Nevada and South Carolina
February 18, 2016 1:02 PM Subscribe

Tonight, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will face off in a town hall from Nevada that will also will stream live at MSNBC.com and NBCNews.com and the Spanish-language version on Telemundo.com, ahead of this weekend's Nevada caucus. Meanwhile, three GOP hopefuls, Donald Trump, John Kasich and Jeb Bush will be in Columbia, South Carolina to answer questions from voters ahead of the Feb. 20 Republican primary in the key Southern state. The event starts at 7 p.m. and will be moderated by CNN's Anderson Cooper.
posted by roomthreeseventeen (1796 comments total) 23 users marked this as a favorite

Welcome to Thunderdome!!!
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm going to miss the first part of this, but look forward to kibitzing with you all some more later.
posted by Miko at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm just going to put this out there: I like both of them. I really want one of them to become the next president. Either one would be fine. Great, even.
posted by gwint at 1:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [48 favorites]

Sanders attacked by super PAC funded by Republican billionaires
posted by Fleebnork at 1:09 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I too would really like either RolandOfEld or Miko to become the next president.
posted by XMLicious at 1:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [27 favorites]

If I've already decided on a candidate and know the debate will mostly be moderators wanting feisty soundbites on unimportant "inside baseball" media squabbling, at what point does continuing to watch these things become masochism?
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Robin Leach of “Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous” fame has been a journalist for more than 50 years and has spent the past 15 years giving readers the inside scoop on Las Vegas, the world’s premier platinum playground.

Follow Robin Leach on Twitter at Twitter.com/Robin_Leach.

Damn, now I have to go re-read this in "Robin Leach"'''s voice...
posted by mikelieman at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm just going to put this out there: I like both of them. I really want one of them to become the next president. Either one would be fine. Great, even.

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians, but either of them would be better than putting an enraged hive of killer bees in the Oval Office, which in turn would be preferable to any of the Republicans.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [41 favorites]

I too would really like either RolandOfEld or Miko to become the next president.

I'm sorry to say that I'm a supporter of the quidnunc kid.

Vote your conscience, vote your consciousness, vote #1 quidnunc kid.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [47 favorites]

Yeah I dunno, I'd be tempted to vote for "Machine That Continuously Injects Beeswarms Into The Whitehouse, Congress, and The Pentagon".
posted by selfnoise at 1:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [20 favorites]

He's your person. Count on it.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would vote jessamyn, given the chance.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]

I was thinking we should draft mathowie just based on his anti-gun pro-dildo platform.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [21 favorites]

If the bees are running for Congress that's completely different.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Wow, putting Bernie's name before Hillary's. Could the framing of this post be any more biased?

totally just kidding
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

ladies and gentlemen, i present to you the next president of the united states
posted by entropicamericana at 1:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [22 favorites]

I'm just glad I don't have to load a 3000+ comment thread to talk about this.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

> Donald Trump, John Kasich and Jeb Bush

Very interesting that it's just those three - although I suppose they could just run Rubio's subroutines on one of their phones.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:22 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

I'm just glad I don't have to load a 3000+ comment thread to talk about this.

Yet.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:22 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

Bees.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

BEADS?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Bea!
posted by dinty_moore at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Oh yeah! Take all the microbeads we can't sell anymore and force Trump to swim in them until only pure, unsullied clean flesh remains.
posted by selfnoise at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians

Can you elaborate further on what you see as extreme flaws for both candidates? Always curious as to what other people are thinking.
posted by kyp at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2016

Very interesting that it's just those three

They did Carson, Rubio, and Cruz last night. Carson talked about the olden days when bears used to eat people, Rubio explained how he enjoys electronic dance music because of the clean wholesome lyrics, and Cruz sang a love song.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Bernie Sanders is the Katniss in Nevada's Hunger Games
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Can I just say that I'll never appear on television again?
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Guess I missed that last night. I think I'll stick with your summary.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:30 PM on February 18, 2016

The Weirdest Town Hall Revelations From Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Trump
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

They did Carson, Rubio, and Cruz last night. Carson talked about the olden days when bears used to eat people, Rubio explained how he enjoys electronic dance music because of the clean wholesome lyrics, and Cruz sang a love song.

That was a pretty good description.

Also, Cruz was super mad at Trump, gave super long answers to questions to the point that you would forget that there was a question, and kept addressing Anderson Cooper, by name, instead of engaging with the town hall participants, while talking about how bad Trump is and how everyone hates him because he wants to get things done.

It was like he was in a therapy session with Anderson Cooper.
posted by zutalors! at 1:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Rubio explained how he enjoys electronic dance music because of the clean wholesome lyrics

Mother of God it's true. He also says he grew up listening to 90s hip hop. I'm officially on board with Team This Reality is a Carnival of Jokes Being Written by a Stoned Screenwriter and I'd Like to Return to My Home Dimension, Please.
posted by penduluum at 1:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [35 favorites]

Bees.

Huh. I think that Tommy Boy clip may be what Nicolas Cage was going for in the Wicker Man remake.
posted by Naberius at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016

Nothing with either of these shows to make me miss this week's MetaFilter MST3K Club. It's CRASH OF MOONS. Crash of Hillary and Bernie or Crash of Jeb and the Donald won't come close. (And we do need to get some MST3K robots, old show or new, to riff the debates.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm sure this town format happened in past campaigns but I don't remember it at all. Did it happen? I don't mean the town hall where both candidates answer questions together before the election, I mean this one on one thing.
posted by zutalors! at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2016

Vote your conscience, vote your consciousness, vote #1 quidnunc kid.

And once again, I appeal to quid's good graces (of which he has many), and respectfully suggest that I would make an ace Minister of Tourism. I mean, really top notch, none better. Thanks in advance! Kiss kiss!
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:39 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah, it really struck me how much time Cruz spent talking about Trump. All I could think was damn, he got in your head, man. He got in your head.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Isn't it time someone showed Vermin Supreme a little love?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:47 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Can you elaborate further on what you see as extreme flaws for both candidates? Always curious as to what other people are thinking.

I'm not the one you asked, but I can certainly speculate!

Clinton is quite accomplished, plays the game well, but also has changed her tune with regard to Wall Street, appears beholden to banks, and while she hasn't dug in her heels regressive-style, she's not as progressive as her supporters present her.

Sanders is agitating for progressive causes, and is one of few candidates to embrace the word "socialism" rather than treat it like it's a dirty word. On the other hand, he's less accomplished than Clinton, and comes in a "crotchety old white man" package, rather than a more personable, charismatic form that might be better able to sell the causes he truly appears to believe in.

I'm a Sanders supporter, but I have to concede that the best combination might be a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a Biden-esque "loose cannon" that drives policy with sound-bites that are impolitic coming from the top executive, but need to be said. Similar to how Biden basically forced/allowed Obama to move forward with a marriage equality agenda.
posted by explosion at 1:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

I would assume quidnunc kid would appoint an all-MeFite cabinet, so I'd just like to remind everyone of the positions available (per Wikipedia)...
Vice President
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

Any sub-candidates?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Okay but for real let's think through this "enraged hive of killer bees in the Oval Office" idea. Perhaps the bees would be interpreted as holding primarily symbolic power, sort of like the Queen or a Governor General. Normal political process would not involve the President (an enraged hive of killer bees) at all. It would only be in the case of a constitutional crisis that the enraged hive of killer bees would be consulted.

It is unclear to whom day-to-day executive power would fall in this scenario. We could say it goes to the VP, but that is boring. Instead, let's say that it goes to the Cabinet, the Cabinet now being appointed by the Senate. Maybe the VP in their role as President of the Senate would nominate Cabinet members, to be approved by the Senate as a whole.

Okay, now that's the executive branch, unless there is some irresolvable dispute between the members of the Cabinet, or if a member of the Cabinet acts in ways clearly against the Constitution or against the "will of the enraged hive of killer bees." There would be a sort of unwritten constitution around what it means to be with or against the will of the enraged hive of killer bees. Disputes about what constitutes the will of the enraged hive of killer bees would go first to the White House Apiarist, and then if the Apiarist is unable to determine the will of the enraged hive of killer bees it would go to the Supreme Court.

Only in cases of extreme, irresolvable constitutional crisis would members of the Cabinet be made to "meet with the President."
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [24 favorites]

I would like to be recognized as Secretary of Agriculture Roger Tribbey.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:58 PM on February 18, 2016

The electability argument for Sanders: Why Bernie can win
posted by dialetheia at 1:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

Maybe the VP in their role as President of the Senate would nominate Cabinet members, to be approved by the Senate as a whole.

Or, how about we replace the Cabinet with a logpile full of spiders? Eh?
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

okay that is infantile utopianism is what that is, get out of here.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

I mean think about it if the president were an enraged hive of killer bees and the cabinet were a logpile full of spiders, how would anyone get any serious work done?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

not much worse than we're doing now?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians, but either of them would be better than putting an enraged hive of killer bees in the Oval Office, which in turn would be preferable to any of the Republicans.

What if they are pragmatic centrist killer bees?
posted by madajb at 2:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

From that Hunger Games link upthread: Sanders manifests homunculus to do his bidding.
posted by vverse23 at 2:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Only 264 days to go until we can all start looking ahead to 2020.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Nominate me for Health and Human Services, please
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:09 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think 2020 is really Inanimate Carbon Rod's year.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:09 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

> Only 264 days to go until we can all start looking ahead to 2020.

If you are looking towards the Republican party, you don't have to wait - Tom Cotton started campaigning last year.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:09 PM on February 18, 2016

Bernie’s Army of Coders: Inside the DIY volunteer tech movement helping drive the insurgent campaign.

I honestly believe disenfranchised millennials and technology will be the key to winning this election.
posted by kyp at 2:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm not gonna read the link, because Tom Cotton sounds like a good name for a malevolent sprite from a folktale, and I'd like to keep that mental image intact.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [24 favorites]

You all are losing the Allergic To Bees vote. Now I have to check on Dr. Ben Carson's position on bees.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: disenfranchised millenials and technology
posted by penduluum at 2:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Well, now that's the only mental image I have, and I'll be damned if that doesn't make any recollection of him like a billion times more entertaining.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:16 PM on February 18, 2016

On the other hand, he's less accomplished than Clinton, and comes in a "crotchety old white man" package, rather than a more personable, charismatic form that might be better able to sell the causes he truly appears to believe in.

Yeah, I never would have guessed how many people would end up liking Sanders more than Clinton - it seems counterintuitive. As far as general election chances, their favorability metrics are probably the best concrete indicator of electability that we have; for example, in today's Quinnipiac polling, Sanders' favorability is 51-36 favorable, while Clinton's is 37-58, nearly as bad as Trump's. Regardless of the arguments about Sanders not being attacked yet (some of which are addressed in that article I linked earlier), Clinton's 58% unfavorable rating really concerns me with respect to our chances in the general if we nominate her.

I know everyone hates these general election matchups, likely with good reason, but according to that same poll, Sanders' lead on Clinton vs. the Republicans only continues to grow - Sanders beats all of the Republicans while Clinton loses to all of them.
posted by dialetheia at 2:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

I would assume quidnunc kid would appoint an all-MeFite cabinet, so I'd just like to remind everyone of the positions available (per Wikipedia)...
...
Secretary of Labor

We're a global operation, why not also have a Secretary of Labour? They could job share.

Secretary of Homeland Security

I'll take this job if I'm allowed to shut down 60% of my operation and request a big budget cut.
posted by phearlez at 2:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I honestly believe disenfranchised millennials and technology will be the key to winning this election.

I've spent a career in insurance, finance, banking, &c. IT with most of the time with audit responsibilities, and I haven't seen anything to have a whole lot of confidence in the infrastructure used to tabulate votes, so it may be that this election cycle boils down to "who has the better Black/Grey Hats" to either steal an election or prevent the other guy from stealing it...
posted by mikelieman at 2:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I propose that the members of the mefi cabinet be assigned by lot...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:19 PM on February 18, 2016

Okay, fine, I'll be your Secretary of Transport.

Pro: Know a lot about transport

Con: I'm not American

Actually, thinking about it, that last one is also a pro.

It means I know that public transport isn't something designed to allow "poor" people to come to "nice" areas and rob houses.
posted by garius at 2:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [14 favorites]

Yeah, I never would have guessed how many people would end up liking Sanders more than Clinton - it seems counterintuitive.

I dunno. Our national unconscious sexism explains a lot of it I think. Clinton has the cultural problem with "hard" women working against her. Sanders looks more the grandpa role which we're trained to think of as pretty harmless. While they're not that far apart in age, Clinton isn't allowed to soften in the way we expect grandmothers to.

I don't think that's all of it by any means, but it's big.
posted by phearlez at 2:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [17 favorites]

Bees
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:24 PM on February 18, 2016

This primary season has evoked a lot of emotions for me. Mostly, though, I seem to be bouncing back and forth between "I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you" and "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!"
posted by audi alteram partem at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

CANADA for President 2016
posted by BungaDunga at 2:27 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Quinnipiac: Sanders beats all Republicans in a 1-on-1 matchup. Hilary loses to all Republicans except Trump.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]

Shall we retire LONGTHREAD?
posted by PROD_TPSL at 2:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Shall we gather at the river?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Let the ritual commence.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm sure this town format happened in past campaigns but I don't remember it at all. Did it happen?

On SNL, at least.
posted by Melismata at 2:38 PM on February 18, 2016

How the Internet has democratized democracy, to Bernie Sanders’s benefit: "Social media is breaking the political 'Overton Window' -- the ability of elites to determine the outside edges of acceptable conversation."
posted by dialetheia at 2:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'll bring the torches.
posted by indubitable at 2:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I've spent a career in insurance, finance, banking, &c. IT with most of the time with audit responsibilities, and I haven't seen anything to have a whole lot of confidence in the infrastructure used to tabulate votes, so it may be that this election cycle boils down to "who has the better Black/Grey Hats" to either steal an election or prevent the other guy from stealing it...

Right, there's that aspect as well, although that's a whole lotta unknowns there.

I was referring more to the use of social media and Bernie software and the proliferation of smartphones to create a bottom up grassroots movement in a way that wasn't quite possible a decade ago. That plus an angry and passionate youth base...
posted by kyp at 2:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think they're both extremely flawed as liberal politicians

Can you elaborate further on what you see as extreme flaws for both candidates? Always curious as to what other people are thinking.

It wasn't my comment, but it jumped out at me too. Isn't everyone extremely flawed? It's part of being human. The only perfect people are in Ayn Rand novels.
posted by kanewai at 3:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

And the "perfect people" in Ayn Rand novels are perfect assholes.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Maybe President Trump won't be so bad. Kinda like getting to live in your favorite H.P. Lovecraft story.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Come to think of it, there are "perfect people" in a lot of novels... just not many GOOD novels.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

A swarm of bees will be an incarnation of the Mahadevi according to one text. So that would be one way of putting God(ess) in the oval office.

Of course, Republicans would have a fit:
Are they really American bees? Or are they really African bees or Mexican bees?
Can we really trust a woman in the Oval Office?
One that lives with multiple men?
Can we trust them to be unbiased regarding the religious rights of wasps?
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

Nominate me for Health and Human Services, please
posted by InfidelZombie

OK I definitely saw the list and was like "I'm sure no one has called dibs on HHS yet." Damn.

I'll take Housing and Urban Development, I guess.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Yeah, I mean I volunteered for the Killer Bees 2016 campaign because I really liked their sting-everything-to-death platform. And I thought they handled themselves well in the debate, swarming all over Trump's face like that. But to be honest I was kind of disappointed by how centrist they became once the primaries were over. Plus they're clearly in the pocket of Big Honey, which I guess should have been obvious in retrospect."
posted by dephlogisticated at 3:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [21 favorites]

I'd like to be Secretary of Energy. First I'll revoke oil company subsidies and transfer them to renewables, and then use the rest of the money to build my solar generator satellites that in no way can be turned into orbital microwave cannons, really.
posted by mephron at 3:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Beelieve
posted by garius at 3:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I would like to be Secretary of LEGO.

Also, I just helped my son build his LEGO Batman set, so I would also accept Secretary of Batman, or Secretary of Lego Batman.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:31 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

In a BET interview set to air on Sunday, Bernie Sanders bashes Hillary Clinton and alleges she uses her alignment with President Obama to curry African-American voters. “You know, Hillary Clinton now is trying to embrace the President as closely as she possibly can," Sanders said in pre-released transcripts. "Everything the president does is wonderful, she loves the president, he loves her and all that stuff. And we know what that's about. That's trying to—win support from the African American community where the president is enormously popular. But you know what? I have enormous respect for the president. He's a friend. We have worked together. I think he has done a great job in many respects. But you know what? Like any other human being, he is wrong on certain issues.”

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would like to be Secretariat, despite the neigh-sayers. Ignore that, I'll stop horsing around.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:33 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

President Swarm of Bees visited a hornet's nest today for the first time since taking office, in a controversial move the Senate Majority Leader called "divisive."
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Almost every comment in this thread is noise or a derail.
...which makes it the best political thread of THIS election season.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [23 favorites]

Are we keeping the other thread going so that this one can focus on bees?

Sounds good to me.
posted by mmoncur at 3:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

That other thread broke my browser and phone, so now I'm discussing bees.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:41 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Keeping to the important topic, how have bee voting demographics changed since colony collapse disorder came about? Will they respond to environmental issues this election?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean every so often a thread gets invaded by a swarm of bees, it's just a thing that happens here. shrug!
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Polling by the AP, AP-ary polling if you will, indicates that the highest concern within the bee electorate is opposition to drones being sent into war zones.
posted by XMLicious at 3:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [30 favorites]

Folks, I have no idea what you're on about re: bees, but it seems to be a pretty massive derail - can we all let it go? Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Buzz kill.
posted by peeedro at 3:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [89 favorites]

You heard the mod, everyone bee cool.
i'm sorry
posted by entropicamericana at 3:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

Yeah, why drone on and on.
posted by Miko at 3:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

Is it cool if it combines both bees and one of the candidates like this facebook post from Bernie Sanders?

Making a buck on bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides, no matter what the consequences, is a formula for ruin of our food supply and our environment.
If we don't call a halt to this, who will?

Or a post from 2012 about bees attacking Clinton?

Clearly the bees have a preference in this primary.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'll take Treasury, as I am young, scrappy and hungry.
posted by Biblio at 3:59 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Sanders: "Everything the president does is wonderful, she loves the president, he loves her and all that stuff. And we know what that's about. That's trying to—win support from the African American community where the president is enormously popular. But you know what? I have enormous respect for the president. He's a friend. We have worked together. I think he has done a great job in many respects. But you know what? Like any other human being, he is wrong on certain issues."

Agreed. I was dumbfounded when Clinton stooped to that tactic (equating Sanders's honest critiques of the president's policies with Republican-style attacks on Obama the man) in the last debate. It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering. I hope she doesn't go back to that well in the future.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

I'll put myself for Secretary of Labor. I'd talk a lot about the proletariat, while growing an impressive beard.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

vs young people are a lot more sexist than older people.

I suppose it depends on the young people you hang out with but there's no shortage of millennial dudes who are outwardly liberal and feel massively disenfranchised by The System and also are eyeball-peelingly sexist, both of the proudly misogynistic and the totally clueless varieties
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [20 favorites]

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them, money it seems, that is not present or likely to be raised.
posted by Postroad at 4:11 PM on February 18, 2016

It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering. I hope she doesn't go back to that well in the future.

The thing that I am seeing more and more in this whole mess is that the Clinton campaign is seriously running a by-the-book marketing-failure 101 game. At least we aren't (yet) seeing Hillary out "among the common people", doing things like wind-surfing, or maybe skeet shooting, or the next episode of how not to pander. And we aren't even into the general.
posted by daq at 4:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Biden on Trump with Maddow: "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. I do think he can win the nomination, but he can't win the election."
posted by Drinky Die at 4:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I dunno. Our national unconscious sexism explains a lot of it I think. Clinton has the cultural problem with "hard" women working against her. Sanders looks more the grandpa role which we're trained to think of as pretty harmless. While they're not that far apart in age, Clinton isn't allowed to soften in the way we expect grandmothers to.

If you look at the demographics, Sanders' lead is overwhelmingly from younger voters. I think it's a lot more likely that plenty of under 40's have been royally screwed over by the current system their entire adult lives and think Sanders is a better bet to change that, vs young people are a lot more sexist than older people.

There is definitely sexism among voters, because we live in a massively sexist society, and that infects all of us, young and old. But I think it manifests more subtly here and is intertwined with other substantive issues about the candidates - more like, we react much more harshly to a woman politician who engages in what some (many) see as dirty, self-serving, double-crossing "typical" politician-like behavior than we would to a male politician who does the same (ahem Bill Clinton). And perhaps (I think this is a lot less pronounced) we react more warmly to a male politician who presents us with very idealistic and (at times, to some) unrealistic and a bit crunchy granola realness than we would to a similarly situated woman politician (is there a corresponding example? Warren is very different from Bernie in this way.)
posted by sallybrown at 4:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

Oh man, 2016 is too much for me. Trump is about to landslide win South Carolina after taking on directly the Republican field, George W. Bush, and also the Vicar of Christ.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:27 PM on February 18, 2016 [21 favorites]

Along with the very concept of Republicanism.
posted by penduluum at 4:34 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I know it's not a Cabinet position, but I'd like to be considered for Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service of USDA.

Pro: I'm an agricultural scientist.

Con: I don't like attending meetings, so I'll probably spend most of the day in my office drinking coffee. My bee-proof office.
posted by wintermind at 4:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

I was dumbfounded when Clinton stooped to that tactic (equating Sanders's honest critiques of the president's policies with Republican-style attacks on Obama the man) in the last debate. It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering.

I didn't really see it as pandering. She was a cabinet member in his administration and is running on a platform of continuity. And some of Sanders' support is from people feeling disappointed about Obama or even that he's a failure. In more ways than one it feels like the Sanders campaign is a do-over of eight years ago.
posted by FJT at 4:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah the reality concerning the economic policies of Sanders (basically forecasting 5% productivity growth every year for a decade and other completely unreliable projections) make me feel like he's being intentional in presenting a misleading message or he is surrounded by economic advisors that are clearly outside the norms of economic thought.

Promise economic change but be realistic about the impacts or you risk the disillusionment that has surrounded Obama in regards to his campaign promises of 2008.

I think economics and economists' predictions come across as squishy to people at this point, after the past few decades of economic predictions that range all over the map. Every election cycle we hear "notable economist A says Candidate X's policy is unrealistic and will bankrupt this country!!!" and "notable economist B says Candidate X's policy will save this country!!!!" and "notable economist C says there is no way to determine what Candidate X's policy will do!!!" It's hard for most people to sort the wheat from the chaff and figure out which economists are hyping candidates vs. hyping unrealistic personal theory vs. making sincere but unreliable predictions vs. making reliable but very conservative predictions vs. on and on and on.
posted by sallybrown at 4:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them, money it seems, that is not present or likely to be raised.

Defense Secretary Grayson kills the F-35 program ( $29,000.00 a minute ) on his first day, and we have all the money we need for everything else.
posted by mikelieman at 4:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [16 favorites]

Oh man, 2016 is too much for me. Trump is about to landslide win South Carolina after taking on directly the Republican field, George W. Bush, and also the Vicar of Christ.

Hmm

[Google Image Search "trump as saturn devouring son"]

Result

I love the internet. You get a picture in your head and blammo, somebody's already made it a real thing
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [18 favorites]

Not having drunk the Koolaid, this is shaping up to be the scariest election I have yet to see.
posted by y2karl at 4:45 PM on February 18, 2016

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them, money it seems, that is not present or likely to be raised.

Those economists are critiquing this analysis and growth forecast by Gerald Friedman, who is actually a Clinton supporter and not associated with the Sanders campaign at all (though I imagine they were happy to see his analysis). The CEA advisors' analysis doesn't say anything about whether Sanders' policies are unworkable, just that they wouldn't necessarily lead to the growth that Friedman predicted.

Financial Times Alphaville argued against those criticisms on historical grounds: "his supposedly “extreme” and “unsupportable” forecast implies American output will return to its previous trend just as Sanders would be finishing up his second term, in the third quarter of 2024." In other words, those critics are assuming that American output will never return to its previous trend due to structural forces, which seems equally unsupportable in the absence of a crystal ball.

Also, not to ad-hominem their claims or anything, but one of those "left-leaning" economists is on the board of Morgan Stanley (which paid Clinton $225k in speaking fees last year), and another was described by CNBC as "hedge funds' secret weapon." Some of them also have direct ties to the Clinton campaign (which isn't terribly surprising given their dominance of the party over the past two decades so I don't really hold it against them, but it tempers their claims somewhat).

Here are a couple other takes from economists and analysts on Sanders' policies:
NYT invents left-leaning economists to attack Bernie Sanders, Dean Baker
Thomas Piketty on the rise of Sanders
Neel Kashkari, bailout overseer: Break up the banks
NYT Editorial board: raise the minimum wage to $15
BloombergView: " A leap of the sort that Friedman envisions seems unlikely. I took a look at the ratios in a few other countries, though, and it turns out it's not unprecedented"
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [43 favorites]

Hi Wintermind! I also work for ARS, and I'll appreciate your leadership. Remember, we're in charge of the bees.

More on topic: Can the Pope run for president?
posted by acrasis at 4:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Maybe President Trump won't be so bad. Kinda like getting to live in your favorite H.P. Lovecraft story.

That would be the one where he travels to Ulthar and kills a kitten.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 4:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

More on topic: Can the Pope run for president?

This Pope can't, but a natural born American Pope could, I believe.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:47 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

And some of Sanders' support is from people feeling disappointed about Obama or even that he's a failure.

I get why she's doing it (although the obvious "How dare you speak ill of our great and wondrous leader?! language" was way over the top). But a lot of people rightly see problems with the Obama administration and trying to shame them won't win them over. He was a failure in many ways. As all presidents are to their supporters.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

All the left wing, or liberal economists, greatly respected, have said that Bernie's economic plans are not going to work without a massive sum of money to fund them,

if anything sums up this election for me it's my hope that after it is over no one will describe a director of MorganStanley and a man referred to as "hedge fund secret weapon" as "left leaning".
posted by ennui.bz at 4:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [29 favorites]

I've read the Friedman report, and I didn't see anything obviously ridiculous about it in a mathematical sense. However, I'm not an economist, and devil in those models is always in the assumptions. It's worth reading if all you've seen are the synopses in the media or online.

acrasis, I even know the RL of the Bee Lab, I'm highly qualified for this post!
posted by wintermind at 4:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Not having drunk the Koolaid, this is shaping up to be the scariest election I have yet to see.

I am like a baby elephant, frolicking in the Koolaid, sucking it up and spraying it all over myself in gleeful showers of sweet schadenfreude. I cannot stop laughing at every new idiocracy irruption.

I agree this is a scary election for America, but I like to think, in my moments of Koolaid Komedown, that it's scary in the way that a massive pus-filled carbuncle is scary when it finally bursts and begins to eject blood and filth all over the place. Nasty, body-horror terrifying, but ultimately good for the patient, as long as there's a modicum of grown-up medical attention paid to it afterwards.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]

okay but what if the carbuncle bursts and under it is a lump of fresh raw pink skin, and there's a couple little bumps on it, and it kind of makes the lump look like a face, and the face kind of looks like Ted Cruz, and oh god Ted Cruz's face is growing in your skin, Ted Cruz has joined to your flesh, Ted Cruz is inside you oh god oh god its eyes are opening it's giving you that creepy sad smile and talking about God oh god oh god ohgodohgodOHGODNONONONONOOOOOOO
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [27 favorites]

Really cancel F35 and economic miracle? Especially when defense appropriations are almost inevitably designed to be next to unkillable by placing parts of the projects in about 100 different congressional districts.

I typically don't mind outlandish economic projections but wildly unrealistic projections start getting into snake oil territory and that is expected out of Republicans but less so Democratic candidates.
posted by vuron at 5:09 PM on February 18, 2016

What do you want, Mr. Trump?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:10 PM on February 18, 2016

I typically don't mind outlandish economic projections but wildly unrealistic projections start getting into snake oil territory and that is expected out of Republicans but less so Democratic candidates.

No other candidates' plans are being exposed to this level of scrutiny at this point, either, though. I mean, Hillary Clinton doesn't even have a health care plan for us to critique. And I'd love to see these same economists lay into Ted Cruz's flat tax plan, for example.
posted by dialetheia at 5:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

wildly unrealistic projections start getting into snake oil territory and that is expected out of Republicans but less so Democratic candidates.

No, that's always been bipartisan.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Muslim Democratic Club of New York (MDCNY) voted to endorse United States Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Sanders received unanimous support in a vote held at the club’s membership meeting on Tuesday evening.

(Their first-ever endorsement in a national race.)

Agreed. I was dumbfounded when Clinton stooped to that tactic (equating Sanders's honest critiques of the president's policies with Republican-style attacks on Obama the man) in the last debate. It came across as not only disingenuous, but cravenly pandering. I hope she doesn't go back to that well in the future.

