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.
posted by tivalasvegas (3563 comments total) 36 users marked this as a 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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]




Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Playbook Against Bernie Sanders Is a Lot Like Her 2008 Playbook Against Obama

A girl can hope.
posted by odinsdream at 11:54 AM on February 9 [4 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 [13 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [12 favorites]


600-pound pig escapes from NH farm, tries to go vote

This is actually what they call a "superdelegate"
posted by Greg Nog at 12:07 PM on February 9 [82 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 [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 [1 favorite]


Thanks for making the new thread!
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:11 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


"i am going to give him severance pay like i do for every other dog i see in the dog park"
posted by Greg Nog at 12:15 PM on February 9 [21 favorites]


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 [6 favorites]


I want a sweaty TV dog who begs for money!
posted by sallybrown at 12:16 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


Fire him like a dog!
posted by ian1977 at 12:19 PM on February 9 [1 favorite]




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 [53 favorites]




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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [19 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [26 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


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 [14 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 [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


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




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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [16 favorites]


Fired like a dog? How many dogs have you p0wned?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:39 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [28 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 [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 [12 favorites]


Douthat: A Party on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown -
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 [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 [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 [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 can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
posted by explosion at 12:50 PM on February 9 [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


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 can’t, not without your help. But you’re 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 [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 [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 [29 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 [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 [18 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 [5 favorites]


seriously, do you all remember how fucking great 2008 was?
posted by angrycat at 1:01 PM on February 9 [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 can’t, not without your help. But you’re 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 [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 [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 [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


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 [2 favorites]


Link to NH's projected turnout.
posted by markkraft at 1:09 PM on February 9


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 [3 favorites]


Almost 400k undeclared though. That's fascinating.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:11 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [24 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 [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 [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


Behold the Hambar.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:26 PM on February 9


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 [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 [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 [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 [68 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 [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 [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 [27 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 [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


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 [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


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 [22 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 [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 [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 [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 [11 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 can’t, not without your help. But you’re 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 [4 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 [6 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 [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 [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 [4 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [41 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 [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 [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 [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.
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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [15 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


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 [31 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 [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 [171 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 [10 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 [13 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [13 favorites]


Can we not call Hillary Clinton "Mrs. C"?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:49 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [18 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 [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 [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


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 [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 [27 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 [5 favorites]


Can we not call Hillary Clinton "Mrs. C"?

Eyyyyyyyyyyy!
posted by Trochanter at 1:53 PM on February 9 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


Xharl/Cultist 2016: release us from our flesh prisons
posted by poffin boffin at 1:56 PM on February 9 [8 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 [26 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 [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 [10 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 [9 favorites]


The right is still after Obama.
posted by sweetkid at 1:59 PM on February 9 [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 [51 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [7 favorites]


man, it's kinda rough in here huh?
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 2:01 PM on February 9 [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 [17 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 [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 [37 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 [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 [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 [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 [17 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [24 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 [9 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


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


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 [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 [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 [16 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 [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 you’re not helping. Why is that?
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:12 PM on February 9 [27 favorites]


Trump/Shkreli 2016 - "Let's Plead the Fifth Again!"
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:12 PM on February 9 [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 [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


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 [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


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 [5 favorites]


come-from-behind Santorum

*big sigh*
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:15 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [2 favorites]




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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


I wonder if Trump would hold an Apprentice-style competition for the VP spot.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:18 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [15 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 [4 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 [51 favorites]





Knowles-Carter/Cox 2016

stop making me want things
posted by sweetkid at 2:22 PM on February 9 [5 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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


Gary Busey would be a good VP choice.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:24 PM on February 9 [11 favorites]


stop making me want things

imagine the inauguration

imagine the afterparty
posted by poffin boffin at 2:25 PM on February 9 [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 [31 favorites]




Carolyn or GTFO
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:26 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [13 favorites]


the man of twists and turns: Jeb Bush and the Gentleman Politician Death Spiral (in a Single Photo)
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 [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 [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 [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


NBC Exit Poll: 42% of GOP voters ID as Independent
posted by Room 641-A at 2:35 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [34 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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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


> 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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [7 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 [8 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


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 [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...

"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 [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 [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 [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 [6 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 [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 [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 [40 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 [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


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 [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 [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


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 [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 [9 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 [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 [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 [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


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 [10 favorites]


Bloomberg's gonna be the next president, huh.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:20 PM on February 9 [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 [27 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 [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


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 [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


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 [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 [17 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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [35 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 [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 [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 [4 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 [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 [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 [33 favorites]


Bernie gets more Super pac money than Hillary.

