posted by Miko at 9:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, just Google her, you'll find more than enough that you probably won't want to waste more pixels defending her. For me, 2 or 3 videos about Lord Krishna's promise were kind of enough.
posted by Miko at 9:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was supportive of her bailing on the DNC and endorsing Sanders. Now it's a matter whether or not she's a bad enough person to where Sanders should be distancing himself from said endorsement, and honesty, I still don't know enough to judge.
Yeah, I was talking specifically about Gabbard having endorsed Sanders while also being enamored of Modi. I have no view on whether Sanders should distance himself or not, I just don't see how to square those two things. It's as unfathomable to me as the existence of a Trump SuperPAC of Indian Americans. Do they really believe they will be exempt from attack by white supremacists?
posted by bardophile at 11:54 AM on March 3, 2016
Bardophile,you can always find shallow-thinking narcissists who will sacrifice their relatives in exchange for the éclat of public notoriety. I read an article about Trump's Muslim and Latino supporters the other day. I gather that one side thought he was solid on the dangers of Islamists and just being rhetorical about immigration; the other thought he was being rhetorical about Islamism but was brave to speak the truth about the deadly immigration crisis. There are similar fools speaking out on every issue of social justice – racism, antisemitism, poverty, whatever. They don't deserve the mental space that their consideration would demand.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:00 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:00 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Five states vote or caucus today, and several more over the next week or so. There's a clean and (until it fills with comments) fast loading new thread here.
posted by Wordshore at 2:13 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by Wordshore at 2:13 AM on March 5, 2016
« Older Silly Walks | From Syria to the Six Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on February 9, 2016 [31 favorites]