Clinton Accuses Sanders Of Disloyalty To Obama (2/15/16)
A high-tech negative attack ad — but seemingly for people who already support Clinton?
posted by Room 641-A at 5:14 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm not really concerned about Sander's outlandish economic projections because he was the mayor of a town and didn't destroy it. He isn't afraid to think big but scale down to reality. However, the last debate left me thinking well of Clinton's domestic policy and thinking well of Sanders's foreign policy (although I always think well of people who call Henry Kissinger a war criminal).
posted by acrasis at 5:20 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

The first national poll showing Sanders leading Clinton came out today: 47% Sanders to 44% Clinton, with full crosstabs here. "The last two Fox News polls show Clinton’s drop-off has been most striking among women (she has gone from 28 points ahead of Sanders to just 3 points up, for a shift of minus 25 points), whites (-13 points), and regular Democrats (-14 points)." He's also really improved his standing with "nonwhite" voters to Clinton 53, Sanders 36. It looks like they don't have big enough sample sizes for Black and Latino voters to be able to break them out separately, unfortunately. This could easily still be an outlier poll, of course.
posted by dialetheia at 5:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is a little O/T, but I'm watching Rachel Maddow's interview with Biden, and man, Biden would have had this wrapped up by now. He's so good.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:27 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

Wait, Marco Rubio prefers West-coast '90s hip-hop to East-coast?

I mean, sure, we all like 'Piss on Your Grave' and 'Bush Killa,' but Cube and Dre and Pac and Short, over Biggie and Nas and Jay and Mobb Deep and Wu? Not really feeling it.
posted by box at 5:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I deeply regret Biden didn't run. I think he would have won easily.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Not really feeling it.

Mods

Hold me back
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm still idly dreaming of Obama saying fuck it and running for a third term.
posted by sallybrown at 5:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean, at this point, Lin-Manuel Miranda could win handily, right?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:33 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

JUST DO IT OBAMA COME ON
posted by sallybrown at 5:33 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Biden would have had this wrapped up by now. He's so good.

Lots of pols look really good once they're done with campaigning. See Gore or even Bob Dole.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:34 PM on February 18, 2016 [15 favorites]

JUST DO IT OBAMA COME ON

He'd be the youngest Democrat in the race (since O'Malley dropped out).
posted by FJT at 5:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Court has decided to delay the case on Obama's eligibility until after the election, feel the people should have a voice in the decision.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

I suppose it's too early for pundits to speculate about a Dem combined ticket, but I'm recalling Ron Howard's Apollo 13 and the scene in which a ground control nerd shouts above a fray--

CONTROL TECH
-Whoa, whoa, guys! The power's everything. Power is everything.

GENE KRANTZ (FLIGHT DIRECTOR)
- What you mean?

CONTROL TECH
- Without it they don't talk to us, they don't correct their trajectory, they don't turn the heat shield around... we gotta turn everything off. Now. They're not gonna make it to re-entry.

How Sanders and Clinton accept the other as VP certainly has its intrigue, but I'm already of the opinion neither alone will likely defeat Trump.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:37 PM on February 18, 2016

I'd vote for a Michelle 2-for-1 deal in a goddamn heartbeat.
posted by box at 5:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I feel like yes, blasting Trump into space in an unpowered rocket might be a way to defeat him, but I have this nagging sense I'm misreading your comment
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Marco Rubio Objects as Supporter Calls Hillary Clinton ‘a Traitor’
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2016

Watching this live simulcast on CNN 8 THE OCHO

(Republican townhall starting now on CNN. I'm gonna flip to MSNBC when the dems start.)
posted by Drinky Die at 5:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I am still not seeing a downside to the bees.
posted by briank at 5:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

The only possible combined ticket is Clinton/Sanders, not the other way around. Clinton wants to be president whereas Sanders merely wants to alter the way the country is run.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 5:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Re: Economic projections, any sort of long-term economic prediction is like a 14-day weather forecast - an educated guess based on a bunch of numbers that are constantly changing. Some get it right, others wrong, and there's a bunch of people who believe rain dances work. All it takes is another major bank or two saying they made another oopsie to tank the economy again.

I mean, I've seen "credible" Doctors of Economy here predicting a x% tax increase would allow earnings of millions in the end of the year. Me, with my doctorate in OpenTTD, said a value added tax increase, with wages not going up with inflation, along major increases in rents and services, in a very unstable job market would repress the revenue from taxable goods below what was expected before the increase... and the guy who loves trains got it right.

A lot of economists are as good as astrologists... or just lie. That people still use their opinion without a lavish use of salt and another spices is irritating.
posted by lmfsilva at 5:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Anytime I catch a Biden interview during this election cycle, it's a goddamn breath of fresh air.
posted by defenestration at 5:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump's rise in popularity among independent voters and even Reagan Democrats is pretty alarming. With his attacks on W it seems he is already willing to pivot to the center.

If Trump can tap into nativist frenzy and the right and left and co-opts a centrist but populist economic stance then he becomes a much more dangerous nominee. He is still a total asshat but that is seemingly not a deal breaker for most of the electorate.

Increasingly it looks like a combination of Clinton and Sanders or Warren would be useful in disarming Trump as a threat.
posted by vuron at 5:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton wants to be president whereas Sanders merely wants to alter the way the country is run.

Which is easier to do from the Senate (or, really, anywhere) than the VP. He's not young enough to get a second bite at the apple so I don't see him going for it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:47 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's interesting to note that the things that have allowed the Republican base to finally move away from certain viewpoints that were previously far-right extremist purity tests during the run up to the nomination are, well... racism, xenophobia, and bigotry.
posted by defenestration at 5:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders would never accept a VP role, it's pointless and powerless by design, and he'd rightly see it as once again being relegated to the back of the room.

Plus both of them are not exactly young, they're both going to have to balance some concerns about their age with a younger VP pick, which was seemingly the whole point of OMalley hanging around.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

The bees can be Secretary of State.

The drones, you mean.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Kasich is really boring right now and doing nothing to prevent me from changing the channel. Should have started with Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:51 PM on February 18, 2016

Unfortunately most neoliberal economists hide behind so much obfuscated calculus these days that it's hard to understand their models much less refute them. We definitely need a new model for economics in the US but the gate keepers at most academic programs have a lot invested in the status quo and a lot of conservative money has gone to paying for professors in the top economics programs.
posted by vuron at 5:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

(The bees can be Secretary of State)

They better use a government approved hive.
posted by futz at 5:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

soooo... I need cable to watch this thing?
posted by indubitable at 5:53 PM on February 18, 2016

I've said it before, but a Clinton/Sanders ticket would give me real hope.

On this site?
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Anderson Cooper demands Kasich not move out of his small blue circle in the stage because of the lighting.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I've said it before, but a Clinton/Sanders ticket would give me real hope. It gets Bernie a seat at the table and it's the most electable option we have. I wish they'd realize that before things get too ugly to reconcile.

Absolutely the best of all possible outcomes, I reckon, as I've said before, too. Trump carries on destroying the Republican party but gets the nomination, together Clinton and Sanders unite the Dem electorate and utterly defeat Trump, the veil of business-as-usual since Reagan at least is finally ripped down, Supreme Court is firmly left for the first time in decades, and provided American doesn't tear itself apart in the aftermath, we all (Americans, and, you know, the rest of us) get one last good chance to steer a reasoned course before our entire civilization goes down the toilet.

It sounds over-dramatic, but I kinda think that's the level of stakes we're talking about here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

This might be a live stream ... we'll see in 4 mins

update: yes it is
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:56 PM on February 18, 2016

I'm with you there, stavros. My big hope right now is this: that whoever doesn't get the Democratic nomination goes all in on rallying their supporters around their former opponent. And I hope he or she is successful in doing so.
posted by defenestration at 5:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

I think unfortunately both Clinton and Sanders will need someone younger in the VP spot, in case they can't run for a second term (or decide not to) due to age or illness. I always kinda figured that's why Warren would agree to take it (along the lines of the rumor that Biden would only run for a single term and then pass the baton to her). After what happened with Reagan...
posted by sallybrown at 5:59 PM on February 18, 2016

(I apologize if that's ageist, but things tend to go wrong more frequently and more quickly at Clinton and Sanders' ages, especially with the stress of that job.)
posted by sallybrown at 6:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton is going to attack Sanders so hard over the coming weeks and months that picking him as a VP candidate (if she gets that far) will be out of the question.
posted by uosuaq at 6:01 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Sanders would never accept a VP role, it's pointless and powerless by design, and he'd rightly see it as once again being relegated to the back of the room.

I feel like he'd do it if it was a way to (a) beat Trump or Cruz and (b) keep the President's ear for the next 4 years if nothing else. If he gets to the point where winning is unlikely, he could help the party by doing this or destroy it by going third-party, and we know he doesn't want to do that.

My dream ticket would be Sanders with VP Clinton... but I'd take either one.

I have to admit age will be an issue though.
posted by mmoncur at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016

I wish they'd realize that before things get too ugly to reconcile.

The what-if match-up seldom take into account electoral math. This would be fine fine ticket, but most likely a losing ticket. Maybe not, since Hillary might be able to deliver some Southern states, but Sanders wouldn't bring any she'd really need. Both of 'em would do better with picks that actually shored up their weaknesses. And neither is that for the other. Just won't happen.

I'd also feel a bit cheated. Why have a primary process if all you are going to do is pick the candidates without any real regard to who's running? I'd said it before, but I am jealous of the plurality of options the GOP has. Sure, more should have dropped by now, and a lot of their debates have been crazysauce, but at least they had more choice.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ah, crap, that live stream I just posted cut out after the event started. Sorry guys... looking for another...

update: er, it's back up now, but I would expect further unpredictability from this channel...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016

"You must subscribe to watch this event live" *sad trombone*
posted by indubitable at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

(Search for "MSNBC livestream" and skip the official branded results.)
posted by nobody at 6:05 PM on February 18, 2016

Sanders says he is on Apple's side and the FBI's side. "I am very fearful of Big Brother."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:05 PM on February 18, 2016

I refreshed Noisy Pink Bubble's livestream and it works now.
posted by marshmallow peep at 6:05 PM on February 18, 2016

I'd said it before, but I am jealous of the plurality of options the GOP has. Sure, more should have dropped by now, and a lot of their debates have been crazysauce, but at least they had more choice.

Being able to choose between a shit sandwich, a rash of boils and a kick in the groin is not a choice to be envied, I'd say.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

This Obama Official Is Going to Bat for Hillary in Nevada
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:07 PM on February 18, 2016

Eh, I'd characterize his response a bit more wishy-washy than that, roomthreeseventeen. I'd be interested to hear Clinton's thoughts on it too.
posted by defenestration at 6:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

defenestration, I was just typing exactly what he said.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:08 PM on February 18, 2016

Sanders and Clinton both still do a good job of hitting the refrain "We agree on a lot of things, and either one of us would be better for the country than any of the Republican options." I'm less worried about the ability of two savvy politicians to handle the basics of party politics and support the eventual winner than I am about some of their supporters.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Groans when Sanders re-used his "I'm not the one who ran against Obama" thing.
posted by defenestration at 6:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, but he hedged that by saying, if we found out we could have gotten information from their phones that would've stopped an attack, etc, etc...
posted by defenestration at 6:09 PM on February 18, 2016

"Chuck, put it into context."
posted by Room 641-A at 6:10 PM on February 18, 2016

Sanders really isn't going to let Chuck Todd nitpick him tonight. Good for him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I do really appreciate Sanders's attempts to put things into context. I wish more people would attempt that. It's maddening sometimes when people I support don't, and buy into the framing of the question being asked of them.
posted by defenestration at 6:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Groans when Sanders re-used his "I'm not the one who ran against Obama" thing.

I hope that's the last time. It worked once, when it was off-the-cuff.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

The what-if match-up seldom take into account electoral math. This would be fine fine ticket, but most likely a losing ticket. Maybe not, since Hillary might be able to deliver some Southern states, but Sanders wouldn't bring any she'd really need. Both of 'em would do better with picks that actually shored up their weaknesses. And neither is that for the other. Just won't happen.

Maybe it won't happen. But I'd have been more inclined to agree with your assertion about electoral math before Sanders' dead-heat successes.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 6:13 PM on February 18, 2016

Agreed, Room 641-A. With Rubio-bot and groans like that, I think this is the first presidential election cycle in my lifetime where repeated lines like that not only don't help, but can be actively harmful.
posted by defenestration at 6:13 PM on February 18, 2016

The NY and NH locations doom a combined ticket unfortunately. The conventional wisdom is still you need to combine 2 separate regions.

Not to mention that both are older candidates (less of a concern with a younger VP) and that both are white (for some values of white) which fails to address some of the concerns of PoC. Bill Clinton might be an honorary Black President but that definitely does not extend to Hilary.

Unfortunately the election is based upon the electoral college and that means the victor will almost certainly be dictated by how the candidates do in relation to some very focused demographics in a small handful of battleground states.

Ohio
Florida
Colorado
Wisconsin

Seems to be the likeliest for determining the 2016 election which means how can Clinton or Sanders deliver to scared rust belt factory workers, Latino in Florida and the Southwest, and Urban African Americans in key battleground states where turnout is always unpredictable.

Sanders is doing well among young cohorts which seems hopeful for Wisconsin (although seriously why does Wisconsin skew so conservative recently?) and Colorado but it seems like Clinton has better strength in Ohio and Florida. So it's really unpredictable and right now it's unclear if a Trump can target those scared white blue collar workers in Ohio and Florida and make up for his likely weakness among minority voters.
posted by vuron at 6:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Left leaning economics is pretty rare in the US outside of some academic programs. Neoliberal economics is pretty dominant no matter what. If we accept anyone that accepts keynesian principles as being arguably liberal (for the US) then the label can be more expansively applied even to economists employed by investment bankers.

but see, the ideology involved is a lot simpler than that. being on the left means acknowledging that capital and labor are in conflict because of the way capitalism works. when you choose to be a director of a giant bank or a highly-paid hedge fund consultant you are choosing a side and it isn't the left one.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Chuck Todd is a class A dickhead so I figure he's going to continue to be a dick to both candidates. Not excusing him in any way but he seems to be dickish to just about everyone.
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

He's very good at cutting to the chase when explaining things. As long as it doesn't involve numbers.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

As someone who would gladly support Clinton or Sanders, I must say that I'm extremely pleased Sanders is running and doing so well. Either he gets the nomination, or he forces Clinton to the left. Watching these Democratic town halls and debates has been a very heartening experience.
posted by defenestration at 6:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

The way things have been going, vuron, I wouldn't be surprised if the usual calculus doesn't apply this year in anything like the way it has in the past, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it does, so I am totally willing to accept that a pair-up might not be the best way to ensure a win come November based on numbers-not-emotions.

But I also have a feeling things are going to get Even Weirder as election season goes on.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Very, very good question from this young man about racial and economic concerns.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:19 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Great question about treating racism-related issues as economic issues.
posted by defenestration at 6:20 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I can't say this enough - unlimited kudos and thanks to those early Black Lives Matter protesters who charged onto the stages with Bernie.
posted by sallybrown at 6:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [33 favorites]

sallybrown, I feel embarrassed to have criticized them at the time. They sharpened his campaign greatly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:22 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

Yes, totally agreed sallybrown. And I'm so glad Sanders reacted in a much better way than some of his supporters at the time. My respect for him—which was already very high—went up even more.
posted by defenestration at 6:22 PM on February 18, 2016

That was a very, very white kid asking about "African-American" issues. I reiterate my comments from the other thread: this election cycle is (among many other things), a demonstration of the power of #BlackLivesMatter.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

but it seems like Clinton has better strength in Ohio

Nina Turner will be great for Bernie in Ohio.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

intersectionality!
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wonder how many questions to the Republicans will ever include intersectional feminism?
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

That's cool the idea that intersectionality between class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc all having possible impacts on personal outcomes needs to get wider acknowledgement among national level policy makers. That these concepts are being discussed openly in a presidential debate rather than academic circles is really encouraging for the nature of this race and political discourse in general.

Not that pundits will want to abandon their dependence on two party dualism.
posted by vuron at 6:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Let's be real folks, that was a dude reading right from a Clinton campaign talking point.

Let's remember this from this exchange: Sanders wants to end mandatory minimums, he wants to end marijuana prohibition. Clinton opposes both of those things.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [16 favorites]

I'm very impressed with the questions tonight.
posted by defenestration at 6:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hey, it's Gilmore and Waters. Come on!
posted by box at 6:25 PM on February 18, 2016

Personally, I thought it was a well asked question, well answered. Your cynicism is showing, Drinky Die.
posted by defenestration at 6:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes, it was a perfectly crafted question played exactly in tune with Hillary's recent speech. There's a difference when a message comes spontaneously from a protestor whose life depends on it and when it comes in carefully rehearsed talking point form.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:27 PM on February 18, 2016

And people call me cynical, yeah the audience is probably seeded as all hell but still I like the question and I hope that people are asking questions in good faith.
posted by vuron at 6:27 PM on February 18, 2016

Good questions, good answer. If they are going to do these Town Hall style formats the questions should be real questions and not simply puff pieces.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2016

These are all very good questions so far, that NONE of the Republicans could answer.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean, at least wait until we hear the questions for Clinton. If they end up being "Tell us how you became so awesome?" then you might have a point. I expect they will be similar to Sanders, though.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I guess it could be a Clinton campaign talking point, but it's also going to be the line of attack in the general -- and more than that, it's a fair question that people are going to have and that he is going to have to have a good response to if he wants to win their vote.

I think he's going to do okay with the answer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Fair enough. During the BLM protests, I remember it being something discussed on this very site. Whether it's become a talking point or line of attack, I think it's worth discussing. And it gave Sanders a chance to answer it well, and I'd say he did.
posted by defenestration at 6:29 PM on February 18, 2016

ok but this is obviously a talking point, Sanders corrected her on the number she was going for when she stumbled over it! Ha.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:29 PM on February 18, 2016

I mean, they are fielding a lot of questions from Hillary supporters, and I believe he said he was one.

I hope they do the same to Hillary -- questions from Sanders supporters. Otherwise it's gonna look a little sketchy (but not something I would put past MSNBC).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:30 PM on February 18, 2016

I mean, at least wait until we hear the questions for Clinton. If they end up being "Tell us how you became so awesome?" then you might have a point. I expect they will be similar to Sanders, though.

I'm not implying the audience is stacked yo, this is how all questions are in this format. Have y'all never watched one of these before?
posted by Drinky Die at 6:30 PM on February 18, 2016

No we are all rubes.
posted by defenestration at 6:31 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

That guy did use an actual talking point in his question. It's a fine question and Bernie gave a good answer. It doesn't mean he's a shill but he used some of that language when he wrote it.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Has anyone asked Clinton a question yet? This stream keeps cutting out, but it's been all Bernie .. Which helps Bernie a lot, but seems odd.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 6:32 PM on February 18, 2016

I like how they're hitting us over the head with "Democrats support Latinos!" Univision hates Trump so much; it's beautiful.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:33 PM on February 18, 2016

It's a town hall, they go one at a time.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:33 PM on February 18, 2016

Has anyone asked Clinton a question yet? This stream keeps cutting out, but it's been all Bernie .. Which helps Bernie a lot, but seems odd.

It's not a one on one thing, they ask questions of Bernie and then later Hillary gets equal time.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:33 PM on February 18, 2016

Actually rolling back mandatory minimums is getting quite a bit of support across Democratic and Republicans at state (if not quite federal levels yet).The reasons for bipartisan support are complex and not exclusively related to racial equity but there seems to be increasing support for doing something about it.

Decriminalization of marijuana usage also seems to be getting increasing bipartisan support for complex reasons but I suspect it's still going to be a hard sell at a federal level. I general think that states rights reasoning tends to be used in a lot of harmful ways but in terms of drug criminalization I think it's been doing okay work.
posted by vuron at 6:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ah. The only other one I saw like this was dem vs repub and the questions were spread across both.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 6:35 PM on February 18, 2016

I wonder how many questions to the Republicans will ever include intersectional feminism?

I'm watching the CNN town hall for the team. AMA.

So far, a woman asked John Kasich about domestic violence and he rambled to "imagine if your mother or daughter or sister was beaten up! It's horrible!" forgetting he was talking to a real live woman. who didn't need an imagined scenario of violence happening to someone else, which is presumably why she asked the question.

So intersectionality, uh no
posted by zutalors! at 6:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [26 favorites]

Ah. The only other one I saw like this was dem vs repub and the questions were spread across both.

Yeah, they never seem to do those for the primaries. Don't know why not, once you have them cut down to the last two at least. It's a very different challenge when you share the stage.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:37 PM on February 18, 2016

I want to see Rubio-bot get a intersectionality question sometime and see if his OS has been upgraded to general election compatibility mode.
posted by vuron at 6:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

If you're a terrible person like me and would rather watch the Repub trainwreck for the lulz than Bernie'n'Hillary again: here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:39 PM on February 18, 2016

> I want to see Rubio-bot get a intersectionality question sometime

Error: Unknown type

posted by MysticMCJ at 6:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

What are you doing at young people parties?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:39 PM on February 18, 2016

(Bush is up ATM, Trump inbound)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on February 18, 2016

Heh heh yeah this guy is a Clinton volunteer reading a question.
posted by Justinian at 6:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

I didn't know Jeb Bush was a Catholic.
posted by zutalors! at 6:41 PM on February 18, 2016

The other guy was too, regardless of what you think about the content. He was a Clinton supporter, he was reading it.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:41 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Lockbox!
posted by box at 6:41 PM on February 18, 2016

Jeb converted when he married a Catholic.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:42 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah Bush converted when he got married.

I completely disagree with his policies in general but he seems like a decent guy. If he wasn't a scion of a political family he'd probably be a great high school principal.
posted by vuron at 6:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [33 favorites]

Oh come the fuck on. A Clinton volunteer? And they knew?

I'm watching the CNN town hall for the tea. AMA.

Counter-programming news? JFC
posted by Room 641-A at 6:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

"How would you address Islamophobia?"
"Bluntly and directly."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Beloved Strom Thurmand. uhhhh...
posted by futz at 6:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Counter-programming news? JFC
I don't know what that means
posted by zutalors! at 6:43 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Strom Thurmond thing... that's from the Republican town hall, right? What was the context?
posted by defenestration at 6:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

That's the name of the hall.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:46 PM on February 18, 2016

Oh come the fuck on. A Clinton volunteer? And they knew?

Todd said earlier the audience is screened to be 50/50, Hillary will face similarly challenging questions. You do have to convince the other side if you want to win a primary.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

So are we doing CSPAN or CNN?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:46 PM on February 18, 2016

Dang... the Sanders/Clinton Livestream was nuked.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:46 PM on February 18, 2016

Now that's my kind of question. :)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:47 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm want to make "What's the context, Chuck?" a thing.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:47 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

CNN and MSNBC here.
posted by futz at 6:47 PM on February 18, 2016

This is the Sanders/Clinton feed I am watching now.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Haha, that'd be great shorthand, Room 641-A.
posted by defenestration at 6:48 PM on February 18, 2016

I completely disagree with his policies in general but he seems like a decent guy. If he wasn't a scion of a political family he'd probably be a great high school principal.

Jeb! doesn't skeeve me out the way W always did, and he seems sincere, but man, he's also semi-coherent and worryingly uncertain of his own ideas, listening to him right now. I think high school principal is about right.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I missed the part about the audience being 50/50. I thought we were going to pretend it was impartial. I stand corrected.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

High School Principal nails it. And I think it's a level of governance with which he'd be confident and competent.
posted by defenestration at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Did I mishear or did he call it "Socialist Security"? Probably misheard but really he should start calling it that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Schiavo thing makes him eternally skeevy to me. Can't think of anything else when I listen to him.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I missed the part about the audience being 50/50.

It isn't 50/50. They said of the audience, 50 people are declared HRC supporters, and 50 are declared Sanders supporters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

The two events happening in the same thread is really the best of the Internet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

It is really confusing following here. Does everyone else have two TVs going?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:51 PM on February 18, 2016

As far as the people in the seats, they said there were an equal number of Sanders and Clinton supporters, but also a lot of Democratic party members (I forget exactly how it was phrased), so I would presume it skews towards Clinton.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:51 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

ahhhh the streams are crossing and they are hurting my brain
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

He doesn't skeeve me out the way W always did, and he seems sincere, but man, he's also semi-coherent and worryingly uncertain of his own ideas, listening to him right now. I think high school principal is about right.

About SCOTUS, he said he felt like the President should use any tools he has to do what he feels like he needs to do (paraphrase), and sighed for a second like "this'll cost me."
posted by zutalors! at 6:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, my bad with the Repub sidebar, maybe. I'll leave off for now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I feel embarrassed to have criticized them at the time. They sharpened his campaign greatly.

Maybe? He was already talking about their issues. I saw him in Boone, Iowa prior to the stage jumping and he was talking about income disparity, prison incarceration of blacks, unjust drug laws, and police militarization, and this was to a roomful of white people.

I supported their message (still do), but it seemed like they unfairly targeted his campaign. You're still not hearing Clinton talk about some of these issues, and when she does it sounds hypocritical and disingenuous.

I would like to have seen them targeting all campaigns with their message.

Maybe I missed it when they jumped on the stage at a Clinton rally or at a Rubio rally, and if so I withdraw my comments.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016

Ah crap, I forgot all about this.
posted by homunculus at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016

The two events happening in the same thread is really the best of the Internet.

It is, thanks for putting up the thread. I knew it was gonna be fun as soon as it popped up.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2016

The two events happening in the same thread is really the best of the Internet.

I am intrigued by the town hall format with the Republicans as I can see what makes their supporters like them a little easier, though I strongly disagree with all of them. I'm likely to ragequit before an hour of Trump though.
posted by zutalors! at 6:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah I forget about the Schiavo thing for some reason it's like he's cast a spell that causes it to fade from my mind after about an hour even though I'm extremely pro- right to die.

So high school principal and amateur wizard.

It's sounding like a buffy episode in here.
posted by vuron at 6:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

cjorgensen, I don't think BLM's concern was making sure they disrupted all candidates equally or something like that. Choosing Sanders was strategy—a tactical move.
posted by defenestration at 6:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

I strongly prefer these townhalls to debates. You get to know these folks a lot better when they aren't playing offense or defense.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Now Jeb! is a brain surgeon.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:55 PM on February 18, 2016

BLM did protest Hillary but she consequently expelled them from her rally.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Moonshot: let's discover the brain!
posted by snofoam at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I am behind, but I love the way that doctor's face lit up when Sanders thanked him for being in our country and helping fellow human beings. Sanders' answer was indirect, but in the end, it was "I'm going to treat you like a person worthy of respect," which is a valid response to "what are you going to do about Islamophobia?"
posted by Ruki at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Is that now an accepted pronunciation of the word ration?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The GOP program on another channel is a real distraction here.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2016

Is that now an accepted pronunciation of the word ration?

No. I love Bernie and all that he stands for but that pronunciation has got to stop.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

we should just use an interleaving scheme. R program comments post on even numbered seconds, D program comments on odd numbered seconds. that will clear things up.
posted by indubitable at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

High School Principal nails it. And I think it's a level of governance with which he'd be confident and competent.

Regional manager for Comcast. He wouldn't need to be confident or competent.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Principal is maybe a bit much - he kind of seems more like a guidance counselor to me.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:01 PM on February 18, 2016

(for people not watching, he keeps saying "rationing" to rhyme with "stationing". It's not okay.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

You have to love those folks lining up for selfies. I love America.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:02 PM on February 18, 2016

Was that it for him? Kind of a weak way to go out. Could have given him a wall street softball at least.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:03 PM on February 18, 2016

selfie-seeking kills dolphins
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's interesting word to pronounce in an idiosyncratic (read: wrong) way, too. For me, at least, such words are usually words I've read before but haven't heard spoken.
posted by defenestration at 7:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Choosing Sanders was strategy—a tactical move.

So was invading Russia.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:05 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

I can't watch tonight, but I've heard (from fairly, er, not-unbiased sources) that he's doing well. What do you all think?
posted by teponaztli at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2016

Ugh this filler music on msnbc.com is the worst music.
posted by defenestration at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2016

I listen to the same songs that we play during our meetings.
posted by box at 7:06 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah it's weird. Is it Brooklyn? New England? I've lived in the Midwest and in Ontario and I've not heard that pronunciation before.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:07 PM on February 18, 2016

I liked the music during the last Republican debate. My partner and I were talking about all the things it sounded like: waiting in line for a ride at a theme park, a Japanese car commercial, hold music, the soundtrack to a PBS documentary about that Apollo mission where they played golf on the Moon.
posted by teponaztli at 7:07 PM on February 18, 2016

Now I'm sad about the dolphin. At least with most wildlife selfie nonsense you always have the vague hope that it ends with "asshole eaten by bear or mauled by moose" but that is just depressing as fuck.
posted by vuron at 7:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

We're like Bill Clinton--you have to emote.
posted by box at 7:09 PM on February 18, 2016

Clinton says Senators should be able to use the rules to filibuster SCOTUS nominees. What the eff.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 PM on February 18, 2016

I bet Ben Carson would have saved that dolphin.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:09 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Introverts like to learn.
posted by box at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016

Oh man. I pronounce rationing like stationing too. I had NO IDEA that was wrong. Good thing it isn't a word I use often.
posted by hilaryjade at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm really blown away by the mental and physical stamina of these candidates, especially given both of their ages. To always have to be on and lucid and projecting energy and enthusiasm is no easy task. I'm quite a bit younger and I would be done in like a week.
posted by defenestration at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [26 favorites]

Does anyone else feel like it's too heartbreaking to listen to Sanders say all these things because he might not win and then what?