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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


Yeah, all those fat-cat nurses with their big-money interests.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:50 PM on February 9 [36 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 [17 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 [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 [21 favorites]


He's a pawn of Big Bedpan
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on February 9 [34 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 [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 [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


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 [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 [32 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 [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 [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 [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 [3 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


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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [48 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 [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 [14 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 [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:
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).

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.
posted by dialetheia at 4:11 PM on February 9 [22 favorites]


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 [8 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 [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 [6 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


Early results coming in. http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/
posted by joeyh at 4:38 PM on February 9




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 [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 [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 [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 [11 favorites]


FTR, I am not in a state that matters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on February 9


So what are people thinking for NH? I'm guessing 58-42 for Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on February 9


I am going to tactically vote for O'Malley just to spite you all
posted by Apocryphon at 4:44 PM on February 9 [2 favorites]


57:40 is 538's estimate
posted by andrewcooke at 4:46 PM on February 9 [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 [10 favorites]


My guesses:
56-40 Sanders
35 Trump-14 Rubio-14 Kasich
posted by crazy with stars at 4:48 PM on February 9


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


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 [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 [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 [8 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 [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 [30 favorites]




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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [18 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


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 [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 [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 [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 [14 favorites]


Sanders and Trump, called on the hour.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:00 PM on February 9 [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


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


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 [18 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 [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 [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 [6 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


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 [8 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [14 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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [35 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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


Eric Garner's daughter, perhaps... but the mother has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
posted by markkraft at 5:20 PM on February 9 [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 [3 favorites]


Which goes to show the generational split over all I guess.
posted by Justinian at 5:21 PM on February 9 [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 [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


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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


85% of the under 30 voters for Democrats when to Sanders tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:25 PM on February 9 [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 [3 favorites]


And 68% of the gun owner vote.
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on February 9 [2 favorites]


Sanders also won the women in New Hampshire, 53-46.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:26 PM on February 9 [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 [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


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 [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


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 [8 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 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


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 [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 [1 favorite]



Same as it ever was.


Except 2001-2008.
posted by acb at 5:31 PM on February 9 [1 favorite]


Except 2001-2008.

Yeah, they got the roles flipped-flopped that year.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:33 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [23 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 [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 [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 [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 [12 favorites]


Has anyone predicted a Kasich resurgence? It seems possible at this point.
posted by Quonab at 5:43 PM on February 9


Trump
Kasich
Cruz
Jeb
Rubio

Would be such a fun result.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:43 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [16 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


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 [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


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 [8 favorites]


Chris Hayes called Bernie Sanders "Bernie Sandwiches" on air.
posted by Small Dollar at 5:53 PM on February 9 [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 [4 favorites]


Apparently we just have to really believe, humanfront.
posted by Justinian at 5:56 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [9 favorites]


Apropro:
Ebenezer Scrooge and Donald Trump, Epic Rap Battles
posted by mfu at 6:00 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [7 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


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 [5 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 [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 [27 favorites]


Fox News has called 2nd Place for Kasich.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 PM on February 9


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 [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 [28 favorites]


not that in any way is Kasich a righteous dude
posted by angrycat at 6:12 PM on February 9


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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


i see bernie as a bulbasaur personally
posted by poffin boffin at 6:17 PM on February 9 [11 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 [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


Fuck it, I'm all in for Sanders.

I didn't like the dirty shit Clinton did in 2008, and well...nothing has changed. She's the same person she was.

Come on Sanders, win the democrats and my vote is all yours.
posted by hal_c_on at 6:17 PM on February 9 [15 favorites]


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 [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 [1 favorite]


carson: caterpie
christie: graveler
rubio: psyduck
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on February 9 [6 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 [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


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


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 [1 favorite]


Clinton needs a new speechwriter ASAP.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:22 PM on February 9 [1 favorite]


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [4 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 [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.
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?

“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.
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.

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 [24 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 [2 favorites]


Trump is Samantha
Bernie is Miranda
Hillary is Carrie
Jeb! is Charlotte
posted by sallybrown at 6:26 PM on February 9 [12 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 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


"Because of a YUUGE voter turnout...."