I will be so disappointed if he doesn't win, it's scary. I hate feeling this hopeful. It hurts.
posted by Tarumba at 7:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

Or gotten confused and try to do brain surgery
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:11 PM on February 18, 2016

Jeb is an introvert! Seriously people, read Quiet by Susan Cain. It's about so much more than the Internet memes about reading and cats that really put me off introversion stuff.

It gave me a window into Jeb and Carson that I find remarkable.
posted by zutalors! at 7:11 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Introverts create goals? Some do I'm sure but that's not exactly a known trait at all. Does he really know what a introvert is? Odd.
posted by futz at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2016

OK I'm switching to the Republican side (I mean, CNN... I mean, turning the cha... whatever.) Because my husband wants to hatewatch.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

according to Susan Cain, introverts are better at focusing on goals and persistence toward those goals than extroverts.
posted by zutalors! at 7:13 PM on February 18, 2016

Both Clinton and Sanders hedged on the Apple encryption question. The national security complex and corporate America are at odds and they're confused about which side to take.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:13 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

I will be so disappointed if he doesn't win, it's scary. I hate feeling this hopeful. It hurts.

It'll be okay. He is doing what he can to stand up for the people who need someone to stand up for them. And he will keep on doing that win or lose, and so should I, and so should you.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [18 favorites]

Not a tech expert? Not gonna make an e-mail server comment.

Shit, just did.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

according to Susan Cain, introverts are better at focusing on goals and persistence toward those goals than extroverts.

Ha! Susan Cain clearly hasn't met me.
posted by teponaztli at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

What did I miss? Why were half the crowd cheering and the other half booing?
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2016

Oh hey a complete lie about Sanders, good times.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump: The Pope is a pawn of Mexico!
posted by homunculus at 7:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Clinton suggested that Sanders wasn't familiar with the past 2 Democratic presidents' accomplishments because he was a newcomer to the party.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:17 PM on February 18, 2016

introverts are better at focusing on goals and persistence toward those goals

No clue who Susan Cain is but I think she didn't talk to many strong introverts. Which is probably difficult given that we don't really like to talk to strangers about our goals and persistence levels.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:17 PM on February 18, 2016

Clinton suggested that Sanders wasn't familiar with the past 2 Democratic presidents' accomplishments because he was a newcomer to the party.

Oooooooo.
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

You know what would be fun is to have all the candidates provide their Myers-Briggs results to the public.

That way we can safely eliminate any personality types that should never ever be trusted with nuclear launch codes.
posted by vuron at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Humble trump to start the evening. His face will get redder and redder as the evening goes on.

And I am sorry but there is no way that the trumpster is a christian. Agnostic or atheist for sure.
posted by futz at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016

Rationing, like that, is not a New England thing. My MIL, who had a similar New York Jew accent, did throw a long A into words that didn't need them. Like Pharoah. This caused me much confusion during my first Passover with the in-laws.
posted by Ruki at 7:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Clinton suggested that Sanders wasn't familiar with the past 2 Democratic presidents' accomplishments because he was a newcomer to the party.

How does that even make sense?
posted by teponaztli at 7:19 PM on February 18, 2016

It's just some shade thrown at him because he isn't actually a Democrat.
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on February 18, 2016

No clue who Susan Cain is but I think she didn't talk to many strong introverts.

She wrote an incredibly well researched book about it. The persistence thing I wrote related to studies, not people she talked to. Also she did talk to introverts...it's a really interesting book. I dont identify as an introvert but got a lot out of it.
posted by zutalors! at 7:20 PM on February 18, 2016

ok fair enough I probably shouldn't throw shade on someone for no real reason
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Seriously if people are kind of put off by my comment, which it seems like, read Quiet and you'll likely find that it's well researched and has something you can connect to.
posted by zutalors! at 7:22 PM on February 18, 2016

Pope Francis apparently beefing with Hillary as well.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:23 PM on February 18, 2016

Tomorrow's Daily News
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

> From that Hunger Games link upthread: Sanders manifests homunculus to do his bidding.

Hey, I support Bernie, but that doesn't mean I just "do his bidding."
posted by homunculus at 7:25 PM on February 18, 2016 [15 favorites]

Shall we drink every time Trumpy says:

Great
Tremendous
Liar
Business Man

That should get us started.
posted by futz at 7:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh snap. This dude is going in on her.
posted by zug at 7:26 PM on February 18, 2016

Dude has thrown deep punches.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:28 PM on February 18, 2016

I'm not watching either circus, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the peanut gallery here at mefi.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:28 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

She doesn't seem to get it -- or she gets it, and she knows how damaging it is -- the transcripts issue is not going to go away. It's not a good look for her.
posted by barnacles at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016

Weird. Comcast is telling me to subscribe to CNNE (?) while Trump is on screen. Didn't do that for Jeb!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

They keep talking about San Bernardino in the Republican Town Hall when there was a shooting right there in South Carolina by a terrorist. That's shameful.
posted by zutalors! at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Actually there have been a lot of good research about introverts but the Quiet book is really solid. There are some really interesting insights in that book and increasingly I've been looking for ways to really maximize the ability to hear introverted voices in meetings rather than just have meetings dominated by the alpha extroverts who love to hear their own voices and leave no oxygen for the rest of the room.

Introverts are absolutely essential to the success of most projects and getting them involved earlier when their expert knowledge is critical is really insightful. Sometimes it's as simple as looking for the yes in the no when they are questioned about feasibility of projects and then using their insight to revise project goals.
posted by vuron at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh! Add win to my list. And loser.
posted by futz at 7:30 PM on February 18, 2016

First question for Trump: how would you work constructively with people who you might disagree with?

Answer: We need toughness because ISIS (it took him about a minute to say this). I can be politically correct, people love me. I will put Republicans and Democrats in a room and make them deal. "I believe in compromise where I win."
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:30 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

HRC cites HRC endorsement. I'm convinced.
posted by uosuaq at 7:30 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Trump segment is on another cable subscription tier. The Donald wants to make sure he has only richest, classiest viewers for his town hall.
posted by indubitable at 7:31 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, she said she'd release the transcripts, surely she will.
posted by bink at 7:31 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ooh someone asked trump to be specific. Too bad it won't happen
posted by futz at 7:32 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Is that specific enough for you?" asks Anderson Cooper, not convinced.
posted by zutalors! at 7:35 PM on February 18, 2016

Trump: "You'll get your little doctor." But what if I want a big doctor?
posted by homunculus at 7:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump question the second, from a health insurance broker: What is your exact plan to replace Obamacare?

Answer: There's no way I can summarize this. At one point there was a clause about refugees getting handouts. I think he ended up somewhere around letting insurance companies sell across state lines, etc.

I'm really trying to hear where Trump is trying to go but it is honestly word salad!
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:35 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump is Harold Hill from the Music Man. There is trouble right here in River City... err America and if you get on board the Trump Express we will make America Great again. You know with rapist Latinos being substituted for pool hall concerns.
posted by vuron at 7:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [8 favorites]

MONORAIL!
posted by zutalors! at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]

Metafilter: Honestly word salad!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2016

Well, she said she'd release the transcripts, surely she will.

Wait, really? I heard it as (heavily, heavily paraphrasing) "I'll definitely release whatever I have...when everyone else does too. Because everyone has given speeches to private groups. Senator Sanders has given speeches to private groups, too, you know."
posted by nobody at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Jesus Christ. Anyone want to go out and die in the street with me right now? He's an pompous airbag. He has zero solutions.
posted by futz at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Third question is about the "Bush lied, people died" comment.

He's walking it back. "A lot of people think that... there are people that think that."
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

he is walking it back but not as far as I would have thought.
posted by zutalors! at 7:40 PM on February 18, 2016

Now Trump's pointing out the problems with refugees in Europe, etc., and connecting them to Iraq. All the money & lives that we've lost in Iraq, and we have nothing to show for it. "It was a horrible mistake -- and Iraq didn't knock down the World Trade Center." Shade on Saudi Arabia. Passing allusion to secret documents. "He [Bush] went into Iraq and did something that, I think, destroyed the Middle East."
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on February 18, 2016

No he totally has solutions but they pretty much stop at building a great wall between the US and the filthy Mexican barbarians, talking tough to China and presumably a WWE table and ladders match if Putin gets uppity.
posted by vuron at 7:41 PM on February 18, 2016

Saudi Arabia connection to 9/11. Basically sticking to his guns about calling Bush a liar but refusing to now use the word liar even though he's tossing the liar word salad.
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on February 18, 2016

Trump is hilarious. He's an idiot's idiot, completely self-absorbed, constantly telling everyone around him how great he is, desperately trying to hide his insecurity. He makes GWB look like a goddamned scholar, something I never ever would have guessed would be humanly possible. I am loving every second of this.

If millions of Americans think he's a perfectly fine choice to be their commander in chief, well, so be it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, we'll get the government they deserve.
posted by uosuaq at 7:45 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

Clinton is kicking Bernie's butt tonight. Weird cause he did so much better in the last town hall, it's why I went from undecided to his camp. As a Bernie supporter, I'm glad everybody changed the channel to Trump. :)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on February 18, 2016

If millions of Americans think he's a perfectly fine choice to be their commander in chief, well, so be it.

This is an actively bad idea, because I fear Trump is meaner and smarter than W.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:46 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hah, I did switch over... Drinky Die, would you mind explaining why you feel Clinton is kicking butt tonight?
posted by defenestration at 7:47 PM on February 18, 2016

I turned off Clinton after she bombed the first three questions, tbh.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 PM on February 18, 2016

She knows how to play the crowd better. And the audience is stacked in her favor, so she keeps getting a lot of applause.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016

Jeb! doesn't skeeve me out the way W always did, and he seems sincere, but man, he's also semi-coherent and worryingly uncertain of his own ideas, listening to him right now. I think high school principal is about right.

I know I have mentioned it in another thread, but someone upstream commented on how great Biden seemed and another mentioned how much better some pols are when they're not campaigning. My encounters with Jeb(!) are that to a T. I find his ideals icky (and I am NEVER gonna stop beating the drum about how he was cutting addiction support paths and funding at the same time his daughter was coping with addiction... but she had a connected and well-funded parent to help, unlike so many of his constituents) but he wasn't an incompetent governor.

He's got about as small a quantity of Obama derangement syndrome as you can have and still be allowed in the party now, and before he was running, to hear him speak? I wager half the dems in Metafilter would have traded a kidney to have that guy as one of the possible presidential winners. You'd still want the dem to win, but you would think maybe you could be okay with the next four years. I guess his handlers know that's not the personality that wins an R primary in the modern climate but he sure as shit can't seem to manage to simulate the nutter requirements convincingly.

So, overall - fuck that guy. But it's been fascinating to have lived with him as my governor for a while, seen him speak to small crowds and sound like not a complete fruitbat with no charisma, and then... this. I'd feel bad for him if he wasn't harmful.
posted by phearlez at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, we'll get the government they deserve.

Well, that is, unfortunately, the way democracy works. Like they say, a terrible system, but the best one available.

I think there's no way he'll become President, but the phenomenon of his popularity is quite the wake-up call.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders supporter here. I really wish he'd go into more specifics about his plans. He was asked for some tonight on a few points and didn't really go deep on details. I think Clinton, despite the fake/overly manufactured vibe I've always gotten off of her, explains herself better.

The whooping after everything she says is pretty grating though. I guess I'm becoming an old man, but as a society it'd be nice if we toned it down on whooping. Clapping serves the purpose.
posted by picea at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]

That was my read as well. He's not substantively taking things back to the extent that he could be perceived as "backing down" but he apparently is a bit worried that he hit a nerve or miscalculated the amount of goodwill that Republican primary voters have for GWB. I think he'll be tiptoeing around that particular line of attack at least until Jeb! gets out of the race.

He's laid the seeds for a full-on rejection of Bushism in the general, though, and that should play well with moderates....
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:48 PM on February 18, 2016

Passing allusion to secret documents.

I think he's referring to the 28 classified pages from the Joint Inquiry, which are a real thing.

More on Graham here: Florida Ex-Senator Pursues Claims of Saudi Ties to Sept. 11 Attacks
posted by homunculus at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016

Trump getting elected is like the darkest timeline.

Yeah it's going to lead to a funny future with President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho and Brawndo for everyone but it's hard not to see Trump being a serious candidate that the forces of anti-intellectualism are not just ascendent but actually on the verge of absolute triumph.
posted by vuron at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

HILLARY COUGHING, SOUND THE DRUDGE ALERT!
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on February 18, 2016

If millions of Americans think he's a perfectly fine choice to be their commander in chief, well, so be it.

we can call ourselves the "sobeit nation". Trump can be a mini Putin.
posted by futz at 7:50 PM on February 18, 2016

It's great that Bernie's specificity on progressive issues is encouraging people to ask her very pointed questions on what she can deliver. I'm a Bernie fan, but if she wins the primary she'll be much further on the left than anyone ever expected her to be.
posted by kyp at 7:52 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hah, I did switch over... Drinky Die, would you mind explaining why you feel Clinton is kicking butt tonight?

I feel that she is answering with more empathy and detail and with a lot more energy. She is just working the crowd and the camera excellently. There are some infuriating moments for me as someone who can sniff out the bullshit, but that's stuff I don't think most of the audience will notice. (for example, everybody endorses me! Not gonna mention that's only when the members don't vote!)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Oh vomit, it's a "How would you support the poor sad police" question.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:53 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

"First responders lives matter" question from the audience. Brb, gonna puke.
posted by futz at 7:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

jinx
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:55 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

We can barf together!
posted by futz at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

If Clinton wins the primary, she'll be done pretending to be much further on the left than anyone ever expected her to be.
posted by uosuaq at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [16 favorites]

"I raised women's rights everywhere I went. I mean it was never a dealbreaker or anything when it was time to arm the local dictator, but I brought it up!"
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

It's funny, I'm still watching and I think that Bernie is doing better... she's very masterful at not answering people's questions, which I think Bernie did a lot less of. There have been moments where she really sounded like she was pandering, too.

But in general, yeah she's a better public speaker.
posted by zug at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Trump won't eat at McD's because "cleanliness matters"
posted by futz at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The arrangement of the people in the room is kinda giving me second-hand claustrophobia. I don't know how either of them stands there and answers these questions under the bright lights. I'd be running right off the stage.
posted by sallybrown at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2016

I do think her knowledge and grasp of foreign issues really shines through in a way Sanders simply can't match. Would he even know who the leaders she's talking about are?
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Yeah, she's good at "owning" the room. (Switched back—just in time to see the end. Heh.)
posted by defenestration at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Bad plastic surgery = loss of confidence. Voice of experience there.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Also I wish for them both to get some sleep and load up on the vitamins. There's a long race ahead.
posted by sallybrown at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2016

Only Trump knew the real Michael Jackson.

WTF.
posted by homunculus at 8:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

^ I apparently picked the wrong time to switch back. what
posted by defenestration at 8:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Anderson Cooper seriously just asked Donald Trump "What's your favorite kind of music?"

This is after three minutes of some whole conversation about fast food restaurants which, I don't even know what the question was for that sidenote because I was busy puking with futz.

It's like an episode of The View.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

These fragmented Trump updates are kinda blowing my mind.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump also claims that he hates publicity and that he knew Michael Jackson better than anyone.
posted by futz at 8:01 PM on February 18, 2016

Trump won't eat at McD's because "cleanliness matters"

I think he was talking about Chipotle.
posted by zutalors! at 8:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

The CNN town hall segments always end with personal questions. I don't think it's an awful idea, the MSNBC one ended very abruptly for both of them.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Having seen a lot of both of these town halls I simply do not understand people who will vote for one of the Democratic candidates but not the other in the case of a primary loss. I realize I'm not going to change their minds so I guess I won't try. But the contrast between both Sanders and Clinton and buffoons like Trump or Cruz is so stark that it blows my mind that people can't get behind either of the Democratic candidates in the face of that level of danger to the presidency.
posted by Justinian at 8:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I want a supercut of Trump just saying 'I know people' 'people are calling me' 'they love me' 'I'm a success' and so on. Literally every single question he 'answers' includes some variation on how Very Important People Think He's Just Great Really Tremendous or His Great Success.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:03 PM on February 18, 2016 [9 favorites]

The politicfact intern watching this Trumptasrophe just passed out in a pool of vodka and vomit
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

am i posting too much? sorry if i am.
posted by futz at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016

Don't worry it's not any less fragmented when you're watching it.

I hope that sixth-grade teachers across the land are transcribing this... discourse? series of utterances? for extra-credit diagramming sentences on their next English test.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, time to switch to Legends of Tomorrow. Fortunately, Vandal Savage is a much more believable villain than Donald J. Trump.
posted by homunculus at 8:04 PM on February 18, 2016

am i posting too much?

no, way below your quota. Try and keep up.

And you lurkers. I'm watching you.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

A secondhand anecdote apropos of nothing: I once dated a PA for the Apprentice. Apparently Trump is incredibly vain and spent the majority of his downtime sitting in a chair and silently looking at himself in the mirror.
posted by defenestration at 8:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

And you lurkers. I'm watching you.

!
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump would replace the presidential limo with a gold plated Trans Am.

I'm not sure you can even parody Trump because the actual reality is too outrageous to actually be believed.
posted by vuron at 8:09 PM on February 18, 2016

As someone who works with my husband, I call bullshit on her earlier assertion that she knows the last two D presidents better than Sanders, especially given the insinuation that he's not really a Democrat. One of those presidents is her husband! Sanders is way more objective on that count. Further, working in the financial industry, I call bull on her position on Wall Street. I didn't like Kerry because of his tendency to say what was popular at any given moment. She has the same problem. Oh, Countrywide. Oh, SSM. No, you were wrong and you were backpedaling. (So was Obama, but he's not running. He did eventually do something about it.)
posted by Ruki at 8:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't think BLM's concern was making sure they disrupted all candidates equally or something like that. Choosing Sanders was strategy—a tactical move.

But at the time Sanders was barely coming out of a media imposed blackout. I mean, he was the guy who was running be stood no chance, wasn't electable, and was on their side. Seems like if you wanted sympathy or expose for the BLM movement that there were few choices worse that Sanders to get your message out. Even tactically it did;t make much sense. Hell, people thought it a GOP maneuver to bring attention to Sanders. Even the mainstream press wasn't for certain they were actual BLM movement representatives.

I guess if you want to give them way more credit than I do you can suggest that by attacking a marginal candidate it will bring focus to that candidate and force that candidate to adopt your message and surge to the top thereby bringing you message to the fore! I just don't see that.

Personally, when I want to protest something I don't pick the guy who is already on my side and who no one is really paying attention to. It'd be like having a drone protest at a synagog.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Lurkers are great! Tremendous! I built my empire on the backs of lurkers. Lurkers love me. They support me in email. Lurkers don't lie like non lurkers.
posted by futz at 8:10 PM on February 18, 2016 [13 favorites]

He did build a lot of hotels with immigrant labor.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:12 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

And you lurkers. I'm watching you.

*shifty eyes*
posted by saul wright at 8:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

...and some of those hotels are still standing! some even still open!
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Personally, when I want to protest something I don't pick the guy who is already on my side and who no one is really paying attention to. It'd be like having a drone protest at a synagog.

Unless the specific tactic employed was not "achieve maximum visibility" but rather "influence someone who knows what to do after listening"
posted by an animate objects at 8:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

Unless the specific tactic employed was not "achieve maximum visibility" but rather "influence someone who knows what to do after listening"

Or "Sander's is in town, and Hillary isn't. Let's do this thing now."
posted by gofargogo at 8:18 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

So just to make sure I have this straight....

Trump confirmed results -

Jeb Bush: low energy.
Pope Francis: high energy.
Marco Rubio: kind of short.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:22 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

It Begins
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:23 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Does anyone else feel like it's too heartbreaking to listen to Sanders say all these things because he might not win and then what?

Then he still has two more years on his current Senate term. And probably a pretty easy path to a third Senate term in 2018, if he wants it. And likely a more prominent voice than before.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is the first time that I've really seen Donald Trump talking in a relatively casual, low-intensity setting (I don't really watch reality TV so I have no idea how he comes across outside the directly political context).

I think my overall impressions are:

--Donald Trump thinks that the key problem in American politics is lack of leadership. In a way, he's close to a technocratic-type critique of partisanship; but where technocrats want to bring science / data / technology / "disruption" to governance, Trump believes that a strong leader who can knock heads together, get people into a room and get deals done is going to "make America great again", get past the paralysis and build workable solutions.

--He feels he's the best person to do this because of his connections and his personality. He's proven that he can get people together to make deals that are going to be acceptable to him, and so if he's working for the American people he will be able to get things done for them. Ultimately he doesn't think he needs to get into the details of what solutions might look like (e.g. desired policy outcomes) because his argument is based on the American people trusting that he is going to work in their best interest against the economic and political elites, and will defend the US against threatening foreign powers or actors (including terrorism, immigrants and rising economic powers like China).

--He would be pretty great to have beers with. He's... witty, and has a breezy, crass, slyly mocking affect that could be really fun.

--This person is a fucking fascist and he's not to be underestimated.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:24 PM on February 18, 2016 [21 favorites]

I always thought BLM interrupted more Sanders rallies because his events were larger and more likely to be accessible to protesters, whereas Clinton's were smaller and always very locked-down. Sanders didn't even get Secret Service protection until mid-February, I don't think. (His code name is Intrepid!)
posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Every time Trump talks about low or high energy, I get the same feeling as listening to a hippie tell me about the triboluminescence of this amazing crystal for just $10, man.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Fascists are great fun to get drunk with.

Fuckers always stiff you with the bar tab, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:26 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think Trump indicated he's a teetoller now so maybe not so much fun at a bar.

On the other hand he probably still has a residual high from doing mountains of coke in the 80s so maybe it's all good.

Keep in mind that America elected Dubya twice because he was seen as down to earth and relatable despite being from an incredibly wealthy and well connected political family. So if Trump can tap into that truthiness and likeability factor that propelled Dubya and throw in some nativist panic he could be successful.

Ultimately he's yet another strongarm despot that is masking their more loathsome aspects in a nationalistic guise just like Putin.

But you gotta think that he'll do a interesting job redecorating the Oval Office. I'm thinking a black velvet painting with him lounging half naked with a draped American flag on a bear skin rug surrounded by bald eagles.
posted by vuron at 8:36 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

It will be interesting to see how Sanders' doggedness-over-slickness strategy keeps him afloat. I'll be voting for him because his politics align with mine, but I also wonder how much myself and others are voting for him as a rejection of Clinton and her methods.

It's not an overly scientific way of thinking, but I like Bernie partly because I don't feel like he's running because he craves the massive ego boost becoming President would engender. He feels like a devoted civil servant trying to change the system. With Clinton, it feels like it's about her fulfilling her personal destiny first and improving the country second. Certainly that's how 100% of the Republican candidates operate, but I think progressives are realising that it doesn't need to be like that for our side. It's about the work that the President can get done and not their star power or myth-making. In this way, Clinton looks sort of obsolete to me.

It's a hard thing for Americans to get over, because it's so baked into the culture, but I think some people are moving towards a better appreciation of the power of the group over the individual, and finding there's no shame in it.
posted by picea at 8:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [12 favorites]

--He would be pretty great to have beers with. He's... witty, and has a breezy, crass, slyly mocking affect that could be really fun.

As a woman who looks enough like what Trump thinks a Muslim or Hispanic might look like, no thanks.
posted by zutalors! at 8:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [5 favorites]

Fascists are great fun to get drunk with.

Fuckers always stiff you with the bar tab, though.

This is the exact plot of a lost Hemingway short story.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [10 favorites]

he probably still has a residual high from doing mountains of coke in the 80s

Holy crap, that literally just twigged in my brain. I don't know if Trump did coke back in the 80s, but, you know, I did, and that self-aggrandizing motor-mouthed non-sequitur silence-fearing stream of barely-connected words he was pouring out in the town hall tonight sounded precisely like someone who was naturally voluble but also coked out of their freaking head.

Huh. No wonder he was able to scam people out of so much money back in the day. Whether he was high or not, he spoke their cocaine-language!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [11 favorites]

Ultimately he's yet another strongarm despot that is masking their more loathsome aspects in a nationalistic guise just like Putin.

Which is why he might be able to do enough damage in 4 years to become America's Greatest President For Life, like Putin.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:44 PM on February 18, 2016

But you gotta think that he'll do a interesting job redecorating the Oval Office. I'm thinking a black velvet painting with him lounging half naked with a draped American flag on a bear skin rug surrounded by bald eagles.

Excuse you, Mr. Trump is classy, okay? Very classy. As a matter of fact many prominent people have told him he's the classiest.
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

Presumably VP Aaron Schock will reign in President Trump's florid decorating tendencies with something more appropriately baroque.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:48 PM on February 18, 2016

The real winners tonight on CNN are Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon, who both look hawt.
posted by zutalors! at 8:49 PM on February 18, 2016

Well, I couldn't watch the town hall, but this just showed up on the NBC news website:
Poll: Sanders Outperforms Clinton in Hypothetical General-Election Matchups
posted by teponaztli at 8:57 PM on February 18, 2016

I would like to throw my hat in the ring for MeFi Attorney General, mainly because I can't run for Treasury until I know all the words to Hamilton. However, I would respectfully suggest that more than one person should be appointed as MeFi Attorney General so we can argue over the correct pluralization of Attorneys General.

Also: The only correct answer for a Republican candidate to "What kind of music do you like?" is FREEDOM ROCK, MAN,
posted by Dr. Zira at 9:04 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think Trump indicated he's a teetoller now so maybe not so much fun at a bar.

He says he has never had a sip of alcohol or any drugs. His brother was an alcoholic and died young, so I believe Trump when he says that had an impact on him. His brother is a sad reminder that no matter how much privilege you have in life there are still a lot of things that can bring you down.

Dubya, the last "have a beer with" guy, also does not drink because of his earlier issues with substance abuse.

Really, just pound some shots with Hillary if you need to drink with a politician.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

My mom, who went to the Trump side, watched the R town hall and her response was "smh." This is good. This indicates that right of center historical Dems who appreciated Trump's straight talk are getting disillusioned.
posted by Ruki at 9:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would like to throw my hat in the ring for MeFi Attorney General, mainly because I can't run for Treasury until I know all the words to Hamilton.

Just you wait.
posted by phearlez at 9:21 PM on February 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

smh?

I hope it means 'smell my hand'. That seems like a rational response to The Trump, although I must admit it doesn't make much sense contextually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:34 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

My mom actually responded to my private message. She's realized Trump is a megalomaniac. She was ok with Kasich except for his plans to defund Planned Parenthood, which is a deal breaker for her. Jeb was bland. Oh, you Republicans, keep on doing you.
posted by Ruki at 9:38 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

smack my head aka facepalm
posted by vuron at 9:38 PM on February 18, 2016

Shaking my head. For a long time, I thought it meant so much hate. Either way.
posted by Ruki at 9:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Roots of Donald Trump's Candidacy Lie in a South Carolina Cemetery: Searching for the soul of South Carolina politics—and the modern Republican Party.
posted by homunculus at 9:39 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ah, thanks. That makes a little more sense than 'smell my hand'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:42 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Co-worker of mine used "smh" constantly to reference another coworker named Matt. I thought it meant "shitty Matt hack" for a long time and was greatly confused when I saw it elsewhere.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:07 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

My initials are SMH and it kills me.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:16 PM on February 18, 2016 [4 favorites]

Upside is I have my own news site.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:17 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]

I completely disagree with his policies in general but he seems like a decent guy. If he wasn't a scion of a political family he'd probably be a great high school principal.

I give the man more credit than that. I think he'd still make a great high school principal.
posted by el io at 12:36 AM on February 19, 2016

Just can't get past the John Ellis Bush! Bush thing.
How nobody else brings this up I don't know.
I'd be calling him Double Bush or some shit.
Probably a good thing I'm not in charge of a campaign.
Well, I'd probably improve all the Republican ones.
posted by fullerine at 2:06 AM on February 19, 2016

Wow... I just checked Wikipedia. I had no idea Jeb! had the same naming convention as GOB Bluth!
posted by mmoncur at 2:17 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

If Jeb had had some of Gob's rumbly baritone and idiot confidence, he'd wouldn't have disappointed The Brokers. Poor Jeb. His tears are like wine to me, but I still have empathy for his pain.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:36 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

I just figured it out....Trump is Carl from AquaTeenHungerForce but with billions.
posted by ian1977 at 3:46 AM on February 19, 2016 [10 favorites]

But you gotta think that he'll do a interesting job redecorating the Oval Office. I'm thinking a black velvet painting with him lounging half naked with a draped American flag on a bear skin rug surrounded by bald eagles.

You forgot the yuge gold-plated picture frame and the spotlights.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:54 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders' social media going hard on the paid speeches.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:19 AM on February 19, 2016

--This person is a fucking fascist and he's not to be underestimated.

I think you are mistaken about the "fascist" part.

Say what you want about the tenets of fascism, at least it's an ethos.

Highly functional psychopaths, on the other hand, are not beholden to any ethos in particular and will subscribe to a belief system only when it furthers their own personal goals. Whether that's fascism or communism or capitalism is really secondary to them.

I'm sure that Mr. Trump would have thrived just as much in a communist country. Perhaps even more.
posted by sour cream at 5:22 AM on February 19, 2016

They should actually buy this domain if they are going to link it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:42 AM on February 19, 2016

Trump is more like a morning shock jock than anything else I think. Snappy zingers, bulldog personality, pivots mid conversation, speaks only in sound bites.

I am just thankful he decided to spread his baloney on the republican side. Can you imagine how gross it would be if he crammed himself onto the democratic stage?
posted by ian1977 at 5:44 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, I couldn't watch the town hall, but this just showed up on the NBC news website:
Poll: Sanders Outperforms Clinton in Hypothetical General-Election Matchups

Well, I look forward to all the Clinton supporters who are big into tactical voting to throw their weight behind Sanders now.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [15 favorites]

I don't know if Trump did coke back in the 80s, but, you know, I did, and that self-aggrandizing motor-mouthed non-sequitur silence-fearing stream of barely-connected words he was pouring out in the town hall tonight sounded precisely like someone who was naturally voluble but also coked out of their freaking head.

Russ Baker's whowhatwhy website linked the 1980's Trump biopic last month. Link here. Trump was always an evangelical straight edger even when the whole country was as high as a kite.
posted by bukvich at 5:59 AM on February 19, 2016

I don't know if Trump did coke back in the 80s, but, you know, I did, and that self-aggrandizing motor-mouthed non-sequitur silence-fearing stream of barely-connected words he was pouring out in the town hall tonight sounded precisely like someone who was naturally voluble but also coked out of their freaking head.

The Best Theory of 1992: Donald Trump Took Amphetamine-Like Diet Pills

On preview, opposite jinx.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:04 AM on February 19, 2016

> I always thought BLM interrupted more Sanders rallies because his events were larger and more likely to be accessible to protesters, whereas Clinton's were smaller and always very locked-down.

Perhaps, but Trump rallies were also disrupted and his rallies were even bigger.

> Unless the specific tactic employed was not "achieve maximum visibility" but rather "influence someone who knows what to do after listening"

I guess, but I don't think so. Again, Sanders was already talking about these issues. They are literally part of his platform: end The War on Drugs, address mass incarceration, decrease income inequality, end militarization of police, end debtor's prisons, CEOs (not marijuana users) in jail, accountability, make education accessible, etc. He was preaching this stuff not to Baptist churches, but crowds of white folk. I would even suggest he was (and is) the only one out there doing this.

In my mind, at best, the protestors brought a little attention to DLM, at worst they managed to alienate allies. They also looked like a plant and there's still doubt about whether or not they were the "real BLM," since some of the BLM apologized after. Me? I pick my targets and I don't say sorry.

I think anyone that follows my comment knows I fully support BLM, and I fully support Sanders, so maybe I just don't want to see friends fight, but I thought this was a bullshit move on the part of BLM. All it did was give talking points to the wrong side about how BLM can't engage in civil debate and Look, Sanders is White Power!

> Or "Sander's is in town, and Hillary isn't. Let's do this thing now."

Yeah, this is my take.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:08 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Krugman's attitude lately is kind of 'sry i must puncture yr dreams'
posted by angrycat at 6:25 AM on February 19, 2016

Vox: Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court
posted by Room 641-A at 6:40 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

NYT: Race in Nevada, Once a Hillary Clinton Firewall, Is Now Hotly Contested
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:58 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

I just want to say that I'm really, really going to miss the Obamas.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 AM on February 19, 2016 [12 favorites]

Nevada’s Clark County Black Caucus Endorses Bernie Sanders
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:04 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

What secretly lurks behind the Trump mask.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:34 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

I give the man more credit than that. I think he'd still make a great high school principal

Now that you mention it, have we ever seen Jeb and Mr Belding in the same room?
posted by nathan_teske at 9:38 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

http://iwilllookintoit.com/
posted by Drinky Die at 9:45 AM on February 19, 2016 [8 favorites]

Wow, https even works. Props to their web team.
posted by indubitable at 10:13 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ron Nehring ‏@RonNehring
Since @marcorubio no-showed at #CRconvention last night, I'm looking for him. Maybe he'll show up at his event.

Ron Nehring @RonNehring
And @marcorubio no shows at his own event. Just cancelled. Everyone going home.
11:33 AM - 19 Feb 2016 · Pawleys Island, SC, United States

Matt Viser ✔ @mviser
Some undecideds unhappy they waited 90 mins and Rubio didn’t show. “Now we’re on our way to hear Trump,” one told me. “Donald, we’re coming”
11:59 AM - 19 Feb 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 10:49 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

In Praise of the Wonk: Dissecting the CEA Letter and Sanders’s Other Proposals. (Rortybomb)
posted by nobody at 10:50 AM on February 19, 2016

Killer Mike GTO clarifies his 'uterus' comments about Hillary Clinton: "I have nothing against her...I have something against you telling me I must vote from some because I am black, or you must vote for someone because you are a woman."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:54 AM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

Be aware, the SSL cert is not for that domain :

#####

~> curl -vilk https://iwilllookintoit.com                                                                                                                                                                                        [58/58]
* Rebuilt URL to: https://iwilllookintoit.com/
*   Trying 50.62.160.31...
* Connected to iwilllookintoit.com (50.62.160.31) port 443 (#0)
* Cipher selection: ALL:!EXPORT:!EXPORT40:!EXPORT56:!aNULL:!LOW:!RC4:@STRENGTH
* successfully set certificate verify locations:
*   CAfile: none
  CApath: /etc/ssl/certs/
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Client hello (1):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Server hello (2):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, CERT (11):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Server key exchange (12):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Server finished (14):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Client key exchange (16):
* TLSv1.2, TLS change cipher, Client hello (1):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Finished (20):
* TLSv1.2, TLS change cipher, Client hello (1):
* TLSv1.2, TLS handshake, Finished (20):
* SSL connection using TLSv1.2 / ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA
* Server certificate:
*        subject: C=US; ST=Arizona; L=Scottsdale; O=Special Domain Services, LLC; CN=*.shr.prod.phx3.secureserver.net
*        start date: 2013-10-14 20:23:35 GMT
*        expire date: 2016-10-14 20:23:35 GMT
*        issuer: C=US; ST=Arizona; L=Scottsdale; O=Starfield Technologies, Inc.; OU=http://certificates.starfieldtech.com/repository; CN=Starfield Secure Certification Authority; serialNumber=10688435
*        SSL certificate verify ok.
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> Host: iwilllookintoit.com
> User-Agent: curl/7.42.1
> Accept: */*
> 
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Content-Type: text/html
Content-Type: text/html
< Last-Modified: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:16:26 GMT
Last-Modified: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:16:26 GMT
< Accept-Ranges: bytes
Accept-Ranges: bytes
< ETag: "079b5e1e174c91:0"
ETag: "079b5e1e174c91:0"
< Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0
Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0
< X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
< Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:40:55 GMT
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:40:55 GMT
< Content-Length: 1888
Content-Length: 1888

#####
posted by PROD_TPSL at 10:55 AM on February 19, 2016

Uh, is Rubio okay?

Did he go to a rave last night and take too much molly?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

His plane had mechanical problems. NBD.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:01 AM on February 19, 2016

Krugman's attitude lately is kind of 'sry i must puncture yr dreams'

I liked this counterpoint. Paul Krugman is wrong: "For the first time since his strident defenses of globalization ruffled some fair trade feathers in the 1990s, Paul Krugman is in a protracted debate with the American left."
posted by dialetheia at 11:19 AM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Crackpot Realism of Clintonian Politics - "What they miss is these right wing Democrats have profoundly shaped this status quo. Bill Clinton’s treatment of poor people was unimaginable before him and par for the course after him. Obama’s treatment of ordinary homeowners would have been a preposterous fictional story of campy villany. Now it’s just how the world works. "

Your theory of politics is wrong - "I support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. I don’t support Sanders because I think he is brilliant in some academic way. I don’t support Sanders because I am particularly impressed with the details of his policy proposals, although they are not nearly as hopeless as some self-proclaimed technocrats make them out to be. A democracy is not a graduate seminar.

It is not that I am for Bernie Sanders, but that Bernie Sanders is for me."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:24 AM on February 19, 2016 [33 favorites]

Sanders overtakes Clinton in Colorado: poll
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:41 AM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

Another fiery response to Krugman and the CEA advisors, this time from economist James Galbraith (pdf): "What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result. That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today's political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned."
posted by dialetheia at 11:56 AM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]

dialethia, that pull quote--I just have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Especially that first sentence? Do you know what it means?
posted by angrycat at 12:01 PM on February 19, 2016

It means that they get big results because it's a big program, just as the second sentence says. The whole letter is worth reading.
posted by dialetheia at 12:04 PM on February 19, 2016

and doesn't it give you pause that Krugman of all people is like eh this won't work.
and doesn't it give you pause that if governors don't get behind his free college plan in a totally unrealistic way, that won't work

on preview: um. what Krugman has been writing about is not his concern that Sanders's plan will get big results. it's that Krugman has said that the plans won't work.

I'm pretty educated but not economic jargon friendly enuf to parse what Galbraith said specifically about the Friedman paper.

But, saying that something is getting big results because it's a big program--it's like the few bits of non jargony language in the letter--and I have no fucking idea what the point of that sentence is. Do you?

Because my initial bemusement at Sanders is quickly souring into annoyance, mostly because when you have a Nobel Prize winner or whatever the economic prize is called criticizing with great vigor Sanders promises, and the responses are so WTF or tepid or impossible to parse or written by a Salon staff writer, I tell you, I want to start screaming about people being bloody irresponsible.

Seriously. Free college! Great, sign me up! Oh, well that plan well never work! But it's a great idea! Wheee.
posted by angrycat at 12:13 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

Because my initial bemusement at Sanders is quickly souring into annoyance, mostly because when you have a Nobel Prize winner or whatever the economic prize is called criticizing with great vigor Sanders promises, and the responses are so WTF or tepid or impossible to parse or written by a Salon staff writer, I tell you, I want to start screaming about people being bloody irresponsible.

Seriously. Free college! Great, sign me up! Oh, well that plan well never work! But it's a great idea! Wheee.

If Bernie Sanders can accomplish literally nothing more than appointing appropriate progressives to SCOTUS, reinvigorating the base while incorporating a broad swath of disenfranchised non-Democrats and earnestly fighting for progress on down-ballot tickets I don't really think Krugman's condemnation makes a lick of difference in the scheme of things.

Bernie's plans don't all have to work for him to totally change the game for the better, for everyone, for the foreseeable future. Clinton doesn't just not promise to do this, she promises not to.
posted by an animate objects at 12:22 PM on February 19, 2016 [18 favorites]

angrycat: From what I've read, neither Krugman nor most of the others who've recently so energetically criticized Friedman's economic projections based on Bernie's plans have bothered to argue the specifics. They're mostly dismissing Friedman's (who's said he plans to vote for Clinton) projections out of hand.
posted by syzygy at 12:23 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:24 PM on February 19, 2016 [19 favorites]

The letter isn't an endorsement of Sander-nomics. It's just a defense of Friedman, and only on the grounds that it shouldn't be surprising to see large change in a model that includes large moves.
posted by Miko at 12:31 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm secretly hoping the Democratic nomination is settled by the time my state primary happens so I can go make mischief on the Republican side. Also so I don't have to choose between Hillary and Bernie.

Tough call this time around.
posted by rocketman at 12:34 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

The letter also points out precedent for Friedman's predictions and notes that they're the conclusions that come from using standard models in standard ways.

In a way, it's reminiscent of Krugman's self-criticism about (IIRC) his predictions w/r/t the financial crisis - he reached the correct conclusion by applying his models and then scaled back his conclusions based on gut feeling. Since he doesn't have any specific criticism of Friedman's assumptions or methods, Galbraith contends that Krugman's doing the same thing again (w/o the comparison to K's earlier mistake). That doesn't look like airheaded dismissal to me.
posted by The Gaffer at 12:37 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

But, saying that something is getting big results because it's a big program--it's like the few bits of non jargony language in the letter--and I have no fucking idea what the point of that sentence is. Do you?

Yes, I do, because I read the Friedman paper and their analysis of it. As I said earlier in the thread, the (biased) CEA advisors' main complaint was that Friedman's estimates of growth seemed ludicrously large. They didn't show their work at all, just said that a 5.3% growth rate following major economic stimulus was "grandiose" on its face. Galbraith (a very respected economist) argues that we should expect large results from a large program and that Friedman's analysis seems perfectly consistent with the growth we've seen from other large (rather than incremental) fiscal programs. There really isn't that much jargon in the letter - he's just arguing that not only is Friedman's analysis not ridiculous on its face, but that it falls in line with what we've seen historically when we've made major economic changes.

and doesn't it give you pause that Krugman of all people is like eh this won't work.

Not at all. Krugman isn't some anointed wizard of economics - there are much more left-leaning and equally serious macroeconomists out there, e.g. Piketty, Galbraith, Baker, and I've disagreed with Krugman's views frequently (especially on globalization, where he remains terrible). I think it's better to listen to more than one economist, personally. Re: the single payer critique, it's nowhere near unanimous among economists that it wouldn't work - this analysis argues that it would increase incomes for everyone but the 1%. Whether it will pass congress is a separate question from whether the plan itself would work if enacted, and to me, it's mostly an immaterial question because we still have to start from a stronger bargaining position than where we want to end up, so of course I don't expect (or even want!) their initial proposals to be able to pass Congress. That would mean that we were aiming too low.

The counterpoint I posted above would also be worth reading - Krugman is confusing policy with politics. No presidential candidate in all of history has enacted their plans fully-formed upon taking office and it's a complete straw man to set it up like Sanders expects to do this - and it's also notable that he isn't critiquing Clinton's plans the same way.

What Sanders is doing (and has already done extremely successfully, much more successfully than any other figure on the left in my lifetime!) is shift the Overton window to the left so that we can start from a much better bargaining position. Think about the minimum wage thing: Sanders says $15, Clinton says $12. Who is going to get us a higher minimum wage once we actually get to the negotiating table? With Sanders' rhetoric, we might actually get $12. With Clinton's, we'll end up at $8.50 or something. The same applies to the rest of his policies. No, nobody expects him to pass these programs in his first 100 days - that would be ludicrous. But we will never get there if we don't argue for it and claim it as a goal.
posted by dialetheia at 12:39 PM on February 19, 2016 [33 favorites]

I'd like to say that left-of-center capable economist slapfights are one of my very favorite things, so I welcome all additional links on this.
posted by The Gaffer at 12:41 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

re: "other takes from economists and analysts on Sanders' policies"

via@interfluidity...

Gerald Friedman responds: "I get more in terms of GDP, I get a bit of bang out of the healthcare program, because what you are doing is turning premiums paid by working people and turning it into taxes paid by upper-income people. That gives you a boost, especially in the early years."
SRW: "so basically, a median family get health insurance and paid leave fully funded for $555/month. that's pretty great."
On the politically motivated and inconsistent policing of always bad economic forecasting - "Let's not allow one subset of Democratic economists to take the high road of 'evidence-based' mathematics when they're all throwing darts at a board."
Why are big-shot liberal economists hippie-punching Bernie Sanders? "Instead of actually lending their expertise to improve the analysis, they're jumping directly to political demands"
Max Sawicky (1,2,3): "If they were willing to be allies they would have offered a serious analysis & talked to the campaign instead of issuing denunciations."

but the best response so far (even MCK's ;) is newly ex-minneapolis fed prez kocherlakota's!

Faster Growth IS Possible - And It May Well Be Desirable

Professor Gerald Friedman has argued here that, by adopting Senator Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals, the US economy would grow in excess of 5% per year over the next decade. Previously, former Governor Jeb Bush put forward (different) proposals that he has argued would lead to 4% economic growth over an extended period. These kinds of growth outcomes are often dismissed as prima face unachievable given the historical behavior of the US economy. (That’s one way that some readers have interpreted this letter.)

I don't attempt a full examination of Senator Sanders' or Mr. Bush's proposals in this post. Rather, I make three points related to this discussion that don't receive sufficient attention:
There is no technological reason why real gross domestic product (GDP) cannot grow at a materially above-normal rate over the next decade.

Given (1), the relevant issue is: are the benefits of achieving such a growth path higher than the costs of doing so? I suggest that there are good reasons to believe that the answer to this question is more likely to be positive than at any time since the end of World War II.

If the answer to (2) is affirmative, the question becomes: what set of economic proposals will best allow the country to achieve those positive net benefits? As noted above, I don’t attempt a detailed examination of the consequences of Senator Sanders’ proposals or those of Mr. Bush. I only make the broad point that, given current economic circumstances, demand-based stimulus is likely to be more effective than supply-based stimulus.
[...]

To sum up: above-normal growth is always possible. The current data on market prices like interest rates and wages suggest that above-normal growth might well be desirable. The ongoing constraints on monetary policy suggest that we can best achieve that faster growth through demand-oriented policies.

also btw...
-Do we (or when do we) take demand-side economics seriously?
-Does Bernie Sanders Know What He's Doing?
-There's nothing smart in surrendering bargaining power for policy details
-liberty is large, and we have different priorities
-Will Wilkinson makes the liberaltarian case for Bernie Sanders.*
posted by kliuless at 12:48 PM on February 19, 2016 [21 favorites]

I have found the recent spate of Krugman columns really disappointing. Here are three or four related reasons. For the past eight years, Krugman has been banging the drum over and over (and rightly so) about how well bog-standard economic models performed after the 2008 crash and how we ought to justify economic policy on the basis of economic models that have good predictive records. But what Friedman's paper does is apply a bog-standard economic model to estimate the effects that Sanders' policies would have if they were implemented. Friedman finds that the effects would be very large -- at least initially. A responsible criticism would lay out the modeling assumptions and articulate what is wrong with them. But unlike his discussions of Republican proposals, I don't see Krugman doing that. Maybe I've just missed it -- and if so, someone please point me to Krugman's specific criticisms of Friedman's modeling assumptions -- but I haven't seen Krugman give a clear articulation of what Friedman is getting wrong or why Friedman's assumptions are wrong. I want to see the actual work, here, and a wonk should want to show me that work!

Along with the lack of actual engagement with the details -- where the details are supposed to be the things that matter -- there is a kind of missing-the-point that I find staggering. If you look back at Krugman's columns over the past eight years, you'll see many instances of him complaining about Obama pre-negotiating and getting sub-optimal results. But now that Sanders is staking out a bold (or bold-ish) set of proposals, which one might characterize as starting points for anticipated negotiation, Krugman is effectively arguing that Sanders should pre-negotiate to a more sensible starting point. And to me, it's exactly the same thing in Krugman's attacks on Sanders' push for single-payer healthcare. I mean Krugman has said several times (for example here, here, and here) that single payer is a better system in the ideal case but that it is not politically feasible. But now what he's saying is that it's not economically sensible. That's an important reversal and seems to me to be completely unmotivated. Again, what Sanders is trying to do is to make single payer politically feasible or at least to move us in that direction. Maybe he'll succeed and maybe not. But that shouldn't be the question for economists like Krugman. The question for economists should be what the economic effects would be -- how well the policy would work if it were implemented.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:50 PM on February 19, 2016 [16 favorites]

IOW, Krugman et al are begging the question - Friedman's projections are ridiculous because Friedman's projections are ridiculous.

And I agree 100% with dialethia - a good negotiator never starts purchase negotiations at the highest price she's willing to pay for an item. Rather, she starts much lower and works her way up. Is this not completely obvious?
posted by syzygy at 12:52 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

Sanders Accepts Clinton’s Challenge on Wall Street Speeches:

“Sen. Sanders accepts Clinton’s challenge. He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches. That’s easy. The fact is, there weren’t any. Bernie gave no speeches to Wall Street firms. He wasn’t paid anything while Secretary Clinton made millions, including $675,000 for three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs,” said Sanders’ spokesman Michael Briggs.

“So now we hope Secretary Clinton keeps her word and releases the transcripts of her speeches. We hope she agrees that the American people deserve to know what she told Wall Street behind closed doors,” Briggs added.

posted by melissasaurus at 1:01 PM on February 19, 2016 [17 favorites]

I mean Krugman has said several times (for example here, here, and here) that single payer is a better system in the ideal case but that it is not politically feasible. But now what he's saying is that it's not economically sensible. That's an important reversal and seems to me to be completely unmotivated.

Exactly! Naked Capitalism: Some Experts, Like Krugman, Supported Single Payer Until Bernie Sanders Put It in His Platform. I mean, I can't be the only one who remembers it was only a few years ago that many of these same wonks were assuring liberals that Obamacare was just the first step toward single payer - and now it's economically infeasible?

And one more: If CEA advisors don't think we can reach our 2007-trend GDP, they have an obligation to explain why
posted by dialetheia at 1:03 PM on February 19, 2016 [12 favorites]

Hard breaking news: Britney Spears deletes Hillary endorsement (link may or may not contain bees)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:18 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

In case this hasn't been shared in any of the recent politics-related posts:
Bill Clinton Says Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Like The Left-Wing Tea Party

It's difficult for me to express how utterly offended I am by Bill's comparison of Sanders supporters to the Tea Party.
posted by syzygy at 1:19 PM on February 19, 2016 [29 favorites]

Just to be fair, I would post some analysis of Clinton's health care plans if she had any, but she doesn't. It's not that her plan is better or more likely to pass Congress - she doesn't have a plan at all:

That leaves the argument that Clinton's proposals are more realistic. On health care, how, exactly? Krugman doesn't say.

That might be because she has proposed nothing whatsoever that would seriously advance the state of American health care. Honestly, head over to her issues page and check out the section on health care. There's no plan of any kind to address ObamaCare's rather serious underinsurance problem, let alone bring insurance to the roughly 30 million people who still don't have it. There is some oblique acknowledgement of the problems, but no hint of what to do about it — rather reminiscent of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's set of bullet points about how she would defeat ISIS, the first of which was "defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq."

Or take monetary policy, the single most important economic policy lever. Krugman himself has been consistently (and correctly) arguing that the Federal Reserve's decision to hike interest rates last December was a serious mistake. Sanders is the only candidate from either party who agrees with him on this point. Krugman has not mentioned this, instead attacking him for supporting a bill which would increase congressional oversight of the Fed. Meanwhile, Clinton's economy page does not even mention monetary policy at all.

posted by dialetheia at 1:22 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

So whose local campaign is getting a boost for being on the Bernie bandwagon? I'd love to read about some local races where a "socialist" candidate is getting traction as people discover maybe "socialism" isn't the evil force the mainstream politicians and press have painted it as?
posted by maxwelton at 1:23 PM on February 19, 2016

It's difficult for me to express how utterly offended I am by Bill's comparison of Sanders supporters to the Tea Party.

As an undecided on the Democratic side, I certainly see a viciousness in Sanders' supporters that bears a resemblance to the take-no-prisoners methods of the Tea Party.

I'm undecided, and I see merits to both candidates, but some rhetoric coming from Bernie's followers gives me pause.
posted by rocketman at 1:31 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also also ... let me draw a contrast between Republican "magic asterisk" proposals and Friedman's analysis of Sanders' proposals. In the Republican case, when one pushes for an explanation and defense of the asterisk -- for example, Paul Ryan's claim a while back that on his plan, revenue would rise to 19 percent of GDP by 2028 -- one gets, as Krugman put it, "numbers that are simply asserted, not the result of any policies actually described in the 'plan'." By contrast, in Sanders' case, Friedman turned the crank on a standard model and has invited critical discussion of his modeling assumptions. In other words: With the Republicans, there is no work to check; with Friedman, there is. That is an important difference.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:31 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

Clay Shirky: Social media has turned Republican & Democratic Parties into host bodies for 3rd party candidates.
posted by nobody at 1:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]

... some rhetoric coming from Bernie's followers gives me pause.

I don't want to impose, and you don't owe any of us anything here, but if you are willing to say more, I would like to know which rhetorical moves are giving you pause (and why) and whether you are referring to the rhetoric of Sanders supporters here on Metafilter or the rhetoric of Sanders supporters out in the wider world.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm undecided, and I see merits to both candidates, but some rhetoric coming from Bernie's followers gives me pause.

You realize that Bill Clinton is a Hillary supporter, right?

In fact, all of the ugly rhetoric, as far as I can tell, has been from prominent Hillary supporters -- Madeline Albright, Gloria Steinem, Bill Clinton, John Lewis, etc. When someone wants to make a point about the vicious bernie bros they either have to turn to anonymous Twitter handles or outright fabrications.

If you have evidence otherwise, please do share it, because I haven't seen any.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:40 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

“So now we hope Secretary Clinton keeps her word and releases the transcripts of her speeches. We hope she agrees that the American people deserve to know what she told Wall Street behind closed doors,” Briggs added.

I'm pretty sure Hillary said that once everyone that had ever given a paid speech had released their speeches first then she'd lead the way and not before.

Yep.

Here's the quote:

“Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them.” Cite

Leadership!

I also thought Sanders wasn't going to call for the release of her speeches, so now I am confused. Cite.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:45 PM on February 19, 2016

Killer Mike on The View today, defending his quoting of Jane Elliott. He had more to say on the after-show too. I'm so impressed that the Sanders campaign has stuck by him even as he's been taken out of context by so many people who left out the last half of his sentence - any other campaign would have thrown him under the bus without a second's thought long ago.
posted by dialetheia at 1:51 PM on February 19, 2016 [8 favorites]

It would be pretty awesome, if she did release her speeches (eventually) and they were all "Look out bankers, can you smell the pitchforks? You'd better think very carefully about how you do business in the future."

I would be greatly reassured, yes! Sadly, it doesn't look like that would be the case:

What Clinton said in her paid speeches: Recalled one attendee, 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

Lament of the plutocrats: "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."
posted by dialetheia at 1:54 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

It would be pretty awesome, if she did release her speeches (eventually) and they were all "Look out bankers, can you smell the pitchforks? You'd better think very carefully about how you do business in the future."

If that happens, I'll vote for her in the primary. I am reasonably confident it won't happen. ;)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:55 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

In fact, according to reporting from Bloomberg News, some bankers refer to her speeches as her "Goldman handcuffs": "Well, we did a Bloomberg news story yesterday, talked to some rich Wall Street bankers, and one of them an ex Goldman Sachs partner said that they actually have a nickname for Hillary Clinton, the fact she’s given so many speeches, made so much money, they refer to it as Hillary’s Goldman handcuffs, which is obviously a reference to golden handcuffs."
posted by dialetheia at 1:58 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah me either, but I figure the scriptwriter this season needs a few more gotchas...
posted by gofargogo at 1:59 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I'm not ready for a new one!" she cries when told they needed to vote for a new president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:59 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that.

Well, the nation of California had free tuition for residents at its non-shabby state university system until they elected a second-rate movie actor as Governor, and he managed to end that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:07 PM on February 19, 2016 [18 favorites]

In fact, all of the ugly rhetoric, as far as I can tell, has been from prominent Hillary supporters

Let's be honest, it's coming from both sides. It's easy if you are entrenched on one side to see the other as the only ones who are attacking, but it's there on both. There are plenty of people on the Democratic side who will think you are the devil itself for even entertaining the thought of anyone other than there preferred candidate.

The perception of it is kind of funny to me, though. It seems like the rhetoric from the Clinton side does seem more heavily biased towards coming from celebrities or those with power - "the elite," whereas from the Sanders side, it seems more distributed throughout the voices of those who aren't in power, the "commoners". That's a purely subjective view that may not match reality at all, but it still amuses me.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:09 PM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]

The difference to me is that the people who are being jerks who are on Hillary's side are largely celebrities/big names. The people who are being jerks on Bernie's side are regular people that nobody knows.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:11 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I'm not ready for a new one!" she cries when told they needed to vote for a new president.
Awwww I died.
posted by zutalors! at 2:16 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Bill Clinton Says Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Like The Left-Wing Tea Party

Entropicamericana Says Bill Clinton Is Like The Left-Wing Lord Haw-Haw
posted by entropicamericana at 2:18 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

about the tea party comparison

people in this thread actually have been pretty decent to me, given how dismissive I've been of Sanders supporters. I mean, I see the favorites so I know I'm going against this thread's general pull, and I appreciate people like dilalethea are still giving me the time of day, given the level of of polite contempt i've been leveling at Sanders supporters these days.

I would buy that this is more a metafilter thing (the niceness) then a Sanders thing, but maybe I'm wrong. I appreciate it nonetheless.

Here's my opinion. We had Bill Clinton after a zillion years of Reagan/Bush. We were excited with Clinton and then morose at the compromises he made, morose that the man didn't have enough discipline to jerk it in the shower rather than get it on with an intern.

And we had Obama. He was and is the package. People at the Harvard Law Review were still talking about his God-like powers. He was a community organizer, He was/is a brilliant orator. He had the support of a lot of the establishment players and then the establishment himself. I guess some people here will argue that he's a warmonger, but I still love my President. I don't think that he wants to hurt people anywhere. I think he wanted to turn the country around from the Bush years.