Hah.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:30 PM on February 9 [6 favorites]


"Sit down, olds" is an extremely uncharitable reading.
posted by delight at 6:30 PM on February 9 [16 favorites]


that's why I'm asking. what does it mean?
posted by sweetkid at 6:31 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [16 favorites]


Bernie to "Bernie or Bust" movement: drop dead.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:33 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [22 favorites]


Sanders to Clinton is now 59.0 to 38.3, with 40% counted.
posted by acb at 6:38 PM on February 9 [2 favorites]


Who are the 62 folks who voted for Santorum? Come on.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:39 PM on February 9 [2 favorites]


Bernie is Dorothy
Bush is Rose
Rubio is Blanche
Trump is Sophia
posted by triggerfinger at 6:40 PM on February 9 [3 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 [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 [2 favorites]


Bernie is Laurens
Clinton is Burr
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:41 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [3 favorites]


Warren is HERCULES MULLIGAN
posted by saturday_morning at 6:44 PM on February 9 [8 favorites]


Clinton is Lipton
Bernie is Tetley
Trump is antifreeze.
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 9 [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 [3 favorites]


O'Malley is Gil
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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


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 [5 favorites]


Hillary is Mayor McDaniels.
Bernie is Mr. Garrison.
O'Malley is Lemmiwinks.
posted by markkraft at 6:51 PM on February 9


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 [10 favorites]


Live Bernie or die Trump.
posted by uosuaq at 6:52 PM on February 9 [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


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 [2 favorites]


Live Bernie or die Trump.

Trump Hard with a Vengeance?
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:54 PM on February 9


If Clinton were to win because of superdelegates alone it will not be pretty.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:55 PM on February 9 [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 [44 favorites]


I DISAGREE
posted by poffin boffin at 6:56 PM on February 9 [14 favorites]


Yes, Trump goes on over Jeb.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:57 PM on February 9


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 [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 [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


"Remember, you started it."
posted by XMLicious at 7:01 PM on February 9


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 [1 favorite]




Oh good, "the old fashioned way." So, slavery and child labor?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:03 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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


"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 [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 [6 favorites]


Oy, markkraft, with the superdelegates already...
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:07 PM on February 9 [30 favorites]


Trump.... he just said the real unemployment number might be 42%.
posted by Justinian at 7:08 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [5 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [58 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


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 [2 favorites]


In Muppet terms, Bernie is paradoxically both Bert and Ernie.
posted by knuckle tattoos at 7:24 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


opting to stay home cuz why bother

Slacktical voting FTW
posted by tonycpsu at 7:26 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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.

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...
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!)

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 [28 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 [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


Bernie is Falcor
Trump is the Nothing
posted by ian1977 at 7:37 PM on February 9 [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 [10 favorites]


Don't forget Scott Walker. *full body shudder*
posted by dialetheia at 7:38 PM on February 9 [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


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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [10 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [15 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [3 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [7 favorites]


Jeb: cobra commander
Trump: serpentor
Sanders: Orko
posted by ian1977 at 8:11 PM on February 9 [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 [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.

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 [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 [11 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 [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 [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 [4 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 [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 [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 [3 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 [6 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [12 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [14 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 [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 [39 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 [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 [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 [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


Has anyone seen Rubio's response yet?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:47 PM on February 9


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [10 favorites]


#AllVillainsMatter
posted by tonycpsu at 9:06 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


I enjoy that 526 people voted for Martin O'Malley. Sympathy votes?
posted by eagles123 at 9:09 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [89 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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [15 favorites]


Bernie wouldn't run against Warren.
posted by an animate objects at 9:41 PM on February 9 [8 favorites]


Why not?
posted by sweetkid at 9:43 PM on February 9


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [3 favorites]




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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


Yeah all candidates say they are running for America and not themselves.
posted by sweetkid at 10:02 PM on February 9


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 [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


I'm getting really lost in the hypothetical scenarios flying around here.
posted by teponaztli at 10:04 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


(and this one next to "unkempt.")
posted by zachlipton at 10:14 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


Whoa, all these Bernie songs are so cool!
posted by Room 641-A at 10:22 PM on February 9


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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [6 favorites]


[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 at 10:41 PM on February 9 [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 [17 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.


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 [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 [12 favorites]


Dick Morris: Clinton deploys B Team
Dick Morris: Activated
posted by rhizome at 10:51 PM on February 9 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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


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


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 [7 favorites]




Oh oh, I see, thanks.
posted by teponaztli at 11:47 PM on February 9


[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 at 12:19 AM on February 10


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 [3 favorites]


(via Wikipedia)
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 [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


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 [1 favorite]


Ha - yup, tweet already deleted. Apologies!
posted by dialetheia at 1:14 AM on February 10


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 [1 favorite]


NRO: Donald Trump Won a Triple Victory in New Hampshire
posted by Drinky Die at 1:38 AM on February 10


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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



I think that if Trump and Sanders are the noms, there's a real good chance of civil unrest. Maybe Trump OR Sanders.


Well MAYBE, ITS ABOUT TIME!