And now we have Sanders. Great ideas, cool. But for people like me, somebody who is like at the level where they read the NYT daily, and I'm a dunce, so of course I look to Krugman because he has the seal of the NYT approval, and I'm pretty informed compared to most of the U.S.

And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008. I don't see both old and young, college student and NYT columnists, coming around to support Obama. Maybe I'm completely fucking wrong--I'm really sorry if I am--but I don't see it happening.

I see, at least on a superficial level, energy diminish as people examine more of Sanders's proposals. I'm sorry I'm not knowledgeable to dig into the guts of the economic debate and figure this stuff out for myself, but again, maybe Krugman is completely wrong, and I'm completely wrong, but the wind, it feels like it is blowing the other way
posted by angrycat at 2:30 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think there's a lot of people working super hard to tell us which way the wind is blowing. Whether any of them have any idea at all is, to my mind, an open question. I have no lack of certainty they know which way they want it to be blowing.
posted by phearlez at 2:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [10 favorites]

Friend of a friend on facebook who works at the University of Florida posted this study he's running to determine whether you implicitly favor Sanders or Clinton, I think it's neat:

Hi all,
My lab is running a quick (< 10 mins) study on the Democratic Primary. At the end, you get feedback about whether you implicitly/automatically/non-consciously prefer Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. What fun! It's at the following link in case you're interested: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

posted by DynamiteToast at 2:37 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

I just got a call from a research firm asking about the Virginia primary. The questions were...

Are you going to participate (v likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, v unlikely)
Which party (D/R)
Given D, which candidate (C/S)
Did you come to this conclusion in the last few weeks or earlier?
Impression of Sanders (V fav, somewhat fav, somewhat unfav, v unfav)
Impression of Clinton (same choices)
Do you know when the primary is? (and my response of "yes" was followed up with a request for specifics. I told her March 1 but our absentee opened Jan 15 (!))

then they wanted to know lib/conserv/moderate, year I was born, racial identification

Be interesting to see the crosstab (if it's made available) on primary date knowledge to candidate. As well as how recently C/S supporters made their choice.
posted by phearlez at 2:50 PM on February 19, 2016

Correlation does not imply causation etc, but...

I think he wanted to turn the country around from the Bush years.
...
And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:50 PM on February 19, 2016

DynamiteToast: that study was a fun little game. It said the opposite of what I feel in terms of candidate preference, but the indicated preference was tied to my performance during the final tasks, which were aligned in a different way than I feel. I think I just got better at performing the task by the end of the experiment.
posted by onehalfjunco at 2:52 PM on February 19, 2016

Well, the nation of California had free tuition for residents at its non-shabby state university system until they elected a second-rate movie actor as Governor, and he managed to end that.

Not to mention that every single state of the Union manages to provide free education to students from kindergarten to 12th grade. Is there some magical thing about turning 19 that means we can no longer figure out how to fund these particular students' education?
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:58 PM on February 19, 2016 [24 favorites]

And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008. I don't see both old and young, college student and NYT columnists, coming around to support Obama. Maybe I'm completely fucking wrong--I'm really sorry if I am--but I don't see it happening.

I think a lot of people are forgetting what the early 2008 campaign looked like. Clinton was considered the frontrunner. Many prominent people did not line up behind Obama until it was clear he could/did win the nomination.
Obama Wave Stuns Clinton's Black Supporters (2/19/08)
Bill Clinton attacks Obama “fairy tale” (1/8/08)
Superdelegates To Clinton's Rescue? (2/1/08)
NYTimes Endorsement of Clinton (1/25/08) [they didn't endorse Obama in the general until Oct 23]
Lewis Switches from Clinton to Obama (2/27/08)
posted by melissasaurus at 2:59 PM on February 19, 2016 [8 favorites]

(Same thing with Medicare, of course. What magical thing happens on one's 65th birthday to change single-payer, government-funded health insurance from TOTALLY UNWORKABLE OPPRESSIVE SOCIALISM to TEH GREATEST PROGRAM EVER?)
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:00 PM on February 19, 2016 [20 favorites]

> than there

arrgh - I swear I know better than that... that's going to drive me crazy now.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:16 PM on February 19, 2016

Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that.

Pretty sure that's sarcasm, but just for the record: Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, and Brazil offer free or nearly-free college education. Some of those are not absolutely no-cost, but they're all pretty damn close to free. And that list doesn't even consider the many countries where college is merely very affordable. It's possible, others are doing it, the U.S. would be foolish not to do this. University costs have risen 500% since 1985.
posted by LooseFilter at 3:17 PM on February 19, 2016 [14 favorites]

(^ p.s.: why are we even talking about this problem and possible solution? Thank you, Sen. Sanders.)
posted by LooseFilter at 3:18 PM on February 19, 2016 [12 favorites]

And I see not the Obama excitement of 2008. I don't see both old and young, college student and NYT columnists, coming around to support Obama. Maybe I'm completely fucking wrong--I'm really sorry if I am--but I don't see it happening.

IIRC, Krugman supported Clinton and was actually one of the most hostile left pundits toward Obama back in 2008 until Obama's candidacy finally became inevitable (that article is from April 08, well past when Obama pulled ahead). I actually remember cursing Krugman daily all through 2007/8 for being so biased against Obama, which is part of why I immediately discounted his similar arguments against Sanders. The same was true of older people at this point in the election in 08, I think - I had a lot of "but he's completely unelectable!!! The country just isn't ready for someone named Barack Hussein Obama!" arguments with older folks in 2008 all the way through to the convention. I think we're just at a really tough turning point in the campaign now that it's clear that we have a real race and that Sanders isn't just running a protest campaign as so many had assumed. We had similar moments in 2008 that probably just look much rosier in the rear-view mirror.

I see, at least on a superficial level, energy diminish as people examine more of Sanders's proposals. I'm sorry I'm not knowledgeable to dig into the guts of the economic debate and figure this stuff out for myself, but again, maybe Krugman is completely wrong, and I'm completely wrong, but the wind, it feels like it is blowing the other way

I disagree with this really strongly - nearly every indicator of movement, from polls to favorability to fundraising to social media, is toward Sanders and away from Clinton at the moment. That isn't to say that he will win, only that by most evidence so far, the more people see of him, the more they like him. I hope this pattern extends to Latinos and Black people, and there is evidence that he's making big inroads with Latinos in NV and with younger Black people. He may yet reach a ceiling to his support, but so far, we just don't know where that will be. So far, everywhere he's been able to do sustained campaigning, his numbers have vastly exceeded expectations.

The details of how he intends to pay for his policies really aren't that complicated - for health care, he intends to tax the rich (here are his proposed tax brackets for that) and for college education, he intends to tax Wall Street speculation: "More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China." He gets attacked for promising "free" shit but it's not free at all - it's that he's taking our productivity gains back from the 1%, who have received the vast majority of income gains over the past two decades. Income inequality between the 99% and the 1% is the worst it has been since the Great Depression - fixing that would not just be a punitive measure, it's actually necessary to allowing economic growth and preventing another crash. This video makes a very clear case against income and wealth inequality.

It's not complicated, it's just that people in the media often don't like the answer. How is he going to pay for all this? He's going to tax the hell out of the rich. He's going to take back some of the income and productivity gains that have disproportionately gone to the 1% and use them to ease the misery of the poor and encourage social mobility by providing free public college education and providing health care as a human right. The social mobility advantages of removing health care concerns from employment negotiations shouldn't be understated, either - I know so many people who can't take risks by trying to find better/higher-paying employment just because they can't afford to risk changing their health care. That's not even to mention how much single-payer would do to encourage people starting small businesses - the prohibitive cost of health care is a huge impediment to entrepreneurship in this country.

The questions on the details of his health care proposals have more to do with the extent of cost savings we could expect to realize if we were able to negotiate costs better with the economy of scale that a single payer plan would give us. Some analyses cite that Medicare hasn't seen those decreases, but Medicare is expressly prohibited from negotiating on those terms. I would turn the question back around on people like Krugman: if not single-payer, what is his answer to controlling health care costs so that aging baby boomers don't bankrupt us? We are being ripped off royally by these industries. We pay many times what other countries pay per capita for health care and receive lower-quality care on average. Obamacare is an improvement, but we still have massive problems with medical debt and bankruptcy, we haven't even approached universal coverage, and we're still paying the highest prices in the world. How can we change that?

There are some really serious questions about what would happen to the private insurance industry if we suddenly switched to single-payer, but I think there would still be a market for private insurance - people who wanted to pay for better coverage than the baseline provided by the government would be free to do so. I worry about the fact that the health care industry is one of our only growth sectors in the whole economy - but that growth is really a bubble predicated on the idea that Americans will continue to pay astronomically higher health care costs than the rest of the developed world.
posted by dialetheia at 3:23 PM on February 19, 2016 [36 favorites]

thank you for your thoughtful response. i mean i perhaps obviously have disagreements, but i appreciate your thoughtful reply
posted by angrycat at 3:27 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

Not to mention that every single state of the Union manages to provide free education to students from kindergarten to 12th grade.

That's of course with an asterisk, since the quality of education varies greatly from place to place, "free" education doesn't always cover everything for kids (transportation, lunch, school supplies, uniforms), and the US graduation rates are still lagging behind other industrialized countries.
posted by FJT at 3:32 PM on February 19, 2016

The Sanders campaign is doing a very interesting social media "push" right now with the #AmericaTogether hashtag that's trending on the Twitter. I really like the innovation. We'll see if it translates to votes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:35 PM on February 19, 2016 [4 favorites]

angrycat: "Seriously. Free college! Great, sign me up! Oh, well that plan well never work! But it's a great idea! Wheee."

ChurchHatesTucker: "Yeah, no nation has managed to get free (or cheap) college going. Fantasyland, that."

Fantasyland, also referred to at times as "Germany"
posted by Hairy Lobster at 4:13 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

Stupid autocorrect.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:15 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

OMG, thank you kliuless for linking the "There's nothing smart in surrendering bargaining power for policy details," which in turn linked this post titled "Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders, and Medicare for All" - both of which talk about one of my very favorite ideas: if you only ever advocate what you think is practically attainable at a single point in time, you're always going to get worse than that. It isn't a recipe for incremental progress, it's a recipe for incremental concessions. And even if you know there's something you can't get, fighting hard for it doesn't make you a loser or a failure. It's a smart use of your bully pulpit that changes the terms of the conversation and can pull the Overton window back in the right direction.

From that first link:

Roosevelt’s relentless drive to make sure the war created “not a single war millionaire” had made an incredible difference. His refusal to take “no” for an answer on his $25,000 income cap proposal had kept the entire war finance debate revolving around the rich and how much they ought to be paying in taxes. Conservatives didn’t want that debate. They wanted a national sales tax that would shunt the war’s heavy burden onto average Americans, but FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never allowed a sales tax to gain traction. Roosevelt would not get all he wanted on the tax equity front. But he did get plenty, enough to deliver against plutocracy a staggering knockdown.

From the second:

The lobbyists for the industry are always there. ... The public doesn’t have lobbyists to work the other side. The best we can hope is that groups that have a general interest in lower health care costs, like AARP, labor unions, and various consumer groups can put some pressure on politicians to counter the industry groups. In this context, Bernie Sanders’ push for universal Medicare can play an important role in energizing the public and keeping the pressure on. ... Frakt reports on a new study that finds evidence that public debate on drug prices and measures to constrain the industry had the effect of slowing the growth of drug prices. In short getting out the pitchforks has a real impact on the industry’s behavior. The implication is that we need people like Senator Sanders to constantly push the envelope. Even if this may not get us to universal Medicare in one big leap, it will create a political environment in which we can move forward rather than backward.

(emphasis mine) I've tangled in heated arguments on this site over and over again in the Obama years (mainly with Ironmouth - sorry for typing so angry!) about the negotiations behind Obamacare, the debt ceiling compromise that cut the budget and didn't increase taxes as would have happened automatically when the Bush cuts expired, and more, and over and over again it kept coming down to a basic debate of "There weren't enough votes in the Senate to get that" vs. "Obama and the national Dems didn't do anything to change the conversation and win those votes." And the rebuttal to that was usually "it never would have worked, so it would have wasted political capital to try because Obama would end up looking like a loser."

But look what's happening this year! There's a democratic socialist calling to break up the biggest banks, raise taxes, fight for single payer health care and universal college, remove mandatory minimum sentencing and relax drug laws, and so on. Nobody would have even bothered considering any of these things seriously four years ago; now he's rapidly gaining popularity and we're having wonk debates over how realistic his plans are for actualizing those goals. And people are still saying they'll never happen, but the Overton window is already shifting. None of the Republican candidates are making noises in public about cutting Social Security, their front runner is trashing the big banks (and politicians "owned" by them) (not very credibly, but obviously because he thinks it'll help him), etc. not to mention that his Democratic rival has had to pivot leftward to respond.

Sanders is "creating a political environment in which we can move forward rather than backward." Whether he wins the nomination or not, that's the lesson I hope we can take away from this campaign. If Hillary gets the nomination, I hope she wins the election, but I also hope that everyone who's been fired up will continue to pressure her and their congresspeople to speak out and to push back and just to FIGHT more instead of getting scared about "what's possible" and buying into GOP framing. And for fuck's sake to open negotiations with WAY more than they think they could get past the Senate and negotiate down from there instead of starting in the goddamn middle, getting dragged to the right, and then tsk-tsking any Democrats who aren't happy about it for their lack of enthusiastic support.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 4:17 PM on February 19, 2016 [33 favorites]

Fantasyland, also referred to at times as "Germany"

To be fair, Germany can be a sort of a Fantasyland.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:23 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Let's be honest, it's coming from both sides.

Yep, I'm watching a Sanders surrogate just tear into Hillary Clinton right now on MSNBC. Sanders himself has remained above the attacks; that's his brand. But his surrogates and supporters are slinging mud with the best of them. The idea that the Clinton machine is spewing vile while the angelic Sanders side is just trying to run an above-board clean campaign is hogwash.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Justinian, can you give an example of what you consider "mud slinging" to be? Because I haven't heard any sort of comment from the Sanders camp that was akin to "you're going to hell if you don't support Hillary."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:26 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

What kind of "attacks" though? Can you be more specific? I've found it troubling how people conflate personal attacks (e.g. "so-and-so is a liar") with factual statements ("so-and-so accepted money from x, y, and z").
posted by dialetheia at 4:26 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

And the Clinton campaign has tweeted some stuff that was just blatant lying in the past 24 hours as well.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:27 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Just got an email from the Sanders campaign advertising a new t-shirt designed by Shepard Fairey.

It's not exactly on the same level as the Hope poster.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:08 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, Sanders himself just came out and said the only reason Clinton is talking up Obama is to ingratiate herself with African Americans. That's a pretty shitty thing to say even if it's not as flamboyant as "going to hell!". And the surrogate I saw just trashed Clinton as, basically, racist for backing the same crime bill that Sanders voted for. Yeah, yeah, I know he voted for it for blah blah blah reasons. But the vote is the same.
posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's not exactly on the same level as the Hope poster.

It's pretty bad, really. I'm not sure something reminiscent of Soviet iconography is what you want to go for when trying to convince the middle of the roaders that voting for the socialist is the thing to do.
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

That shirt is horrible.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:17 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

Very Depression.
posted by y2karl at 5:19 PM on February 19, 2016

Vermont Rep. Peter Welch Comes Out For Bernie Sanders
posted by Room 641-A at 5:19 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

\m/
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:20 PM on February 19, 2016 [6 favorites]

something reminiscent of Soviet iconography

I saw more an awkward art deco pastiche.

At any event, bad campaign visual design is endemic. I'm not a fan of the Clinton H-arrow, nor Cruz's set-America-aflame logo.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:20 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

I really can't believe that was created by the same guy who made the HOPE print
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:23 PM on February 19, 2016

the logo for the Rubio campaign looks more like a pharmacy chain
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:25 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Agree, that shirt design is terrible!

Huh, I didn't know this backstory. Yes, Bernie Sanders wanted Obama primaried in 2012. Here's why:

He had a very specific reason for suggesting a Democratic primary in 2012: In debt-ceiling talks with Republicans, Obama proposed cutting Social Security benefits and raising the Medicare age to 67. After initially refusing to negotiate over the debt ceiling, the White House pivoted to a full-scale embrace of austerity in the hopes of taking away the Republican Party’s main talking point ahead of the 2012 election.

Sanders was one of many Democrats standing athwart this rush to austerity, though he did go further than any of his colleagues by suggesting a primary. His remarks were only a minor news story at the time, but the basic dispute is now mapping onto the entire Democratic primary, which has become a battle between progressives who are preoccupied with immediate constraints and compromise and those who seek to change the terms of debate using grassroots pressure.

Obama actually proposed more deficit reduction in the summer of 2011 than Republicans were asking for—$4 trillion instead of the $2 trillion the GOP had been requesting—and at times the White House was reportedly willing to raise revenue only through closing tax loopholes. That meant in addition to the safety net cuts, the Bush-era tax cuts would either be locked in or even lowered in some cases.

This was a monumental diversion from Democratic Party principles. For years, Democrats ran for office on promises not to cut Social Security and Medicare. They railed against the Bush tax cuts in every election cycle since the tax package was enacted. Republicans already enjoyed bashing Democrats for supposed safety-net cuts; one of the most frequently run advertisements of the 2010 midterms noted the Affordable Care Act cut $700 million from Medicare. (These cuts were mainly on the provider side and did not affect benefits, which was never mentioned in the ads.)

posted by dialetheia at 5:29 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

I just saw this: trusTED.

It's pretty good for either Ted Cruz or the Zodiac Killer.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:30 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

So past tense for Cruz?
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:32 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think Marco Rubio's logo is pretty decent. It's not exciting or anything but it doesn't make me laugh at the candidate or smack my forehead in disbelieve like some of the others.

Hillary Clinton's looks like it was cut off the FedEx logo. This is not a good thing.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

BusTed
ExhausTed
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hah - My wife INSTANTLY invoked Godwin's law when she saw the shirt, followed by "Why is lady liberty on fire?"
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:37 PM on February 19, 2016

Yeah that shirt is awful. I hear Fairey is doing a collaboration with Ed Hardy next.
posted by defenestration at 5:38 PM on February 19, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm hoping for "Bernie Sanders, inspired by TapOut!
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton is in the pockets of Big Banksy.
posted by defenestration at 5:42 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

I really can't believe that was created by the same guy who made the HOPE print

Well, he made this one all one his own.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:45 PM on February 19, 2016

the logo for the Rubio campaign looks more like a pharmacy chain

The typography makes me think of a casual dining chain in DC.
posted by peeedro at 5:54 PM on February 19, 2016

tainTED
posted by ian1977 at 5:58 PM on February 19, 2016

Wow, that shirt sucks.
posted by teponaztli at 6:07 PM on February 19, 2016

The typography makes me think of a casual dining chain in DC.

I thought it was going to go here.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:08 PM on February 19, 2016

I think Marco Rubio's logo is pretty decent. It's not exciting or anything

Kind of sums up the feelings about him on the Republican side pretty well, I'd say. Successful logo.

The first thing I thought when I saw Cruz-flame logo was that the red is overwhelming and cornering the blue. Not subtle.
posted by MysticMCJ at 6:12 PM on February 19, 2016

Re: my earlier points about how Sanders plans to fund his programs by reclaiming some of the vast wealth that has accrued predominantly to the 1% over the past 30 years, this series of charts from a piece by Robert Reich in the NYT in 2011 makes the case better than I could ever do in words. I just saw the main chart tweeted with the caption "Millenials know this isn't about 'free stuff'. This is about getting back 'stolen stuff'." I could do without the millenial exceptionalism, but the point stands.
posted by dialetheia at 6:12 PM on February 19, 2016 [26 favorites]

The Ted Cruz logo clearly symbolizes the cleansing nuclear fire that will envelop the nation as he strives to show us the true face of his god.
posted by indubitable at 6:16 PM on February 19, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ted Cruz: It Tastes Like Burning
posted by ian1977 at 6:18 PM on February 19, 2016 [12 favorites]

A couple more responses to Krugman and the CEA advisors:

Krugman: Too pessimistic about Sanders' ideas about the economy?: "He also states that it is bonkers to assume, like Sanders does, that the USA participation rate can return to the 1999 level. But Sanders might in fact be not too optimistic but too pessimistic. Why should the participation rate not be higher than in 1999? The US of A was about the only country which, after 2008, experienced a large drop in the participation rate. In many other countries this rate is increasing."

The pious attacks on Bernie Sanders' 'fuzzy economics': "I don’t feel it necessary to defend Friedman, though it’s worth pointing out that his economic growth numbers would simply eliminate the GDP gap that was created by the Great Recession and was never filled in the subsequent years of slow growth—which should be the goal of public policy, however “extreme” it sounds. What I do want to challenge is the idea that there’s one serious, evidence-based way to perform economic forecasting."
posted by dialetheia at 7:32 PM on February 19, 2016 [7 favorites]

Very cool GOTV app (Sanders/reddit specific).
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:07 PM on February 19, 2016 [1 favorite]

What Bernie Sanders Got Done in Washington: A Legislative Inventory

Before the people of Vermont elected him to the Senate in 2006, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi dubbed Sanders the “amendment king” of the House of Representatives noting:

“Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.”

posted by Room 641-A at 8:12 PM on February 19, 2016 [17 favorites]

I look to Krugman because he has the seal of the NYT approval

Judith Miller also had the seal of the NYT approval. Look how well that worked out.
posted by mikelieman at 9:27 PM on February 19, 2016 [17 favorites]

Like there is a comparison...
posted by y2karl at 10:53 PM on February 19, 2016

nor Cruz's set-America-aflame logo

Ted Cruz: Truth In Advertising
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:06 PM on February 19, 2016

Like there is a comparison...

If that's in response to me, an appeal to the authority of the NYT is a fallacy whether it's Miller, Krugman, whomever, consequently, there is no "seal of approval". The NYT has fucked up pretty royally in the past and hasn't met my expectations for a "paper of record".
posted by mikelieman at 11:54 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

There is the small matter of Krugman having a Nobel Prize for Economics which would seem to confer some level of authority on these matters? His background in economics is independent of his work for the NYT.
posted by Justinian at 12:57 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

btw, I'm aware that free college exists in the world. I'm not a complete rube, nor do I think that college students should have to pay, especially these horrible tuitions. That is not my point. My point is that I believe red-state governors have to get on board with it financially; at least, that's how I've seen it spelled out here and I believe other places. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And I see that as a fantasy. I suppose if all the Rick Snyders in the country vanished in a moment, I would see it a lot differently.
posted by angrycat at 2:51 AM on February 20, 2016

There is the small matter of Krugman having a Nobel Prize...

Another organization whose seal of approval is not unalloyed. I mean, Henry Kissinger?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:15 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

And Judith Miller has a Pulitzer.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:59 AM on February 20, 2016

People don't have to go to college in the same state they live in. Republican governors might want to prevent their adult citizens from getting an education but there's a limited amount they can do to directly obstruct it.
posted by XMLicious at 4:09 AM on February 20, 2016

The Nobel Prizes in Economics and Peace are not only awarded by different organizations, they're awarded by different organizations in different countries. Kissinger's prize confers neither gleam not smear on Krugman's.
posted by Etrigan at 4:25 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Not that it really matters which economists blast a plan politically without an economic analysis, but Joseph Stiglitz was also a Nobel Prize winner for economics as well as a former chair of the CEA and he did not sign the CEA letter.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:33 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I didn't even think about it, but MSNBC is talking about how today's Saturday caucus precludes Orthodox Jews from voting. ಠ ಠ

Shomer Shabbos!
posted by Room 641-A at 6:47 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

From the Chicago Times photo archive, a 21 year old Bernie getting arrested for protesting school segregation issues.
posted by localhuman at 6:47 AM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I didn't even think about it, but MSNBC is talking about how today's Saturday caucus precludes Orthodox Jews from voting. ಠ ಠ

Any commandment may be broken in order to save a life. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a rabbi to say that voting in a primary may well qualify.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:52 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

an appeal to the authority of the NYT is a fallacy

Do we need to do newspaper literacy 101 again? (a) Unlike Miller, Paul Krugman is an opinion columnist. His words don't reflect the "authority' of the NYT and are free to openly counter its editorial stances, should he wish to do so. By printing his words, the Times is not necessarily endorsing them or vetting them for truth and accuracy. (b) "paper of record" does not mean what many people think it means. It does not mean "perfectly accurate and unassailable," it means authoritative and accountable, and in its truest and narrowest sense just means "we are the public record for the publication of your legal notices."
posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

I know it's not usually done until July or August, but I wish they'd announce their VP picks.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:15 AM on February 20, 2016

I don't follow Krugman as closely as I used to, but he's received a lot of criticism for I guess a kind of "engineer's disease" in his discussions of politics - mostly from the right, but not exclusively. I first found this confusing, because he's a leader in his field and politics and economics are so closely intertwined.

I do remember that he was unrelentingly dismissive of Obama in 2008. You can read virtually any column by him from this time that year to see this. Krugman thought poorly of both Obama and his supporters, and people would try to figure out why. His criticisms then were somewhat different in character than his criticisms of Sanders today - he thought Obama was too conciliatory to the right, but also that his supporters were vicious and too trusting. Maybe he sees his role as being partly to temper expectations, or maybe he's just a big Clinton fan.
posted by callistus at 7:18 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have a feeling that by tomorrow Jeb! will no longer be running for President. Good times.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:25 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Any commandment may be broken in order to save a life. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a rabbi to say that voting in a primary may well qualify.

I don't even think that much effort is needed if you filed an absentee ballot earlier.
posted by mikelieman at 7:43 AM on February 20, 2016

It's a caucus, not a primary, hence the problem.
posted by Etrigan at 7:48 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Nevada also has 11,383 active duty folks who are presumably barred from causing because of their service.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 AM on February 20, 2016

When I lived in Maine for a few years I had to caucus - Obama 2008 actually. It is one terrible system. I mean, the event itself is fun and crazy, and badly organized like just about Democratic Party events, but the participation and outcome are pretty terrible. It's a rotten model for party activity.
posted by Miko at 8:12 AM on February 20, 2016

George gave Clinton a fair chance to defend her flip on the bankruptcy bill and her answer was women women set the record straight children women lies

(Have we been over this one? Maybe a mod can delete if it's redundant)

((I'm pretty sure it's redundant))

(((I'll see myself out)))
posted by an animate objects at 8:40 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

There is the small matter of Krugman having a Nobel Prize for Economics which would seem to confer some level of authority on these matters? His background in economics is independent of his work for the NYT.

It definitely does. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask to see his reasons for thinking Friedman's analysis fails or be disappointed when he doesn't really engage with the modeling assumptions. I like Krugman a lot, and I'm willing to believe that Friedman's analysis is beyond the pale. I just haven't seen anyone supply any reasons for thinking that it is so. Given that Krugman thinks it is crazy, I would really like to know why. The fact that he isn't actually telling us is disappointing. (Especially so given that he has no trouble supplying details when attacking Republican economic ideas.) Note that for me, it's Krugman's lack of detailed criticism that is disappointing, not his opinion about Friedman's analysis. Maybe Friedman's analysis is crazy. In which case, I would like to understand why it's crazy. But the way I will come to understand is for people who see serious problems with the analysis to clearly point them out and explain why they make the analysis fail.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:54 AM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I share Jonathan Livengood's frustrations with the critiques of Sanders's proposals -- they're long on "the numbers won't work" and short on "the numbers won't work for these specific reasons". Models are sensitive to the assumptions made, but that also means that the effects of different assumptions can be quantified and discussed.
posted by wintermind at 9:37 AM on February 20, 2016

One more response to Friedman: On Second Thought, Maybe Bernie Sanders' Growth Claims Aren't As Crazy As I Thought

That headline reminds me - it frustrates me to no end to see people taking these criticisms of Friedman's analysis and assuming that they necessarily reflect poorly on Sanders' policies. The thing people are arguing about is how much economic growth would follow from his plans - not whether they are workable at all. To the extent that this analysis is incorrect, it reflects on Friedman and arguably the campaign for tweeting the link to that analysis - but not at all on Sanders' plans themselves, which say absolutely nothing about growth rates, don't rely on those growth estimates, and were put together before Friedman's analysis was done. He's not even affiliated with the campaign at all as far as I know, and in fact is a Clinton supporter.

Beyond this whole kerfuffle, I appreciated this piece at interfluidity that was linked above and which really nails why this argument is beside the point of whether someone should support Sanders' policies, especially given the widespread disagreement between serious economists about even the most basic model parameters.

A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details. Paul Ryan’s various budgets haven’t been wrong because they require giant magic asterices to make the numbers add up. They have been wrong because the interests and values Paul Ryan represents are wrong. ...

In a democratic polity, wonks are the help. The role of the democratic process is to adjudicate interests and values. Wonks get a vote just like everyone else, but expertise on technocratic matters ought not translate to any deference on interests and values. If your theory of democracy is that informed citizens ought to cast votes based on the best social science, you have no theory of democracy at all.

posted by dialetheia at 10:21 AM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

From the philosopher and cow clicker game designer Ian Bogost on the Twitter:

"What if the 2016 Presidential election is actually the third season of True Detective?"
posted by Wordshore at 10:22 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

As someone who has been advocating a Sanders run independent of whether one prefers him, simply because it pushes Hillary leftward, I must say, I somewhat have to reevaluate that assumption. On the one hand, she has definitely moved left on TPP, social security, and a few other things. But on the other hand, she has also moved distinctly right on many things, some of them quite large: explicitly opposing single payer, explicitly embracing Kissingerian foreign policy, and attacking as impossible various progressive goals such as free college and a return to pre-rececession levels of employment. Her entire campaign of "realism" has essentially been an effort to push the party rightward, towards technocratic incrementalism against an assumed background of indefinite gridlock and Republican power. And that campaign has, I think, had real effects on the types of arguments I see swing Democratic voters (eg, folks in their 30s and 40s) now making. I don't know whether their rejection of Sanders's policies as pie-in-the-sky idealism will necessarily continue to influence their views after the primaries are over, but the effect has been striking to me, at least anecdotally. On the whole, I think Sanders has moved the conversation leftward, at least within the Democratic party, but the counter-currents are real and strong.

One problem, I guess, is that Clinton can't join Sanders on his more popular policies simply because he so publicly owns them, so in order to get any credit she has to stake out policies that are suffiiciently distinct as to be hers -- and when the only thing that is left is stuff distinctly to the right, then that's what we get. But apart from its short-term strategic effect (basically, allowing her to skate through the primary with a small margin of victory but be well-positioned for the general), it has big effects on rank-and-file party ideology. I certainly see more Democrats making energetically anti-progressive (or anti-idealist, anti-unicorn) arguments now than I have in a long time. But hopefully having these sorts of debates at all, and truly delving into the economics of single-payer or FDR-level stimulus, has some beneficial effects for all of us.
posted by chortly at 10:38 AM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Bernie Sanders, the foreign policy realist of 2016
posted by dialetheia at 10:39 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yes, it is unfair because it's a logical fallacy. Just because his analysis is incorrect doesn't mean that the plans themselves are bad. Anyone can run a bad analysis on good plans and come up with an incorrect result (and it still has yet to be proven that those plans are incorrect - many economists disagree and have been exhaustively linked in this thread, too). The campaign hasn't leaned heavily on those analyses in making the claim for their policies, because their policies are not predicated on growth predictions but on values and beliefs about human rights.

The "will lead to growth" claim is just icing on the cake anyway - the point of his plan is to stabilize the declining working- and middle class and provide health care and education as human rights. Significant growth would just be a bonus. In fact, Sanders has been very clear in his monetary policy that growth for its own sake is a poor goal when 99% of that growth ends up going to the top 1% anyway. It's the distribution of those gains and the standard of living for all American people that are truly important.
posted by dialetheia at 10:46 AM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

While the topic is sort of continuing, free higher education is definitely not pie-in-the-sky idealism: How Germany Made Higher Education Free.

(it's even in easy-to-read infographic format.)
posted by LooseFilter at 10:50 AM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I certainly see more Democrats making energetically anti-progressive (or anti-idealist, anti-unicorn) arguments now than I have in a long time. But hopefully having these sorts of debates at all, and truly delving into the economics of single-payer or FDR-level stimulus, has some beneficial effects for all of us.

I think they definitely do. For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and I think it's clearly been to the detriment of all but the richest Americans. Sanders is articulating political goals that spring from a strong and basic humanism, and I believe that's how we should identify and define our political goals: not by what is possible or probable, but by what is ideal, by what should be.

I believe that health care and education are basic human rights, certainly in a nation as affluent as the United States. I realize that those are very difficult goals to achieve, and may be impractical at the moment. But those are the kinds of problems that can only be tackled and solved by collective action, and politics and government are how we marshal our collective effort. To cede ground from the best answers and solutions to the practical and the compromise before we even start, is to diminish what is actually possible.

The Clintons' calculating political style ('well, I'd really love ideal solution x, but I won't win elections if I actually say that') has corrupted our thinking about politics and political strategy so thoroughly that someone like Sanders, who actually says what he believes and sets targets where they ought to be, is just confounding (and scary) to many. But now that the internet has happened, and people are not vassals to corporate media narrative-shaping and framing, his message can propagate, mostly unfiltered. And guess what we're finding out? Lots of people agree with him, and do want some idealistic, pie-in-the-sky goals, because we realize that those are targets worth aiming for, even if they take us a while to hit.

I mean, sure, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. But the second best time is today.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:01 AM on February 20, 2016 [31 favorites]

Lots of people agree with him, and do want some idealistic, pie-in-the-sky goals, because we realize that those are targets worth aiming for, even if they take us a while to hit.

Yes. One might say that we choose these goals, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because these goals will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. But then surely that is idealistic nonsense. No one can ~~go to the moon~~ reform our financial and political systems.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:16 AM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

THAT IS CRAZY NO ONE CAN GO TO THE MOON YOU CRAZY HIPPIE
posted by LooseFilter at 11:30 AM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Dialetheia, you have posted some excellent links through several threads now. That article from "The Nation" does a good job of detailing much of what aligns with my support for Sanders.

The article also does a good job of explaining why criticism of Clinton is about more than just her vote on Iraq - While I certainly would have preferred her to be against it in the first place, I think its a really good thing that Clinton admit that was a mistake. I'd rather see that than steadfast adherence to it being the right thing. It's really her present stance that I find more concerning.... Her take on foreign policy only seems reasonable to me when compared to any of the Republican candidates who are still in the race. While she may regret the vote on Iraq, it wouldn't seem that her regret has really changed her overall approach. I've said before that I value someone who is willing to admit when they have made a mistake, and to learn from the process. The willingness to admit it was a mistake is only part of the process - I don't believe that it has changed her approach, though.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:46 AM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Dick Van Dyke emcees Sanders rally at Reno nightclub

!
posted by Room 641-A at 11:46 AM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's really strange to see people inside the caucuses with signs for their candidates. That would be extremely no bueno here in New York City.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:56 AM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Uh. I've read Hillary is the favourite candidate from the pro-austerity douchebags that ruined countless lives around here for the sake of the markets.

While I don't think it says anything new about Hillary in the context of European politics, I'm guessing the Republican Party right now has gone way far in the right-wing spectrum I'm not even sure if our Constitucional Court wouldn't be challenged to outlaw it.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:04 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Man I'm so not loving the argument that realism/pragmatism is prima facie a bad thing.
posted by angrycat at 12:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well I don't like that strawman so there you go
posted by phearlez at 12:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

. For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton,

IT IS RIGHT HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD OH GOD WHY AM I EVEN BOTHERING
posted by angrycat at 12:25 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

The argument is more that sometimes setting ambitious goals is the more pragmatic thing to do. If you wanted to win the space race, setting the goal high was the right thing to do. If you want everyone to be covered, without monthly payments still draining pockets and bankruptcy the possible result of a medical bill, then you have to set the goal there.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

So, the head of the National Nurses Union has now accused Hillary supporters of impersonating union members.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Man I'm so not loving the argument that realism/pragmatism is prima facie a bad thing.

Yeah, that's a strawman. Or at best, a false dilemma.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

IT IS RIGHT HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD OH GOD WHY AM I EVEN BOTHERING

My life experiences will not submit to arguments that contradict or elide their reality.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

IT IS RIGHT HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD OH GOD WHY AM I EVEN BOTHERING

Oh yeah I remember that line from where it's above To cede ground from the best answers and solutions to the practical and the compromise before we even start, is to diminish what is actually possible.
posted by phearlez at 12:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

CBS entrance poll predicts that Clinton and Sanders are roughly tied among white Nevada Caucus attendees, with Clinton having a lead among minority voters.
posted by markkraft at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2016

People are going to define pragmatism and idealism differently. I read the argument not to "compromise before we even start" as showing how idealism can operate at the same time as pragmatism, and even how idealism can serve pragmatic ends.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

cjelli,

I think there are two things going on here. I'll spend most of my time on the second, but the first is really important -- and something dialethia already pointed out in the second paragraph of the comment from which you were quoting.

First, it's not clear that Sanders has to be on the hook for any specific outcome with respect to economic growth in order for his plans to be "good." For example, one might think that having a more equal distribution of wealth is good and that the plans would count as good even if they produce no economic growth, provided they result in more equality. In this respect, challenging Friedman's specific way of modeling or instantiating Sanders' plans is not necessarily to challenge Sanders' plans.

Second, whether you think criticisms of Friedman's analysis map directly onto Sanders depends a bit on what question(s) you take Friedman to be addressing. As Mason's piece, "Can Sanders Do It?" points out, there are three nested questions that have to be addressed:

1. Is it reasonable to think that better macroeconomic policy could deliver substantially higher output and employment?
2. Are the kinds of things proposed by Sanders capable in principle of getting us there?
3. Are the specific numbers in Sanders’ proposals the right ones for such a really-full employment plan?

If we are fighting about the first question, then the entire modeling framework is wrong. So, it's not so clear whether that is a criticism of Sanders' plan. Perhaps Sanders should be required to know enough economics to point out these kinds of flaws. But ... we don't seem to hold any other politicians to that standard. And in any event, it is surprising for left-leaning economists -- and especially Krugman -- to deny that the answer to the first question is yes.

If we are fighting about the second question, then showing Friedman's analysis fails is not enough to impugn Sanders' plans. In order to impugn Sanders, one would have to show that the whole range of models consistent with Sanders' ideas fail to deliver the kinds of gains he says we can get. The criticism then does look fallacious: like claiming that no parameterization of a model will work because this specific one doesn't. I take it the discourse is really at this level. And so the criticisms, if successful, would only go to show that Sanders' plans have not been shown to work. The criticisms, even if successful, would NOT show that Sanders' plans CANNOT work.

If we are fighting about the third question, then we need to know two things: what Sanders' specific numerical proposals are and whether the model is the right model. I don't think that Sanders is engaging in this careful of an economic discussion. He has -- for a politician -- pretty detailed plans. But I don't think they are numerically precise in a way that would let us map them to a unique economic model. And, of course, the model itself might be bad. I mean, we could plug in correct numbers into a garbage economic model and get garbage back out. That wouldn't mean that the plan from which the numbers come is a bad one. Here is where it is most reasonable, I think, to ask that the Sanders campaign distance itself from the analysis unless it wants to be on the hook for the specific claims coming out of the model. But again, I don't think this is the level of the discourse. By pointing to Friedman's analysis, I think the Sanders campaign is saying something more like, "See, the kinds of things we are suggesting could work."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

NBC does not agree with CBS. Among white voters, Clinton trails by 8%. Among Hispanic voters, Sanders leading by 11%.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:36 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Think it's gonna be another long night.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

The general manager of Caesars Palace stood up right before the caucus process started and told the room full of union shift workers that even if the caucus isn’t done by 1 p.m., they should still stay until they’re over.

“I will take all the heat from your bosses,” he said.

The room is pretty full now — still appears to be a lot of Clinton supporters — so much so that the dividing wall of the ballroom was opened up. There are 278 eligible caucus attendees at this location, according to an announcement that was just made by the precinct captain.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2016

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 14m14 minutes ago
And people really thought we and our peers should try to poll this shit?

:P
posted by Drinky Die at 12:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Chis Matthews is so in the tank for Clinton. He's been talking about how America doesn't like socialism all morning.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Carrie Kaufman ‎@CarrieKaufman
2 people in this precinct. 1 Bernie, 1 HRC. Will cut cards for winner. @KNPRnews #NVcaucus #NVDemsCaucus
3:23 PM - 20 Feb 2016

Carrie Kaufman ‏@CarrieKaufman 16m16 minutes ago
Card cut to break tie. Bernie is the Jack. Winner of precinct 4463. #NVDemsCaucus @KNPRnews
posted by Drinky Die at 12:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Results here: https://nvcaucuses.com/

50-50 so far with 12% reported.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:07 PM on February 20, 2016

From reading Krugman's column, he's quite explicitly not saying that. If I'm missing a point where he does, I'd love a cite. His February 17th post is very specifically about Friednman's analysis of Sander's plans, and notes, 'The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it’s very unlikely' -- that the specific targets Friedman is addressing are unlikely. It's clearly not a denial of your first point; far from it -- it's addressing your third point, particularly the specifics of Friedman's analysis as it relates to that.

Good. I'll take a look back. But you're probably right here. As I said, Krugman seemed to me to be attacking something that he has long supported -- the ability of macroeconomic policy to produce substantially higher unemployment and substantially greater economic output -- but given it's something he has long supported, I probably should have spent longer making sure that he was actually saying the crazy thing that I thought he was saying! I suspect that my error here comes from thinking that the discourse should really be about Question #2 at this stage.

I also read the campaign's framing of Friedman differently, and more as endorsement of his specific claims. Insofar as that's true, I think it's perfectly fair to put the campaign on the hook for Friedman's claims. If you read the campaign as merely endorsing the broader framework, then it would be wrong to do that, and I think that's also entirely fair.

I agree. If the campaign is saying, "We agree with Friedman's modeling assumptions," then they're on the hook for it. I read the campaign as giving yes answers to Questions 1 and 2, and appealing to Friedman's analysis as evidence that a yes answer to Question 2 is plausible. I don't think they're going any further than that, and if they are going further than that, then I think they're making a mistake.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:08 PM on February 20, 2016

Wow, that red-shirt ploy looks a whole lot like cheating, and it's not the first time they've done it:

At a large caucus at the New York casino Clinton staffers were wearing red t-shirts, despite the fact that Clinton has branded blue the entire campaign. Red is if course associated with National Nurses United, has been our color for years and well known in nurses campaigning for Sanders in red scrubs, red shirts, and even our red Bernie Buses that have been prominent in early voting states.

When our nurses walked into the room with cameras and a couple press the Clinton staffers ran over to the corner and quickly changed to blue shirts.

Chris Matthews is an idiot. If he were a Sanders supporter, he'd still be an idiot.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

The White House Just Defended Bernie Sanders Against Clinton’s Attacks (VIDEO)
posted by Room 641-A at 1:18 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Card cut to break tie.

In VEGAS? That is such a bad idea...
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Clinton 50.9%
Sanders 48.9%
Approx. 18% reporting
posted by markkraft at 1:26 PM on February 20, 2016

MSNBC describing robo-calls in South Carolina equating Donald Trump with LGBT rights, as if that were a bad thing. The world is upside down.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:27 PM on February 20, 2016

Rubio v. Breitbart News is hilarious.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:33 PM on February 20, 2016

Couple comments deleted. The link to the results is posted - please don't post an update every two minutes. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

WSJ: Pahrump precinct chair Peggy Rhoads with the cards drawn in tied Precinct 10. Hillary's ace beat Bernie's six.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wow Brokaw, that was already a shitty segment and you managed to take it right into the basement to end it quite nicely.

They were discussing college costs and doing the routine where the problem is that students pick useless humanities majors. Said he talked to someone who spoke with a woman who complained about being $100,000 in debt and asked her major was. She said renaissance literature. He said, "I wanted to tell her go be a pole dancer."
posted by Drinky Die at 1:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

NBC officially projects "slight lead" for Clinton, but still too close to call.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:49 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't want to impose, and you don't owe any of us anything here, but if you are willing to say more, I would like to know which rhetorical moves are giving you pause (and why) and whether you are referring to the rhetoric of Sanders supporters here on Metafilter or the rhetoric of Sanders supporters out in the wider world.

Things that have bugged me, as far as Sanders supporters go:
- I posted a cheesy "I love both our candidates!" thing on a Politico article and was responded to with the following comment: "one great candidate and a dried up lying old hag who can't even satisfy her man" (I see comments like this once in a while)
- That Guy who posts the same long spammy Bernie thing in every Facebook news post, whether or not the story has anything to do with the campaign (pretty much limited to That Guy)
- the constant push back any time someone says anything less than positive about Bernie supporters (has happened in every single Bernie thread here)

These are small potatoes, mostly avoidable, and (other than maybe unconsciously) don't affect my choice of candidate. But still annoying, especially the third. It's really not cool to make a statement about something you experienced and get back "no that doesn't happen" "are you sure about that" "yes but Hillary also blah blah" "well I haven't seen that so you're wrong" "hmmm seems unlikely." I'm not saying all or even most Bernie supporters are Bernie Broing it up - but as Bernie himself realizes there are people out there doing this. The really bad comments bug me because they just feel *so* angry and personal (how dare this HAG etc).

I also agree with the assessment that problematic Sanders-related statements seem to be coming from (a tiny minority of) regular folk supporters while problematic Clinton-related statements seem to be coming from her campaign's high profile supporters - maybe because of an enthusiasm gap? My friends and family who are Clinton supporters are markedly more chill and less evangelical about it than my friends and family who are Sanders supporters. People tend to be pushier and more emotional about things they are passionate about.
posted by sallybrown at 1:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Interesting looking at the county map. Sanders appears to be losing by about 8 points in most of the cities, such as Vegas, Tahoe, and Reno, while a lot of the internal rural parts of the state are pretty evenly divided, but he's doing *very* well in the small, rural counties near Utah and Eastern Oregon, which have a large Mormon population.

It's a shame they didn't poll for that, as it might make Utah an interesting state to watch.
posted by markkraft at 1:52 PM on February 20, 2016

> "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."

Architect of 2008 bailout says US banks still pose 'nuclear' threat to economy: Neel Kashkari, head of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, said US’s biggest banks are still ‘too big too fail’ and Congress should consider ‘bold solutions’

Unlikely Critic Says Banks Still Too Big To Fail, Pose 'Nuclear' Risk to US Economy: Federal Reserve official Neel Kashkari warns "we won't see the next crisis coming, and it won’t look like what we might be expecting."
posted by homunculus at 1:56 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I feel so bad for Jeb!. He even ditched his glasses like one of those makeover movies and it didn't do a thing. It's like if in She's All That Rachel Leigh Cook came down the stairs all glammed up and Freddie Prinze Jr. had been like "meh."
posted by sallybrown at 1:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

If Sanders can't win in a caucus in Nevada I think his chances of winning the nomination are virtually nil.
posted by Justinian at 2:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I feel so bad for Jeb!"

Strange person to feel bad for, huh?!

I was surprised to feel sorry for him after seeing this... but then I remembered that he was one of the original members and signators for Project for a New American Century, and that all his friends there like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. all wound up in Bush's administration, almost as if Jeb had recommended them himself...

So, yeah, screw him. Jeb is a big fat mistake.
posted by markkraft at 2:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah this is pretty much the last hurrah for imagining a victory. He should start making plans for when he is going to withdraw. The party that unifies behind their candidate first is going to have a huge advantage in this race.

I wish he was younger, because I think he learned a lot and could do much better selling himself in a second run down the line.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:11 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Tbh, if he does withdraw, I'll be looking for a Republican candidate for the first time in my life. Which is scary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

angrycat,

I don't know what LooseFilter had in mine, but your characterization struck me as a straw man, also. Specifically ...

This: Man I'm so not loving the argument that realism/pragmatism is prima facie a bad thing.

Is neither equivalent to nor an obvious consequence of this: For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, ...

Two things. First, there is a difference between realism or pragmatism as such and the "defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism" in the quoted bit. I think that what is really pragmatic in the general sense is NOT to be defined and bounded by "what-is-practical-ism" insofar as I understand that to mean aiming for and beginning negotiations with what one takes to be practically achievable. I think this because I don't think that "what-is-practical-ism" works as a political philosophy.

Second, there is a difference between what is prima facie the case and what is ultima facie the case. I take the bit you quoted to be saying that being too focused on what is practical has turned out to be a bad idea. The part that you left off then defends that judgment by offering an explanation. So, "realism" and "pragmatism" in the political context -- of the sort that the Clintons support -- might very well appear to be good things at first blush (prima facie) while actually not being good things after due consideration (ultima facie).

So, I take it what commenters here are saying is, "Focusing on what is practically achievable -- especially in framing your positions and beginning negotiations -- hasn't worked, so we should try something else." Whereas, I take your gloss to be something like, "You can see at a glance that being realistic about what we can achieve is a bad thing."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Uh. I don't agree he should withdraw. He will still get a lot of delegates and a bunch of states. I just don't think he can get 51% of delegates if he can't win a caucus in Nevada.

But he should get enough delegates that he has influence on the platform.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on February 20, 2016

It's true that if Sanders loses NV he doesn't have much of a path to the nomination, but it's not like he's going to withdraw tomorrow. He'll be going through Super Tuesday at least, no matter how poorly those races go. I think he's clearly earned that, and the Dems in that scenario would still be unifying behind a candidate waaay before the Reps will.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:14 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

NBC just called Nevada for Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 2:15 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Booooo! Well hopefully the Republican results tonight will be hilarious enough to cheer me up.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:16 PM on February 20, 2016

"For my adult life thus far, the Democratic Party has been defined and bounded by what-is-practical-ism, because of the leadership and influence of both Bill and Hillary Clinton"

Blaming Bill and Hillary for leadership that tries to make the most of what is politically viable is a little bit like blaming them for all that pesky reality around you.

It's the Democratic version of "Thanks, Obama!"
posted by markkraft at 2:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Everyone is calling it for Hillary, but he's keeping it close.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Thanks for DOMA, Bill. Thanks for Iraq, Hillary. You made the most of it.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [11 favorites]

I fear that without Sanders putting pressure on Clinton, she will never have an impetus to release her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
posted by dhens at 2:22 PM on February 20, 2016

Blaming Bill and Hillary for leadership that tries to make the most of what is politically viable

That's not what I said at all, and I think audi alteram partem and Jonathan Livengood have expanded on my point quite well.

Everyone is calling it for Hillary, but he's keeping it close.

I haven't been expecting Sanders to win the Nevada caucus; that he has made it this close shows that his candidacy continues to gain support. No way he should drop out.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

"Everyone is calling it for Hillary, but he's keeping it close."

Nate Silver extrapolated a few minutes ago, based on what's left, and is predicting about a 5-6 point win for Clinton.
posted by markkraft at 2:23 PM on February 20, 2016

Thanks for DOMA, Bill. Thanks for Iraq, Hillary.

Thanks for Breyer and Ginsburg, Bill.
posted by one_bean at 2:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I haven't been expecting Sanders to win the Nevada caucus; that he has made it this close shows that his candidacy continues to gain support. No way he should drop out.

This is great news for Bernie Sanders!
posted by Justinian at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

wow, Johnathan Livegood thank you because i was seriously not following why i was generating ire. the distinction makes sense.
posted by angrycat at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2016

I agree DD, though, this was anticlimactic. I was hoping for more excitement. Perhaps the Republican side will provide the necessary LULZ.
posted by Justinian at 2:25 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Tbh, if he does withdraw, I'll be looking for a Republican candidate for the first time in my life. Which is scary.

What? This I do not understand at all. You would vote for Trump or Cruz if you can't vote for Sanders? Can you explain a little more?

I really don't get American politics, and this election is very strange and depressing, seen from outside. I feel a lot like I did in 2004: we are all going to hell in a handbasket and nothing makes sense. And we did, back then. I fear it's going to be even worse this time. The Republican candidates are all scary.

Hillary Clinton is all about power to Hillary and Bill

And Bernie Sanders is inspiring and interesting, but also reminds me of Carter. So much can go wrong.
posted by mumimor at 2:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hillary Clinton Just Caught a Big Break: Congressman Jim Clyburn's endorsement could be pivotal.
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on February 20, 2016

Nate Silver:

"To be honest, it’s not much of a game-changer either way. Based on demographics and other factors, we’d have expected Clinton to win Nevada by about 3 percentage points in a race that was tied nationally. She seems poised to do just slightly better than that, which implies that the national vote still favors her (although perhaps only narrowly indeed).

Still, maintaining the status quo is basically good news for Clinton. She seems to have a slight advantage nationally over Sanders, and if that drifts into being more of a tie, she’d probably have an advantage over Sanders because of superdelegates. ...

Occam’s razor: Clinton held serve and remains the favorite in the Democratic race, but Sanders is likely to keep her on her toes for some time to come."
posted by dialetheia at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is great news for Bernie Sanders!

It is compared to Hillary Clinton, who was expected to win all of it.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

The NYT graphic about what counties went Sanders v went Clinton is really interesting, in terms of the rural vs. urban (Las Vegas) divide. I wonder what that means in terms of the general race.
posted by angrycat at 2:28 PM on February 20, 2016

This is great news for Bernie Sanders!

No, it's great news for all of us, if you believe in the things that Sanders is and has been fighting his whole life to change. I have this quaint and apparently antiquated view that elections are about all of us, and what kind of lives we have and want to have, because they are the moments when the public discourse is most focused on that. I also think that elections and campaigns can have positive effects that reach far beyond any single contest for any particular office.

(But you can keep forcing your framing onto every comment, if you wish.)
posted by LooseFilter at 2:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

I was responding specifically to the idea that the Nevada result shows that Sanders continues to gain support. Not to his candidacy in general, which on the whole has been a good thing.
posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on February 20, 2016

Markkraft, you need to not come in to every vaguely political thread and immediately escalate the discussion in favor of whoever. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 2:33 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

The conventional wisdom on TV seems to be that caucus states favor the "insurgent" candidate, but that isn't what I remember from 2008. Caucus states favored Obama because he had a vastly superior ground game and the party wasn't really taking sides. This year, I feel like caucus states probably favor the DNC's candidate, all other things being equal, just because they inherently have the superior ground game. Sanders has a ton of grassroots energy, but he doesn't necessarily have the organization that Obama had in 2008 (which may prove to be a big problem for him). Is there a separate argument for the insurgent candidate winning caucuses more often that I'm missing, or is it mostly based on those 2008 results?
posted by dialetheia at 2:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Moderately predictable results despite NV being hard to poll.

Clinton victory was expected and she seems to be exceeding expectations. This result should stop a lot of the bernie momentum. Combined with a solid win in SC and Clinton should still easily win the nomination unless Bernie can make up a lot of ground rapidly.

Clinton needs to figure out how to recapture the disaffected liberals that are supporting Bernie but what seems to be interesting is that pivoting to the left probably won't harm Clinton.
posted by vuron at 2:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I was responding specifically to the idea that the Nevada result shows that Sanders continues to gain support.

But it does: in December, Clinton was polling around 25-30% ahead of Sanders, and she had to cancel appearances in Florida to shore up support in Nevada recently. Sanders closed a big gap in Nevada, winning a lot of support that was not there a few weeks ago. (And my sense is that those from whom he is winning support, as demonstrated by the current caucus results coming in, speak to him as the true crossover appeal candidate in the race, for either party.)
posted by LooseFilter at 2:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

The fact that Sanders has consistently been getting such high numbers says a lot about a general desire among the voting public for something truly different. I'm not expecting Sanders to win the nomination, but that's never been the whole story anyway: setting aside the specifics of platforms, Sanders clearly represents something very different from normal politics to a lot of people, and his relative success continues to undermine the dominant narrative that the game can only be played one way.

As long as he's still running, he's holding Clinton's feet to the fire, and that's a good thing for everyone. My only concern is that her campaign will decide to "get real," or something, and stop trying to appeal to the left when they no longer feel a need to do so. But hopefully the lasting legacy of this campaign, if nothing else, will be that the left isn't as insignificant as may have previously been assumed.
posted by teponaztli at 2:40 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

From @FiveThirtyEight in 2008, Obama won 18-29 year-olds in Nevada 59% to 33%. This year they went 84% Sanders to 11% Clinton #Nevadacaucus
posted by Room 641-A at 2:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

I think Bernie needs to match Obama in order to be a credible challenger to Clinton in the nomination process. Obama was able to focus on a lot of caucuses in his path to victory and this time Clinton seems to be negating that strategy. also keep in mind that it is next to impossible for Bernie to replicate the African American support that propeled Obama to victory in several races in 2008.

Still I am very glad that Bernie is making a good go of it even though the deck is stacked against him.
posted by vuron at 2:45 PM on February 20, 2016

Clinton needs to figure out how to recapture the disaffected liberals that are supporting Bernie but what seems to be interesting is that pivoting to the left probably won't harm Clinton.

I'm getting pretty nervous about Trump pivoting left (would we even call it that in his case? god knows) - in the past week he's blamed the Bush administration for failing to act on intelligence before 9/11 and for the war in Iraq enabling the rise of ISIS, he's said he likes the health insurance mandate and might expand Medicare (the NYT frames this as an error that he's walking back, but I think he's doing this deliberately to build support), defended Planned Parenthood, and probably more that I can't even keep track of.

Might people who are feeling the "outsider" vibe and have the privilege to ignore Trump's hate speech against Muslims and communities of color flip to Trump in the general? Is his buffoonery obvious enough to prevent that?
posted by sallybrown at 2:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

Might people who are feeling the "outsider" vibe and have the privilege to ignore Trump's hate speech against Muslims and communities of color flip to Trump in the general? Is his buffoonery obvious enough to prevent that?

I think the number who flip from Sanders to Trump would be pretty negligible. More worrisome would be the number who don't vote at all or vote 3rd party, which they don't see as helping Trump even if it would have the same practical effect.
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2016

Sanders' support doesn't only come from being the outsider. I can't imagine there's a huge overlap between current Sanders supporters and potential Trumpers, even if there are folks who have said they never want to vote for Clinton.
posted by teponaztli at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2016

I'm with you, sallybrown. I'm just not confident about Clinton's ability to defeat Trump in the general.
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2016

Bernie still polls better against all the Rs, which worries me if Trump goes yuge for Trump.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:00 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

Is his buffoonery obvious enough to prevent that?