(whips out list of people from college I promised would be safe, "when the revolution comes")
posted by hal_c_on at 4:50 AM on February 10 [3 favorites]


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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]




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 [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 [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


Feminism, Hell and Hillary Clinton, by Frank Bruni for the New York Times
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 AM on February 10


...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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [3 favorites]


Please, please, please do not send this election to the House.
posted by schmod at 5:53 AM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [31 favorites]




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 [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 [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


"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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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


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


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 [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 [7 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [3 favorites]


From clawsoon's link:
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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [2 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 [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 [9 favorites]


I don't believe he has the poetry in him, TBH.
posted by Artw at 7:29 AM on February 10 [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 [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


(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


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


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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]




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 [3 favorites]


Wait until you hear about the super-superdelegates...

In 2020, they will introduce up-arrow notation for delegates.
posted by Jpfed at 7:41 AM on February 10 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [10 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
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.

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.
Huh. This I never knew. Thanks for that link.
posted by clawsoon at 8:18 AM on February 10 [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 [12 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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [5 favorites]


Acually, probably just airtime in Iowa. That TV ain't free.
posted by mikelieman at 8:36 AM on February 10


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


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


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 [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 [6 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


Ta-Nehisi Coates is voting for (but not "endorsing") Sanders.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:47 AM on February 10 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [17 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 [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 [24 favorites]


[A few comments removed, y'all please cool it.]
posted by cortex at 9:25 AM on February 10


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 [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 [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 [10 favorites]




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


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 [2 favorites]


I thought Biden was VP for life?
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:28 AM on February 10 [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 [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 [6 favorites]


the systematic change of America comment, I mean
posted by Tarumba at 9:31 AM on February 10


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


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 [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 [50 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [1 favorite]




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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [15 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [3 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 [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


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 [12 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


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 [2 favorites]


I'll take 10 days!
posted by Room 641-A at 10:26 AM on February 10


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 [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 [3 favorites]


Drinky Die: "The road ahead for Bernie.

I can't really see a path to victory."

I never did see one.


So what?

3 weeks before the iowa. 538 was talking about how sanders would have only 30% of the vote in iowa.

so basically, it means that you can't rely on these 'pundit' journalists to predict shit rather than the fact that sanders doesn't have a shot.

i like how he's angry...old man angry. stay angry and be my angry president.
posted by hal_c_on at 10:27 AM on February 10 [32 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


The weasels are worried.
WARNING: Link not safe for people with high blood pressure.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on February 10 [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 [1 favorite]


Financial sectors are people, my friend!
posted by Room 641-A at 10:34 AM on February 10 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


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 [5 favorites]


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.

But the thing is, he's a black guy. He does have to work 400X harder just to be seen as the same.

Fucking Clinton is all investing money where he shouldn't fucking women who aren't his wife, and treating them like he would not like his daughter to be treated....Hey, he's still a family man.

For Obama, every second pic is one with Michelle. He's always talking about his daughters' love of aziz ansari, or how they told him that the greatest things about the day was that a. he won a nobel and b. its a half day for them. He's not only my president, but he's also a family guy.

People REALLY are out to find shit on him. They would LOVE it if the president was caught smoking a cigarette. He'd be booted out of office if he had an affair with a young white intern. And the fact that the worst thing they can say about him is: well, he's black.

This guy is untouchable, and probably loves his family more than most people love theirs. Thats why they can't find shit on him. You know he's not sending dic picks to some random IG. Its not that he has too much to lose, its that he actually must love his family for nobody to find shit on him.
posted by hal_c_on at 10:38 AM on February 10 [11 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


#MakeLobbyingGreatAgain may be the worst hashtag ever.
posted by clawsoon at 10:40 AM on February 10 [9 favorites]


Would Hillary pick Elizabeth Warren as her VP, if she gets the nomination?

Just like fucking McCain, Clinton strikes me as the person who will never let someone who is more qualified than her at ANYTHING be her VP.

Also, I can see Clinton sitting in her war room talking with her advisors saying shit like:

"Fuck no, we don't want a woman for VP. Jesus F. Christ! Do I look like I want to lose this election? Lets get a good-looking southern white man. We do need more of the male votes from Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Florida...can we find a good looking Bush? No? Would Jeb consider switching teams?"
posted by hal_c_on at 10:44 AM on February 10 [5 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 [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 [5 favorites]




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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [2 favorites]


If E-War ran against Hillary instead of Bernie, Hillary would get trounced

Please tell me this is not A Thing.
It's OK. E-WAR is actually a London-based singer songwriter who does Cat Power covers in a Mockney accent.
posted by Sonny Jim at 11:04 AM on February 10 [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


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 [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 [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. ...