We're waaaaay past the point where his obvious buffoonery should have prevented any success in this primary. For my part, I have no sense of where his candidacy can go.

I'm just not confident about Clinton's ability to defeat Trump in the general.

Me also.
posted by LooseFilter at 3:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

MSNBC saying that Harry Reid made some calls to the culinary union. They'd said earlier that the hotels then gave them three hours paid to go caucus, so I guess that makes sense now.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:04 PM on February 20, 2016

No, it's great news for Clinton, in that the Nevada Caucus has traditionally had a really low turnout. In 2008, Clinton had about 5500 votes, compared to about 4900 for Obama.

That makes the Nevada Caucus both rather undemocratic in nature -- they should've stuck with the primary -- and also a comparatively easy state for activists to win, since they tend to have a more aggressive turnout. Ron Paul did quite well in the GOP Nevada caucus in '08, for example.

Nevada was very much a matter of Clinton dodging a bullet. It was close, but still dodged, so the narrative going on is one that will both motivate her supporters to get involved *AND* basically reinforce the standard narrative of her having a significant edge and an expanding lead, especially among minority voters, who seem to have carried the day for her around Vegas and in other big cities, where her union support held firm.

If Clinton had lost Nevada, she could've really hurt the outcome going into Super Tuesday. Instead, she is poised to go into Super Tuesday with a BIG win in South Carolina, and with three wins and nearly a 500 delegate lead, once SC is added in to the mix. She will also have a clear majority in the popular vote... and Super Tuesday looks likely to expand on all those narratives.

What's more important, perhaps, is that I see strong signs of Hillary Clinton's supporters waking up and being activists themselves. Just like in ;08, Hillary's supporters kind of assumed that her camp had everything handled, only to get badly surprised by Obama, especially in caucus states. In this case, though, Sanders' early strength has been largely contained.

Robby Mook was the state campaign manager for Clinton in Nevada in '08, and won that state for her by a little less than the margin he won Nevada today. His general campaign strategy for this election is to keep the caucus states competitive, while outperforming in non-caucus states with more demographically mixed primaries. Seems to me, that strategy is working quite well thus far. This is a much better Clinton campaign than in 2008, and its really just starting to come up to speed.
posted by markkraft at 3:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

that ad with her and the little Latina girl worried about her parents getting deported was pretty fucking effective. i don't know, maybe clinton eats babies in her spare time, but that ad was really effective.
posted by angrycat at 3:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bernie was polling better mainly because the Super PAC money on the right hasn't targeted him yet. Plus general election polling numbers are wildly unpredictable this far out.

I do think that Trump could do well among blue collar rust belt voters who aren't really Sanders supporters but could turn out in large enough numbers to make Ohio red.

That is the real problem because I will be honest nativist crap that Trump is using isn't real a deal breaker with some Democrats.
posted by vuron at 3:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Obama was able to focus on a lot of caucuses in his path to victory and this time Clinton seems to be negating that strategy. "

That's a very specific, deliberative strategy that Robby Mook has talked about.

The fact is, Clinton won most large states, won the popular vote... but lost the election due to big Obama wins in caucus states.

The amusing thing about this, is that this strategy forces Clinton to adopt something much more like the 50-state strategy that Dean supported. This is a good thing for Democrats, regardless of who you support.
posted by markkraft at 3:16 PM on February 20, 2016

I wish he was younger, because I think he learned a lot and could do much better selling himself in a second run down the line.

Another fun what-if is if he'd started running in 2013, maybe actually run as a Democrat in 2012, spent another two years building a coalition.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Re: those general election matchups, there is absolutely a valid argument that Sanders just hasn't been attacked yet even though his margin of victory vs. hers has been remarkably stable even as people have gotten to know him.

But putting Sanders' margins aside altogether, Clinton's margins vs. the GOP are still really troubling because she performs so poorly with white and male voters. The most recent Quinnipiac national poll had some really tough crosstabs on the white vote for her margins vs. the GOP candidates. Kasich would beat her in the white vote by 27 points right now! Among white voters, Trump beats her by 16%, Cruz by 19%, Rubio by 23%. We can absolutely afford to lose the white vote, but not by those margins, as those head-to-head matchups make clear - she would lose to anyone but Trump with those numbers. The white working-class is where you'd find that Trump/Sanders crossover, and it appears to be borne out in these crosstabs - Sanders cuts those white vote margins in half compared to Clinton (though again, all the usual disclaimers about him not being attacked yet, etc etc). According to that same poll, it looks like men would vote anyone-but-Clinton by an 8-16 point margin, and her margin among women isn't nearly large enough to offset that loss yet.

Anyway, obviously a lot will change between now and the election, yadda yadda yadda, but there are still some really troubling numbers in there for her (and I didn't even mention any of the "honest/trustworthy" or favorability metrics).
posted by dialetheia at 3:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

markkraft, your analysis is a bit circumspect, but more importantly, the consistently aggressive and confrontational nature of your comments in these threads has eliminated any credibility your opinions may have had. You are clearly a very, very strong Clinton supporter, and very angry about and at Sanders supporters. I, for one, cannot take any analysis you present as either objective or serious.

But putting Sanders' margins aside altogether, Clinton's margins vs. the GOP are still really troubling because she performs so poorly with white and male voters.

This remains my largest concern about the election in general: I still think Clinton will win the nomination, but remain unconvinced that she will win in the general election. Should she win the nomination, I will be happy to be proven wrong about that (but seriously worry I am not).
posted by LooseFilter at 3:36 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

The Democrats have so much strength and depth in their field, and that's going to make a huge difference vs. whoever the GOP throws against them.

I am looking forward to Obama, Bill Clinton, Carter, the Castro brothers, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and hopefully Bernie all stumping and raising money for Clinton and the Democrats, when the time comes.

The difference will be pretty striking, I suspect.
posted by markkraft at 3:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Another fun what-if is if he'd started running in 2013, maybe actually run as a Democrat in 2012, spent another two years building a coalition.

You're suggesting that running against the sitting president would have been a better plan?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:38 PM on February 20, 2016

I suspect that Clinton's hardest match up is Rubiobot because of Hispanic and male voters but also because he's running a Teflon campaign which is hard to maintain in the General but basically it's Romney 2012 with Hispanic Republican.
posted by vuron at 3:42 PM on February 20, 2016

As always, The Onion is on it: Clinton Credits Nevada Victory To Inescapable, Pitch-Black Tide Of Fate
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Markkraft is obviously biased as are most of the people in this thread but his analysis does match a lot of the conventional wisdom concerning the logistics of a Presidential run. There are still issues with Clinton campaign but overall they have to be pretty happy.
posted by vuron at 3:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

The amusing thing about this, is that this strategy forces Clinton to adopt something much more like the 50-state strategy that Dean supported. This is a good thing for Democrats, regardless of who you support.

I suppose that depends on how ones views matters. Speaking only for myself, as an long-time old fashioned labor Democrat, this is not merely about the technical details of running successful campaigns--this is a fight for the soul of the party. I have cast my ballot for Democrats time and time again--beginning with Jimmy Carter--with full knowledge that my party was slowly but surely becoming less representative of my views. To twist that old saw: "The Democratic party has abandoned me, but I have not abandoned the party."

Asking me, once again, to forego my views merely to have some kind of bureaucratic success against the really bad guys, is quite simply, very tiresome.

That's why I'm going to continue to support Sanders and the nascent coalition he is laying the groundwork for--even if this specific campaign is unsuccessful. Furthermore, this primary contest is far from over. It is now clear that a large part of the Democratic party wants a new New Deal. It's far from clear that Clinton, despite pressure, will deliver on these demands. Thus far, my inclination is to think that she will not. If she wins the nomination, I hope she proves me wrong.

But in either case, after this campaign, I'm going to do whatever small things I can to ensure that this upsurge around some very important ideas is not simply swept under the rug by party establishment drones.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [23 favorites]

Hillary has been my choice and hope for a long time. She's not perfect - not by a long way, and has more than a few faults and problems. But, she has far more actual, deep, foreign policy experience than all of the original and now other candidates in both main parties running for POTUS put together. And when the shit goes down and Putin starts sending troops into e.g. the Estonian city of Narva to "protect" the Russian minority there, it will be far, far better to have Hillary as Commander in Chief and POTUS than anyone else running. If it's Trump, then by this time next year ... let's not think about that.

I am looking forward to Obama, Bill Clinton, Carter, the Castro brothers, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and hopefully Bernie all stumping and raising money for Clinton and the Democrats, when the time comes.

Yes. I'm hoping that the quartet of Obama, Warren, Biden and Sanders will give their completely unambiguous endorsement as soon as this gets wrapped up. Especially as the chances of the Republicans being unified behind whichever candidate they throw up aren't good.
posted by Wordshore at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Going around twitter just now:

[Dolores Huerta] offered to translate but Bernie Supporters chanted 'English Only'

I'm a Bernie supporter and this is gross.
posted by dinty_moore at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

The Democrats have so much strength and depth in their field, and that's going to make a huge difference vs. whoever the GOP throws against them.

I of course, as a progressive who is absolutely terrified at the prospect of one of these Republican assholes taking the White House, controlling all three branches of government, and finding ways to further deconstruct this country, hope very much that this is the result.

I hope that Hillary can pull this off if she's the nominee. The fact that she is not, by the numbers, bringing in anything like the enthusiasm and new voters that Obama did is extremely troubling to me. Frankly, Bernie Sanders should not be doing nearly as well as he is right now, he's really only gotten serious about doing a legit run (as opposed to a issues/awareness-raising primary campaign) in the last three or four months and he is running very close to Clinton who has been running officially for a year and unofficially for eight years.

Did Clinton even get as many total (raw) votes in Nevada as she did eight years ago against Obama? I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong!

Surely the population of NV has gone up since 2008, and surely Sanders is not as strong a candidate as Obama was, so... where did those '08 Clinton votes go to? And are they going to come back in the general?

These are questions that NEED to be answered now, before Clinton gets anointed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

But the reverse of that is also true; Sanders isn't getting nearly as many votes in Nevada as Obama (or Clinton) did in 2008.
posted by Justinian at 4:00 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

You're suggesting that running against the sitting president would have been a better plan?

I meant his most recent Senate run.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:01 PM on February 20, 2016

I saw a rumor on Twitter that the UNLV College Republicans were planning to attend both caucuses and troll the Dems. If true, that might explain the disgusting “English only” chants. (Of course, it was an unsourced rumor on Twitter, so take it with a huge grain of “citation needed.”)
posted by nicepersonality at 4:08 PM on February 20, 2016

But, she has far more actual, deep, foreign policy experience than all of the original and now other candidates in both main parties running for POTUS put together. And when the shit goes down and Putin starts sending troops into e.g. the Estonian city of Narva to "protect" the Russian minority there, it will be far, far better to have Hillary as Commander in Chief and POTUS than anyone else running.

This is precisely the sort of policy prescription that sticks in my craw. How about we start working towards a different kind of foreign policy. One which is less "Twilight of Empire" and more "community of principle" oriented. Some folks scoffed at the Kissinger ties, trying to minimize them and what they imply regarding the realpolitick foundation of our foreign policy. But not me. I'm a Vietnam era vet. I fucking remember.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [19 favorites]

Anybody got a link for the official South Carolina results?
posted by Justinian at 4:14 PM on February 20, 2016

Adding: not to mention all the murder and mayhem we have caused in the last 40 years. That mountain of dead bodies (including children, Ms. Albright) that we so assiduously avoid thinking about? There is plenty of blame to go around in the Democratic party.

I find that I am now angry. Forgive me. I'm logging off and picking up my guitar.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:14 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

But the reverse of that is also true; Sanders isn't getting nearly as many votes in Nevada as Obama (or Clinton) did in 2008.

Point taken. I don't think either has done a great job of explaining why they are the most electable candidate.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:15 PM on February 20, 2016

Anybody got a link for the official South Carolina results?

I'd like to see that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:16 PM on February 20, 2016

Going around twitter just now:

[Dolores Huerta] offered to translate but Bernie Supporters chanted 'English Only'

I'm a Bernie supporter and this is gross.

A friend of mine after the Lewis endorsement: "John Lewis is a liar with no integrity! Who does he think he is, anyway!"

I will leave my response to your imagination.
posted by sallybrown at 4:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

How about we start working towards a different kind of foreign policy. One which is less "Twilight of Empire" and more "community of principle" oriented.

That's very nice for you, but over here in the real world the people of eastern Ukraine, of Crimea, of Georgia and of nations (in and out of NATO) increasingly probed by an expansionist and unstable Russian leader who will just mock, then ignore, any "community of principle" notion, may feel massively differently based on their actual experiences. If you put down your guitar for a few minutes, here's a horribly plausible documentary on a quite possible chain of events.
posted by Wordshore at 4:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Can you please advise on the state of our mineshaft gap, Wordshore?
posted by entropicamericana at 4:23 PM on February 20, 2016

CBS News Estimate:

Trump - 31%
Cruz - 27%
Rubio - 23%
Carson - 7%
Bush - 6%
Kasich - 6%
posted by Wordshore at 4:23 PM on February 20, 2016

Exit poll: 73 percent of #SCPrimary voters support banning Muslims from entering the U.S.

Can I have my country back from those people?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:25 PM on February 20, 2016

South Carolina Results
posted by leotrotsky at 4:26 PM on February 20, 2016

HAHAHAHAHA.

NBC has called SC for Trump.
posted by Justinian at 4:28 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I can't wait for Rubiobot's third place victory speech again.
posted by sallybrown at 4:28 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

[Dolores Huerta] offered to translate but Bernie Supporters chanted 'English Only'

Here's the video of what happened, supposedly - sounds more like a single person yelling "neutral"? In any case, if that happened, it's shameful.
posted by dialetheia at 4:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is going to be an absolute apocalypse for the Republican down-ticket races. We're taking back the Senate.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:32 PM on February 20, 2016

Good thing I refreshed. I logged back in. You know, I would love to have this debate with you, Wordshore, but it would be a total derail. I'm much more well-read and informed than you suppose. But, in the interest of amity, I'm gonna pass for now. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to discuss this at a later date.

I'm supposing nothing. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, and that we don't end up debating this under a future "Military crisis in the Baltic States" MetaFilter thread. We'll see.
posted by Wordshore at 4:34 PM on February 20, 2016

over here in the real world the people of eastern Ukraine, of Crimea, of Georgia and of nations (in and out of NATO) increasingly probed by an expansionist and unstable Russian leader who will just mock, then ignore, any "community of principle" notion, may feel massively differently

There's lots of shitty shit that is happening everywhere. Sometimes intervention works (cf. Kosovo), sometimes intervention fails horribly (cf. Iraq), sometimes it's not even tried (cf. Rwanda, DRC).

What else should the US have done / be doing in Ukraine? Send troops to the Crimea? Get into a hot war with Russia? NOPE NOPE NOPE, I lived through the last six years of the Cold War and that is just plenty of nuclear annihilationism for me. Over here in my real world I'd like to not be converted into a field of irradiated glass.

We can keep ignoring root causes while jumping into foreign interventions at the last minute before our economic interests or full-on genocide is threatened, which is the US modus operandi since WWII, or we can actually say that we as the most economically and militarily powerful country are going to work with an actual international coalition to address the root causes of war through intentional economic development (that works for the economies of the countries in need and not for the global 1%). Clinton has not demonstrated that she is going to move toward the latter policy, which sucks. She has undisputed experience in diplomatic affairs and I would hope that she could articulate not just a firefighting strategy but a fire prevention strategy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

Latest R SC primary results numbers (per MSNBC) with 4% reporting:

Trump 34%
Cruz 21%
Rubio 21%
Bush 10%
Kasich 7%
Carson 6%

Assuming these results generally hold -- I think Kasich drops. Carson is doing surprisingly well (e.g., better than 1%). The big question is whether Jeb! drops to clear the not-totally-insane lane for Rubio.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 PM on February 20, 2016

The AP has called it for Trump already -- How does that happen when there's only 2% reporting? Is that based solely on exit polls?
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:47 PM on February 20, 2016

Carson was beat by "Other" in NH, so I guess he is doing better....
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Record turnout again for the GOP in South Carolina.

Democrats should be fucking terrified.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Again, let's not do constant updates as the numbers roll in -- try to stick to important developments or final projections/numbers after this.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:49 PM on February 20, 2016

Racism is a helluva drug.
posted by entropicamericana at 4:49 PM on February 20, 2016

I bet this is it for JEB. He can acknowledge the party has gone insane whether he will articulate it or not. I think dragging ol' Barbara on the campaign trail was as last ditch as he's going to get.
posted by readery at 4:51 PM on February 20, 2016

Record turnout again for the GOP in South Carolina.

Has anyone seen any numbers on how many of Trump's voters are new/infrequent voters? I wonder how much of that is driven by Trump bringing a whole new constituency out to the polls, vs. how much is organic excitement for Republicans in general. Not that the difference would matter in the general - I'm just curious how much of his success is with newer voters vs. reliable Republican voters.
posted by dialetheia at 4:51 PM on February 20, 2016

Democrats should be fucking terrified.

Democrats? How about, all Americans? Or maybe the world?

This is why I've felt resentful of how Clinton has used her power and influence in the party to shut down most potential candidates before this race ever started. We should have had more candidates to choose from.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

Most of the bookies aren't showing odds, or updating them, while they wait for SC results to come in, but those that are are sending Jeb out to much longer odds than earlier today. 18/1 - ouch. Wondering if/when he quits the race, what his reaction to reporters "Will you endorse Marco?" questions will be.
posted by Wordshore at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2016

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as of now the Republican voters of two different states have declared openly and to the world that they want Donald J. Trump, reality star and renowned buffoon, to be President of the United States of America.
posted by Justinian at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

"The AP has called it for Trump already -- How does that happen when there's only 2% reporting? Is that based solely on exit polls?"

I'm sure some of it is exit polls, but it's largely local knowledge (they'll be relying on local experts and local reporters) and projections for specific regions/precincts/etc. Like, to give a super-simple example, if it's the 2008 presidential election and rural downstate Illinois, which is very Republican territory, is reporting its totals first and voting overwhelmingly Obama, it's pretty safe to call Illinois for Obama because Chicago, being Democratic territory, is going to go Obama. You do this right down to local precinct levels, where you're working for the local newspaper watching returns on election night and you see that the wealthy Republican-leaning neighborhood have all voted Democrat for sheriff, you don't really need to wait for the Democratic precinct results to come in. (However, if the GOP-leaning precincts are turning in normal GOP numbers and it's an evenly-split district, you can't really call anything until you see some other precincts.)

So basically they've got years of sampling experience with likely voters and bellwether precincts and they're checking those numbers and making these projections as local totals roll in. For statewide races, especially if there's been advance polling, they usually do PRETTY well. (Local races where personalities can matter more and races can hinge on 100 votes are harder.)

I've sat with both local reporters and local politicians doing these projections, you can actually pick up the technique pretty quickly and if you have a media or politics friend who'll sit with you obsessively refreshing the county vote reports as they come in, they'll narrate for you, "Oh, I see neighborhood X has gone overwhelmingly democrat in the attorney general race, which is unexpected and may drive downballot races ... but neighborhood Y has really, really anomalously low turnout so I wonder if there's a problem with those numbers ..." and give you an idea how they do it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as of now the Republican voters of two different states have declared openly and to the world that they want Donald J. Trump, reality star and renowned buffoon, to be President of the United States of America.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
posted by entropicamericana at 4:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

How about, all Americans? Or maybe the world?

All of the above.

how much of that is driven by Trump bringing a whole new constituency out to the polls, vs. how much is organic excitement for Republicans in general

I'd love to see that breakdown somehow too. Trump clearly has his own constituency of zero-information voters, but it's got to have a ceiling, and might be canceled out in a general election scenario by sane people refusing to vote for him, or turning out to vote against.

On the other hand, Hilary's condescending, lecturing, fuck your millennial idealism victory speech is doing her damnedest to drive off every last Bernie supporter she can manage. She's an astoundingly bad candidate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:00 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

A few months back, so many people said that Trump will never make it this far or that he definitely had no plans to actually run this far. And now we have a genuine facist who advocates for shooting muslims dipped in pigs blood in the lead, and he has a reasonable chance of winning the primary. We should all be afraid.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:01 PM on February 20, 2016

On the other hand, Hilary's condescending, lecturing, fuck your millennial idealism victory speech is doing her damnedest to drive off every last Bernie supporter she can manage. She's an astoundingly bad candidate.

I don't think you're representative of the electorate as a whole. Her victory speech seemed perfectly normal to me, even somewhat above average.
posted by Justinian at 5:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Well, his description sounds pretty apt to me.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

Ok, in what way was her victory speech different from basically every other victory speech ever?
posted by Justinian at 5:07 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't think any of us is representative of the election as a whole, and there's no point in arguing that someone's reaction to a speech is invalid because they don't speak for everyone.
posted by teponaztli at 5:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't think you're representative of the electorate as a whole.

But it's not the electorate as a whole she has a specific problem with - it's millenials, where she again lost by a 70%+ margin. Young people arguably won us the election in 2008 and 2012 - I'm sure people will generally line up for the general election, but she doesn't just need people to get in line, she needs their enthusiasm and turnout.
posted by dialetheia at 5:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [11 favorites]

Ok, I think the reaction was invalid not because it didn't speak for everyone but because it was so out of proportion to anything that could reasonably be read into what was pretty much a bog-standard victory speech. I get the impression some people wouldn't be happy unless Clinton was grovelling and begging for forgiveness for her myriad sins.
posted by Justinian at 5:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would have preferred Clinton's speech gestured more explicitly toward party unity as Sanders' New Hampshire speech did. I also wasn't fond of her repeating the dismissive and inaccurate "single issue" jab.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

(Oh, nvm, misread the context)
posted by teponaztli at 5:10 PM on February 20, 2016

Thanks for the links to the speeches. I encourage people to read them for context.
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on February 20, 2016

I think that empty Supreme Court seat is what's going to turn millenials out.
posted by sallybrown at 5:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's the way she argues against classic liberal policy goals like single payer using Republican framing about "free stuff".
posted by dialetheia at 5:12 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

And just to be clear, I don't want Clinton to be "grovelling and begging for forgiveness of her myriad sins."
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:12 PM on February 20, 2016

Let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as of now the Republican voters of two different states have declared openly and to the world that they want Donald J. Trump, reality star and renowned buffoon, to be President of the United States of America.

@AntDeRosa: He's the hero the GOP deserves, but not the one it needs right now.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:13 PM on February 20, 2016

Transcript

It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together. Your generation is the most tolerant, and connected our country has ever seen. In the days ahead we will propose new ways for more Americans to get involved in national service and give back to our communities because everyone of us has a role to play in building the future we want.

Washington is never going to have all the answers, but for every problem we face, somewhere someone in America is solving it, and we need you to be part of that exciting journey we can make together.

I read that as a direct shot at young people, lecturing them for daring to support Bernie over her. In context of her stepped up attacks and lecturing tone this week, it's not helpful for her to be extorting support rather than inspiring it. I think her splits with young people support that position, and I find her lack of a conciliatory tone or anything remotely approaching enthusiasm among the demographic that won both elections for Obama EXTREMELY troubling.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:14 PM on February 20, 2016 [18 favorites]

work with an actual international coalition to address the root causes of war through intentional economic development (that works for the economies of the countries in need and not for the global 1%)

That's also been happening since the end of World War II. China is probably the biggest example that now has over 200 million people living in a middle class level of development. At the start of relations, the gambit was an economically developed and politically connected China would be better for the world than a China that 's economically weak and politically isolated. It's not perfect at all, since some thought there would eventually be democratic reform, entrenched corruption in the old government are just even more distorted with money involved, and there's pollution. But, it seems to be working, for now.
posted by FJT at 5:14 PM on February 20, 2016

ugh just seeing the words AWAITING TRUMP VICTORY SPEECH at the bottom of the screen is causing my heart minor palpitations. I tried to explain to the stupid thing that this is just about who won the South Carolina primary and that it should just shut up and keep pumping blood around my body, etc. but l think the poor organ is still sorta anxious.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't know what to say, TD Strange. If you can read "and we need you to be part of that exciting journey we can make together" as a scuzzy shot at young people, extortion, and a lecturing tone I don't know how we could possibly communicate. It's so far outside what I can see as a reasonable read.
posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

There must be enormous behind the scenes pressure now for Carson and Kasich to get out of the race now, which would probably let Rubio or Cruz overtake Trump before it's too late to avoid a brokered convention.
posted by joeyh at 5:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think that empty Supreme Court seat is what's going to turn millenials out.

It'll turn out Millenials who already usually vote. People who are infrequent voters... I'm really not sure it will be enough. We don't just need the usual dutiful turnout - as the last round of midterms indicated, that isn't enough - we need genuine excitement. Clinton pulling 14% among people younger than 30 doesn't indicate much excitement for her at all, and it really concerns me me since our coalition basically falls apart without the youth vote. Young people tend to be much less susceptible to the "But the Supreme Court!" appeals in my experience, no matter how correct those appeals might be.

Justinian, obviously the cheap shot was this line: "It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together"
posted by dialetheia at 5:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

Well, regardless of your feeling on this specific speech, her objective numbers with voters under 30 are beyond horrible and speak for themselves. In a turnout election, that's a huge, huge problem that she needs to fix, literally for the good of the world.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together. Your generation is the most tolerant, and connected our country has ever seen.

Condescending and pandering. Young leftists don't want their egos stroked, and they can see right through bullshit like this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

So grateful I live in a solid blue state so I don't have to hold my nose and vote for that DINO in November, if worst comes to worst.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:25 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I find her lack of a conciliatory tone or anything remotely approaching enthusiasm among the demographic that won both elections for Obama EXTREMELY troubling.

I thought it was the turnout among minority voters that won the elections for Obama.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 5:26 PM on February 20, 2016

I thought Clinton's speech was pretty boilerplate, neither particularly inspiring nor offputting. I did give sideeye to the "not a single issue candidate" comment noted above, that wasn't helpful.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Justinian, obviously the cheap shot was this line: "It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together"

"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
posted by Justinian at 5:30 PM on February 20, 2016

If you can read "and we need you to be part of that exciting journey we can make together" as a scuzzy shot at young people, extortion, and a lecturing tone I don't know how we could possibly communicate. It's so far outside what I can see as a reasonable read.

"It can't be just about what we're going to give you", immediately following a line about reducing interest rates on student loans, is obviously a rebuke to Sanders supporters, especially as her campaign has been pushing the Republican "they just want free stuff" line.

No longer under 30, but usually considered a "millenial", and the speech is pretty repellent to me. Talk about making a "ladder of opportunity" and pandering to small-business owners is the same neoliberal bullshit that's been shoved down our throats since we've been politically conscious. Not a bridge I'm interested in being sold.
posted by junco at 5:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [27 favorites]

Does Bush drop out if he finishes at around 8%? How can he keep going?
posted by Justinian at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2016

I thought it was the turnout among minority voters that won the elections for Obama.

Studies seem to say that the youth vote was decisive in 2012, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were different analyses out there too. In 2008, he probably still would have won without the youth vote but his margin in that demographic flipped Indiana and North Carolina for him - but at that point he was ahead by so much in general that it wasn't decisive.
posted by dialetheia at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Young leftists don't want their egos stroked, and they can see right through bullshit like this.

They don't want their egos stroked, but they are thin skinned enough to be insulted by this? Okay, I guess this is what people mean with eating crackers.
posted by FJT at 5:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Does Bush drop out if he finishes at around 8%? How can he keep going?

I think he'll stay if he finishes in fourth (which is where he is now, with 33% of the votes in). Kasich may drop out, though. (Maybe not, if he wants to try and beat Jeb in the "Not Trump, Not Crazy, and Not a Robot" category.) But it might be time for Carson to put his campaign in the ancient grain silos.
posted by sallybrown at 5:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Asking for the help of all Americans seems pretty different from telling Millenials they need to work harder in exchange for all the awesome stuff we are doing for them.
posted by snofoam at 5:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Oh man, Jeb! is talking. Come on Jeb!, drop out. I can't watch the pain any more.
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on February 20, 2016

A friend of mine who's plugged into Republican politics swears up and down that they're planning for a brokered convention (and just no longer talking about it publicly). He says they will never let Trump be the nominee.

Oh wow, I would love to see that. Do it, Republicans. Trump's already running a spite campaign powered by a personal vendetta against Jeb!, and that was over some business deal. Do you want to see what happens when you cheat him of his rightfully-earned nomination? He'd just run third party and it would totally sink their nominee even if he has no hope of winning at that point.
posted by indubitable at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

This isn't directed at any particular comment, but I'm always kind of skeptical of the whole "demographic x delivered victory y" type analysis. Winning happens as a coalition is built; ultimately, a millenial vote has the same value as a retiree vote, a Latino vote, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat vote, whatever. It's about increasing the turnout at the margin.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

This Jeb! speech is something else.
posted by sallybrown at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2016

There goes Jeb
posted by madamjujujive at 5:43 PM on February 20, 2016

I actually feel bad for the guy. I don't think he would be a good president but I don't think he's a scumbag ego-driven megalomaniac like most of the others. As someone said before, I bet he would be a great high school principal.
posted by Justinian at 5:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Personally, while I'm prepared to suck it up and vote for the Democrat regardless, I really feel like I've been thrown under the bus this election cycle by the DNC and Secretary Clinton. I mean, Senator Sanders is only holding on because hes struck a chord with some part of the electorate, but the truth is this was all supposed to be a dog and pony show anyways. Long before the primary even began in shadowy back room meetings a decision was made that Secretary Clinton would be the nominee. It was Secretary Clinton's turn, you see, and no other candidate would do.