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?
posted by dialetheia at 11:09 AM on February 10 [9 favorites]


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


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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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


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 [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


One attack ballon that the right already floated: He's a National Socialist. Because he likes socialism. And nationalism.
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 [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.

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.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:23 AM on February 10 [22 favorites]


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


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


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 [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 [2 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 [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 [2 favorites]


Re: electability, I'm curious - when was the last time a Secretary of State ran for president? Have they done well?

The last to run and win was Buchanan, in 1856. The last to run was Alexander Haig (R) 1988 -- he didn't get the nomination.

The number of presidential candidates who then went on to become Secretary of State is, I think, much larger.
posted by cjelli at 11:30 AM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [11 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 [9 favorites]


I would move to Beninjerristan. If there's free ice cream.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:53 AM on February 10 [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 [4 favorites]




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 [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 [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


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 [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


From the superdelegates article linked above:
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.”

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.
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.

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 [1 favorite]






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 [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 [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 [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


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


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


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.

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.
posted by dialetheia at 12:06 PM on February 10 [12 favorites]


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [2 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 [7 favorites]


Fiorina just "suspended" her campaign.
posted by misterpatrick at 12:20 PM on February 10


> 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 [2 favorites]


Ice Cream Socialist

Where can I buy this t-shirt?
posted by cmfletcher at 12:24 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]


And it's how we got Rachael Notley in Alberta.
posted by clawsoon at 12:24 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [8 favorites]




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 [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


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 [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 [3 favorites]


Freedom fries, Ted.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:32 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [6 favorites]


I would vote for Luther in a hot minute.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:52 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [13 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. I think Hillary Clinton just wants to be president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:58 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


Nobody puts Bloomie in a corner.
posted by spitbull at 1:00 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [10 favorites]


arrrgrrghrahag tactical voting AGAIN
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:04 PM on February 10 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [5 favorites]


Ross Perot’s Former Campaign Manager’s Advice to Presidential Candidate Bloomberg
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.

...

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.
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.
posted by clawsoon at 1:11 PM on February 10 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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


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 [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 [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 [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 [8 favorites]


former press secretary
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:30 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]


How is he remaining neutral if he [through his press secretary] is stating his preference of nominee?

Jay Carney is not his press secretary; he left in 2014 and was succeeded by Josh Earnest.
posted by cjelli at 1:33 PM on February 10 [4 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


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 [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


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




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 [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 [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


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 [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


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


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 [2 favorites]


Vote Trump: Your Sodas Will be YUGE
posted by melissasaurus at 1:49 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [11 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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [14 favorites]


Oh, and Pat Robertson won a few states in '88.
posted by dis_integration at 2:03 PM on February 10




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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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




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.

Can't they both be?

I remember in the 90's how my cousins from Niles something (north, east, west?) HS always talked about how clinton was an alumnus. And then she picked the fuck up after the white house and got a seat in NY. what kind of carpetbagging shit is that? Chicago remembers...and then we remember Obama who showed up in 1991, did all the right things, and started as a STATE senator. I mean damn. And he still holds Chicago in high regard...

Sanders went to U of Chicago, and Clinton went to Niles something HS. I would have AUTOMATICALLY said "fuck them college kids coming here...", but she left, and never looked back at Illinois. We remember.
posted by hal_c_on at 2:24 PM on February 10 [4 favorites]


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 [7 favorites]


Enough of these penny ante millionaires.
posted by Trochanter at 2:35 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [20 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 [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 [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


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




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




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


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 [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 [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 [5 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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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


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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [8 favorites]


Speaking of Clinton sending emails... #ImNotKiddingMaddi
posted by an animate objects at 4:42 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [1 favorite]


"What is an embassy?"
posted by Artw at 5:15 PM on February 10 [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 [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


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 [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


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [13 favorites]


The terrorists attacked us for our emails
posted by Apocryphon at 6:21 PM on February 10


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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [4 favorites]


Jeb! and the Horrorgrams
posted by ian1977 at 6:40 PM on February 10 [7 favorites]


JEB, BLINK TWICE IF YOU ARE UNHARMED
posted by indubitable at 6:42 PM on February 10 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [9 favorites]


Video
posted by Artw at 7:00 PM on February 10 [7 favorites]


Wow. I know Sanders wants a clean fight, but ...
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on February 10


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 [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 [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 [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


No, it doesn't. But the clip is only 30 seconds long.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:16 PM on February 10


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


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


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 [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


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 [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 [6 favorites]


You know what? It's bad enough.
posted by Artw at 7:24 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]


(no word yet on whether they will be billed for the bullets)
posted by indubitable at 7:25 PM on February 10 [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!