Except that is unfair to me as an educated voter. I don't want to vote for someone just because 'its their turn.' That isn't how we the American people are supposed to elect a President. I want the best qualified person to be President. Yes, I realize Secretary Clinton has held public office many times, I also understand she was first lady for 8 years. To be honest, I don't like her. I mean not as a person, I'm sure shes a fine human being, I don't like her as a politician. I don't feel like she represents me well, I feel like I'm a pawn to her, a political piece to be manipulated. She'll promise me things, say whatever she must to get elected, and then I feel like I'm going to be left out in the cold. The day after inauguration, we'll pass each other on the street and she'll pretend she doesn't even know me. Promises? Hah, look, this is the real world kid. Integrity is for the plebes.

Please do not accuse me of unexamined sexism. I really like Elizabeth Warren, I would love to hear her debate Senator Sanders. I'll be happy when she runs for President, but even then I won't be uncritical of her just because shes a woman. That strikes me as an even worse form of sexism. I'm not saying we the American people are not allowed to have a mediocre female President, because afterall we've had many mediocre male Presidents. But, I dislike having a mediocre President of any gender rammed down my throat.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 5:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [27 favorites]

Young people arguably won us the election in 2008 and 2012

As comforting this myth may be to you, it isn't born out by the election results. For example for 2012:

People 18 to 29 voted at 60% for Obama but represented only 19% of the vote.

Demographics voting at higher rates:
African Americans 93% for Obama
Hispanics 71% for Obama
Asians 73% for Obama
Income under $50K 61% for Obama

Young people simply don't have a very high turnout. It is stretching the truth to say that young people won the election for Obama. As long as young people have a fairly low turnout, their priorities will not be the majority electorate priorities.
posted by JackFlash at 5:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

BBC are reporting that Jeb has suspended his campaign.

Yes that is a weird picture they have chosen of him
posted by Wordshore at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2016

Millennials are coming out of college, saddled with 5 or 6 figure debt, poor job prospects, no hope of job security ever, bad health insurance options, little chance of ever owning a home, possibly supporting elderly parents, etc. To act as if they're just spoiled children wanting a pony is extremely insulting. Also, many millennials see boomers as the generation that used social welfare to get ahead then burned down that safety net for younger generations. If anything it's the boomers that are the "takers."
posted by melissasaurus at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [34 favorites]

Jeb Bush Saddest Moments

posted by Room 641-A at 5:47 PM on February 20, 2016

There goes Jeb

Press 'F' to pay respects
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is probably one of the happiest days in Jeb!'s life.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

There goes Jeb

Press 'F' to pay respects

Please clap.
posted by TwoStride at 5:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

Oh god this TRUMP victory speech is gonna be... something.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:52 PM on February 20, 2016

I hope he at least has the human decency not to go after Bush after he has already dropped out.
posted by Justinian at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2016

lol, I bet Trump gloats over it.
posted by indubitable at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2016

Maybe older people just don't understand why young people would be so outraged about the college situation or something? For most of us, being lectured about how selfish we are for wanting "free stuff" by people who went to college back when you could pay tuition just by working a summer job is pretty insulting. Through about 1980, you could afford full-time tuition by working around 14 weeks - today, you couldn't afford it even by working full-time year-round. Young people are starting their careers with nearly a mortgage's worth of debt just to have a shot at getting a decent job. A college education is the equivalent of what a high school education used to be in today's job market. It would be like expecting boomers to go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt just to go to high school. From the perspective of millenials, expecting us to go into 5 and 6 figures worth of debt just to get a reasonable middle-class job is a much rawer deal than those lecturing us received. It feels like baby boomers pulling the safety net that they benefited from out from under us, then blaming us for being selfish when we object (on preview, what Room-641A said!)

It is stretching the truth to say that young people won the election for Obama.

That wasn't a national-scale analysis, if you bothered to click through - it made specific claims about margins of victory in swing states:

"Obama easily won the youth vote nationally, 67 percent to 30 percent, with young voters proving the decisive difference in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to an analysis by the Center for Research and Information on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. Obama won at least 61 percent of the youth vote in four of those states, and if Romney had achieved a 50-50 split, he could have flipped those states to his column, the study said."
posted by dialetheia at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [19 favorites]

crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women, etc.
posted by indubitable at 5:54 PM on February 20, 2016

Yuuuuge. That's the word I'm looking for, yuuuuge. vomit
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:54 PM on February 20, 2016

Richard L. Hasen: Money can’t buy Jeb Bush the White House, but it still skews politics

Money can matter more to the outcomes of congressional and state races because of relative scale. Millions of dollars spent in these contests can swamp the competition and help swing close elections, especially by influencing low-information voters. Merely the threat of such spending gets the attention of candidates, who worry about the next super PAC to line up against them.

Even more significant, big money skews public policy in the direction of the wealthiest donors. In Illinois, a handful of the super-rich, including hedge-fund billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin, played a key role in getting Republican Bruce Rauner elected governor with an agenda to slash government spending, impose term limits and weaken employee unions. Hedge funds have used campaign money and lobbying to block a potential bankruptcy declaration by Puerto Rico that could help its people but hurt bondholders’ interests.

We’re supposed to be in a post-earmark era, yet Congress’s recent must-pass omnibus bill to fund the government was full of special interest deals backed by big spenders. The New York Times reported that “as congressional leaders were hastily braiding together a tax and spending bill of more than 2,000 pages, lobbyists swooped in to add 54 words that temporarily preserved a loophole sought by the hotel, restaurant and gambling industries, along with billionaire Wall Street investors, that allowed them to put real estate in trusts and avoid taxes.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid supported the language, and the company of one of Reid’s top donors admitted to being among those “involved in the discussions with congressional staff members.”

This is how money influences American politics these days. In the wake of Citizens United, donors can spend ever greater sums in ever closer coordination with their supported candidates. Loose campaign finance rules grease the wheels for industry lobbyists to work in the shadows, securing big private benefits in bills the public scarcely pays attention to. The threat of big money scares politicians away from taking positions against the donor class.

The legacy of Citizens United is not about the ultra-wealthy simply buying elections or about politicians on the take. Money can’t buy you Jeb. Instead, we face a subtler but equally pernicious rise of a plutocratic class capturing private benefits for personal gain.

posted by zombieflanders at 5:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

Bernie Sanders is not wrong about the pernicious effects of big money on American politics, but I think it's a Very Good Result that Bush, after raising $160 million, far more (I think) than anyone else has spent, at least on the R side, still couldn't make a dent. It means, a little surprisingly to me at least, that advertising dollars spent do not trump (hah see whut I did etc) everything else.

I hope he at least has the human decency not to go after Bush after he has already dropped out.

No chance of that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

"There's nothing easy about running for President. It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's... beautiful"

What a gross, disgusting, embarrassing bully.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

This Trump speech sounds like a Klan rally.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"It can't be just about what we're going to give to you, it has to be what we're going to build together"

It's not hers or theirs to give. It's ours. Her words betray her true sentiment imho.
posted by ian1977 at 5:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [23 favorites]

That's no coincidence. White nationalist groups have been pretty open about their support for Trump. And he's in South Carolina.
posted by indubitable at 6:00 PM on February 20, 2016

getting_back_on_track articulated my feelings about Secretary Clinton very nicely. I'll go and vote in the general as part of my children about their duties as citizens, and I'll probably vote for Hillary, but I'll have no enthusiasm for it.
posted by wintermind at 6:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I kind of feel like Jeb! dropping out is like I'm a kid stuck in a room with a big scary dog and my mom just left and turned the light off when she went.
posted by sallybrown at 6:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

So, I just got home from Reno, where I spent the morning canvassing for Bernie and serving as a observer for one of the caucuses to ensure that votes were counted correctly.

I sort of thought all the accusations of foul play by Bernie supporters in Iowa about coin flips etc was just sour grapes, but after seeing my Hillary counterpart basically do everything in her power to ensure "her side" won, I'm less certain it's all sour grapes. She screamed at Bernie supporters, told them what they could and could not do (incorrectly), and tried to take over the actual caucus process (and even succeeded for a minute until the chair had had enough). It was just a tense mess. Of course this could have just been a single overzealous person being overzealous, but given some of the other things I'm hearing about Hillary, maybe it's actually business as usual? I hope not - I want to think better of her and her campaign than that.

As far as the Bernie side goes, even though Reno turned out decisively for Bernie, the mood at the campaign office was (understandably) super dejected. I think everybody knew that this was his best chance to build momentum and turn the media narrative about Hillary's inevitability around. I unfortunately think that, barring major scandals, he's a real long shot to win the nomination.
posted by zug at 6:02 PM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

[Dolores Huerta] offered to translate but Bernie Supporters chanted 'English Only'

They didn't want Huerta to translate because she's a partisan Hillary supporter, apparently.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:02 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't want to vote for someone just because 'its their turn.' That isn't how we the American people are supposed to elect a President. I want the best qualified person to be President.

There are people who actually believe that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified for the job and they vote.

And people, even people on the same "side" feel differently about who's best for the job.

Even eight years ago when I supported Obama, I was hopeful he would win, but at the same time I thought Hillary Clinton would have been good for the job too. In my mind, anyone that reaches the end of the process is qualified.
posted by FJT at 6:05 PM on February 20, 2016

Facism is happening as we watch. Crazy.
posted by futz at 6:07 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Even eight years ago when I supported Obama, I was hopeful he would win, but at the same time I thought Hillary Clinton would have been good for the job too. In my mind, anyone that reaches the end of the process is qualified.

Um, Donald Trump? He is the clear frontrunner at the moment.
posted by zug at 6:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

[Dolores Huerta] offered to translate but Bernie Supporters chanted 'English Only'

They didn't want Huerta to translate because she's a partisan Hillary supporter, apparently.

I can think of approximately seventy million better ways to express that than chanting "English only."
posted by Etrigan at 6:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

The video that was posted as proof that I linked to earlier really made it sound like someone was yelling "neutral" not "English-only," but it was definitely short and I'm not sure that's the only thing that was happening. If that happened, it's awful and I don't think most Sanders supporters want people like that on our side.
posted by dialetheia at 6:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Yes, I don't think there's been conclusive proof of the "English-only" accusation though, seeing as how we've only heard it from Hillary supporters. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it's worth getting confirmation of these things.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:15 PM on February 20, 2016

I understand that universal access to college would be helpful for millenials and it's probably a solid long term policy goal even though it's unlikely to receive solid electoral support because voters over and over have slashed funding for university education and are unlikely to reverse that trend.

Social programs that only target a small percentage of voters at any given moment tend to be less than popular because unfortunately Americans seem yo get pissed at the idea of someone getting something that they don't get.

The end result is that the have nots continue to bicker over a declining portion of the pie. Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.
posted by vuron at 6:18 PM on February 20, 2016

Nikki Haley's outfit makes her look like she's made of non-Euclidean geometry.
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.

Just as a data point, and I am not one for paying close attention, I admit, but: I see no such thing. I'm not even sure how you would, without knowing the age of commenters here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Also, and I'm not sure how I missed this one upthread but: disgusTED.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

So what happens to Bush's (hundred million) SuperPAC buxxx now that he's out?
posted by Rhaomi at 6:23 PM on February 20, 2016

Deleted the foray into "well IF this happened ..." because there were some personal insults, and then while I was deleting there were some follow-on comments that were fine but I deleted them because they lost their context and were quoting deleted comments. Feel free to repost with the same points, but avoid directly attacking other MeFites. Sorry, this is moving super-fast.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

He doesn't control it, that's the whole point of a super PAC right? So I assume they'll just redirect the money hose toward Rubio. Or against Trump which is basically the same thing.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:25 PM on February 20, 2016

So what happens to Bush's (hundred million) SuperPAC buxxx now that he's out?

I read somewhere a few days back that he's down to something like $15 million left, so: it's mostly just burned, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 PM on February 20, 2016

So, what happened to Ted Cruz? Aren't evangelicals his base? Shouldn't South Carolina have been a big win for him?
posted by leotrotsky at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2016

Boomers have been described as takers in this very thread stavros.

I am solidly gen X so I tend to get annoyed at both Boomers and Millenials but at the end of the day I realize those are artificial divisions used to separate voting blocks.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Um, Donald Trump? He is the clear frontrunner at the moment.

That's the Republican side. But at the same time, unless Obama is willing to declare a state of emergency if he wins, I really don't see how we can deny that Trump wins the general election if he wins.
posted by FJT at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2016

Social programs that only target a small percentage of voters at any given moment tend to be less than popular because unfortunately Americans seem yo get pissed at the idea of someone getting something that they don't get.

The end result is that the have nots continue to bicker over a declining portion of the pie. Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.

I agree with all of those points! That's why Sanders' programs aren't means-tested, unlike Clinton's; means-tested programs increase resentment and are more likely to be whittled away. Even if people have already gone to college, many of them have or will have children who would benefit from free public tuition, and the entire country benefits from having a competitive, educated labor force. Investing in our intellectual infrastructure instead of expecting our children to bear those spiraling costs is just smart national policy, not "free stuff" - and other countries have already figured that out.

That dynamic is also why Sanders' policies are intended to increase the portion of the pie we're fighting over. I mean, that's the very definition of fighting income inequality. I guess the difference is that he and his supporters still see that dynamic as something that could be changed through (you guessed it!) a political revolution, instead of being fatalistically resigned to the decline of the middle and working classes and accepting that the Reagan revolution will never, ever end.
posted by dialetheia at 6:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

Honest question: would trump be any worse than Cruz?
posted by ian1977 at 6:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I really don't see how we can deny that Trump wins the general election if he wins.

Well, we'll see, but I still have a tiny, foolish, probably-misguided faith in the American people. I don't think if he gets through to the point of getting the nomination as the Republican candidate, no matter who he ends up running against, that the broader electorate would vote for him in sufficient numbers.

But that may just be wishful thinking.

Honest question: would trump be any worse than Cruz?

I honestly think that in many ways, he'd actually be better. Cruz is a religious zealot and a True Believer, while Trump will sing whatever song that gets him the most dinner, and is, as far as he has an ideology, not really much of a conservative at all. But neither would be a happy outcome by any stretch of the imagination: it's the lesser of two very great evils.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:35 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

Agree stavros. Trump has no ideology other than Trump. And quite frankly I could see Trump 'art of the dealing' with a democratic legislature if that happened by some miracle in a couple years.
posted by ian1977 at 6:37 PM on February 20, 2016

The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I can't see Trump sticking around past the first time it gets hard/boring. Cruz would dig in for the apocalypse.
posted by Artw at 6:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I really don't see how we can deny that Trump wins the general election if he wins.

The poll trackers have Hillary beating Trump in a head-to-head race.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 6:38 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I could see Trump quitting *after* he gets the nomination cuz someone gave him the stink eye or something.
posted by ian1977 at 6:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

One way Trump would be worse is his inconsistency, complete unpredictability, and temper issues, I think. You can't have a President that behaves that erratically and is unable to escape pettiness.

Second, as bad as Cruz is, he doesn't seem to have Trump's strain of gross misogyny and tendency to see women as ornamental (and to see women who are not to his taste looks wise as less than human and deserving of hatred).

Third, Trump will surround himself with flatterers and yes men in the administration.

But Cruz will be far more effective at enacting his horrible policies, which outweighs a lot.
posted by sallybrown at 6:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm happy that Bernie is inspiring millenials in a way the Obama inspired voters in 2008 because who you vote for in your 1st election is a primary determinant of your long term voting patterns.

My generation was inspired by Clinton 92, another cohort was inspired by Obama 08, maybe there is another cohort inspired by Sanders or Clinton 16.

I do think that Clinton will need to get a running mate (assuming that her structural advantage wins out) that helps her with millenials (and probably the hispanic vote assuming a Rubiobot brokered convention) but that is possible.

Warren would be a solid VP pick but there are definitely people that will not vote for 2 females on a ticket which is sad and disgusting but true.
posted by vuron at 6:41 PM on February 20, 2016

In a field of horribles and monsters, Ted Cruz is the worst and scariest.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit

I think there might well be a large number of reasonable Republicans who think the same way, who might not vote at all if Trump were the nominee. And I think the RNC knows this, and that's part of why they are in panic mode.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:42 PM on February 20, 2016

I also agree with that sallybrown. Trump will continue to barf out hateful nonsense. I think his over the top ridiculousness might leave him more toothless than a weasely snake like Cruz who will actually have a coalition of republicans that hold their nose to work with him.
posted by ian1977 at 6:43 PM on February 20, 2016

Having talked with lawyers who argued cases against Cruz as a lawyer the consensus is that a) he's insanely smart, b) that he's a true believer to a large degree and c) he's basically a sociopath.
posted by vuron at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Warren would be a solid VP pick

I cannot imagine Warren would want to run on a ticket with Clinton.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

Yeah, Trump is like Jason. Cruz is like the girl from The Ring.
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

So if Jeb endorses Rubio (or Kasich) does it change anything? Or is he so far behind he has no supporters left?
posted by mmoncur at 6:45 PM on February 20, 2016

I can't see warren being her pick. She will pick a centrist white dude to help soothe the fears of patriarchal fair weather dems.
posted by ian1977 at 6:45 PM on February 20, 2016

"The screaming you hear now across the Potomac is the Washington cartel in full terror that the conservative grassroots are rising up." Ted Cruz, everybody.

why are these guys always going on about a CARTEL...is there some non-antitrust meaning I'm missing?
posted by sallybrown at 6:46 PM on February 20, 2016

I agree. I work in a republican dominated industry and most are horrified by Trump. Several have said they would either not vote, vote a third party or consider (gasp) a democrat. They are appalled by the blatant bigotry
posted by madamjujujive at 6:46 PM on February 20, 2016

Getting endorsed by Jeb might be like getting a valentine from Ralph Wiggum.
posted by ian1977 at 6:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

I'm not sure that Jeb! can endorse Rubio; the vast majority of his attack ads up to now (in my region at least) were against Rubio. I'd imagine he'd go for Kasich who's the last one left in the "don't I seem* reasonable and statesmenlike?" camp.

(*might not actually be true)
posted by TwoStride at 6:47 PM on February 20, 2016

I think given the Sanders insurgency that she has to pick someone with impeccable progressive credentials, agreed that it will probably be a man though.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2016

The last time I saw a politician with a weird face give a speech like this, a bunch of Jedi got killed
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

So if Jeb endorses Rubio (or Kasich) does it change anything? Or is he so far behind he has no supporters left?

Even if every single Jeb! voter in SC voted Rubio today, Rubio would still be losing to Trump by 4%

If it was Romney winning with this margin, everyone would be talking about how he sealed it up today. No one has ever won both NH and SC and NOT been the Republican nominee. Don't let the "Rubio won with 3rd place" talk fool you, Trump has a COMMANDING position.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit

I think there might well be a large number of reasonable Republicans who think the same way, who might not vote at all if Trump were the nominee. And I think the RNC knows this, and that's part of why they are in panic mode.

She also said she was still holding out hope for someone else to jump into the race (even as a third party candidate). Most of the conservatives I know are of the old fashioned Preppy Handbook type (all for Jeb!) and they have just been kind of struck silent with horror over the past few months. Nobody seems to know what to do.
posted by sallybrown at 6:49 PM on February 20, 2016

And probably from Ohio or Virginia -- if the Democrat nominee can rely on taking one or both of those states it becomes increasingly difficult for the Republican to find a path to an electoral college majority.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:50 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Warren needs to stay a senator, making her VP would be a waste. I'd also like to have a VP candidate young enough to run in eight years and Warren is almost as old as Clinton.
posted by octothorpe at 6:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

'That ginger mongrel has laid bare our racism and xenophobia!'
posted by ian1977 at 6:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think given the Sanders insurgency that she has to pick someone with impeccable progressive credentials

I disagree. Hillary can not wait for the moment she can resume giving the middle finger to progressives after the Sanders campaign ends. In any event, she'll need to tack to the right to win over Trump (?) supporters. What a lovely sight that will be.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Second, as bad as Cruz is, he doesn't seem to have Trump's strain of gross misogyny

I think that Cruz's dominionist beliefs and commitment to bringing them into the political world would mean far worse things for women, were he president, than a Trump (horrifying as he is) presidency would bring.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 PM on February 20, 2016 [11 favorites]

Yeah I can see a lot of the Bush voters going to Kasich which continues to keep the "establishment lane" split between the two. Plus I suspect much of Carson's vote will end up migrating to Cruz if Carson drops out (which who knows when that will happen, the man is not exactly in it to win it) so that will continue to divide any potential anti-Trump compromise voting bloc.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:52 PM on February 20, 2016

"The Bush supporter interviewed on MSNBC who said she'd vote for Sanders or Clinton over Trump hoped me a little bit"

My die-hard GOP mother, who has hated Hillary since 1992, told me that if Trump, Cruz, OR Rubio was the nominee, she would vote Hillary, which is basically the same thing as the Pope announcing he's converting to Hinduism. She has once or twice in the past not voted in a presidential election if the candidate the GOP offered was particularly bad, but she said that any of those three would be bad enough for the country that she would actually vote for their opponent to prevent them from winning. She said she basically feels the party has abandoned her and there's no party available to moderately conservative voters who aren't interested in culture-war issues but who object to the Democrats' fiscal policies. (She is also making Marge Simpson disapproval noises every time the GOP field talks about race or immigration.)

(She said she didn't know much about Sanders yet because she'd been following her party's primary more closely, but would consider him if he ended up the nominee. She just already knows Hillary.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I think Carson is staying in at Trumps request.
posted by ian1977 at 6:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

At least if Trump wins, he might have the White House gold-plated. That would be something, eh?
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 6:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I've heard a fair amount of speculation that Clinton is looking at Julian Castro as potential VP
posted by madamjujujive at 6:59 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hillary can not wait for the moment she can resume giving the middle finger to progressives after the Sanders campaign ends. In any event, she'll need to tack to the right to win over Trump (?) supporters.

Maybe. I'm trying to be optimistic about her. And I think it's less that she needs to tack "to the right" so much as tack in an anti-establishment direction -- "populist", if you will. And as Sanders shows, populism doesn't need to mean right-wing Teapartyism or Trumpestry.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm shocked that Jeb! is out. I assumed he would be in till past Super Tuesday. Shit is getting real!
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2016

For me it's all about her VP pick now. And winning in 2 years. Incrementalism for the meh.
posted by ian1977 at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have a feeling that by tomorrow Jeb! will no longer be running for President. Good times.

Was out so I missed all the fun, but at least I can enjoy an ITYS! Bye Jeb! You and your family deserve all the shit Trump gave ya.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's fun to imagine Barbara slashing her oil portraits of him, smashing his busts, etc, tonight, in a rage of dynastic disappointment
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:08 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

Steve Kornacki says that Trump could potentially win all 50 delegates from SC tonight. Which is pretty shocking given he only got 33% of the vote. It's not winner take all but he's winning virtually everywhere.
posted by Justinian at 7:09 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

A political reporter for Buzzfeed has two neutral sources confirming Dolores Huerta's claims.
posted by markkraft at 7:15 PM on February 20, 2016

Yuck. Not good.
posted by Justinian at 7:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

"It's fun to imagine Barbara slashing her oil portraits of him, smashing his busts, etc, tonight, in a rage of dynastic disappointment"

So what you're saying is Barbara Bush is all like this tonight?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yeah, Trump is rumbling to an impressive win.

It's really hard to see how Cruz can successfully win the nomination without doing better against evangelicals. Like 538 indicated there just isn't enough winner take all states that he can safely win the nomination.

Rubiobot basically has to be happy that he's the consensus mainstream pick because even if he can't win outright he can always win a brokered convention (unless they do something weird like draft Romney). Basically he needs to lock up the Bush and Kasich voters since both are effectively dead and continue sleepwalking through third place finishes. Actually Cruz staying in kinda helps Rubio because it helps prevent Trump from becoming too dominant.

But it will be very interesting if Trump leads going into a convention and then party shanks him because I think his vanity will compel him to run as a third party candidate.
posted by vuron at 7:17 PM on February 20, 2016

Wow... these are some surprisingly tasty teardrops!
posted by markkraft at 7:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Honest question: would trump be any worse than Cruz?

Well, I guess it depends on which scenario you prefer.

□ Brave New World
□ 1984
□ The Hunger Games
□ The Drowned World
□ A Clockwork Orange
□ The Handmaid's Tale
□ On the Beach
□ Fahrenheit 451
□ It Can't Happen Here

Pick three.
posted by chortly at 7:18 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

Whoa. That Jeb! tweet...
posted by defenestration at 7:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

As long as Barbara doesn't destroy Jr's nudes and dog paintings. Everyone deserves a legacy.
posted by joeyh at 7:20 PM on February 20, 2016

Bush supporters going to Kasich would probably just be a spoiler for Cruz. Trump wins that equation. If the establishment republicans really don't want trump to win then Kasich, Bush and Carson need to drop out and endorse....I dunno. Rubio?

Sure. It's a tragedy of the commons* though -- everyone knows that the anti-Trump vote needs to coalesce around some non-Trump candidate to keep him out, but they can't agree on which person is the best (most electable) one to coordinate on.

As a neutral observer, I'm not sure myself whom they should choose. Rubio's got the youthfulness, charisma and demographic outreach to Latinos (I'm skeptical about that last point myself but I think Republicans really believe that pushing a brown guy to the front will magically make PoC forget that the party itself is white supremacist). As I've said before, I think Kasich probably holds up a bit better in the general just because he has some executive experience and generally sounds like he knows what he's talking about. But the point is, there's not a clearly superior non-Trump candidate.

Cruz further confounds the issue as he's also apparently unacceptable to elites and moderates in the Party for somewhat different reasons. So they really need to find a candidate who can quickly vacuum up 30-35% of the vote and take enough delegates to at least get a plurality that can be quickly crowned at the convention.

I'd put money on a contested Republican convention after tonight's results, to be honest. Which is the best result for me personally as someone who loves a good political train wreck; as a progressive, because anything that keeps the Republicans squabbling as long as possible is great; and as an American for the same reason.

Pass the popcorn, please.

In passing, it's deliciously ironic that the party opposed to any kind of environmental action is itself being destroyed by a tragedy of the commons
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

BTW for any who may not have heard it, Julian Castro's speech at last Dem convention.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:21 PM on February 20, 2016

Tweet from September 2015?
posted by futz at 7:21 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

markkraft: "Wow... these are some surprisingly tasty teardrops!"

Holy shit. That's just so pathetic and creepy.
posted by octothorpe at 7:22 PM on February 20, 2016

Imagine having to endure family thanksgiving when Papa Bush and Barbara Bush point to Dubya and say to Jeb "Why couldn't you be more like your brother" I mean the absolute soul crushing nature of being negative compared to your fuckup of a brother must suck.

It's probably like what Regulus Black had to deal with in regards to being a virtual nobody in comparison to Sirius and Bellatrix.
posted by vuron at 7:22 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Earlier today, I wrote "Nate Silver extrapolated a few minutes ago, based on what's left, and is predicting about a 5-6 point win for Clinton."

He wrote that when the vote was about 25% in, and when Clinton was only ahead by about 2.6%. And now, she's at 5.3% with 89% reporting.

More Nate Silver badassery, folx.
posted by markkraft at 7:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Uh, I'm not so familiar with how Twitter works but aren't those tweets from like 6 months ago?
posted by Justinian at 7:23 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

How is a tweet from last September relevant to this thread. Did you think he tweeted that tonite?
posted by futz at 7:28 PM on February 20, 2016

If my candidate had been the presumed nominee of my party for a good eight years, I wouldn't be exactly crowing about a record of 1% victory, 21% loss and 5% victory in the first three primary elections.

We're all on the same side ultimately. I want Clinton to up her game because it looks like she's going up against one of (fascist / theocrat / possible robot) in the general. Not seeing it happen yet.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Aren't tweets all jumbled up now?
posted by ian1977 at 7:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

So the next Republican debate is the 25th on CNN. I don't feel like I can predict where this race is going until after I see it. Republicans have had a tendency to go for electability in the end, which would mean Rubio, but I have no idea if that is holding true this time around. Rubio needs to prove he can stand up to Trump and he needs to prove he can survive whatever stabs in the back Cruz comes up with. Electability may not be enough this time around. If Trump remains the undoubted "alpha male" on stage, I think he's gonna win. I think Cruz will endorse Rubio when it's done, Trump is too much a fake conservative for Cruz, so maybe that will be what gives the contest to Rubio.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

no, actually donald trump just broke jeb bush's personal space-time continuum
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:33 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

unless they do something weird like draft Romney)

Peoples belief that Romney could ever get another bite at the apple astonishes me. The sort of money and stakes involved in the presidential race - that's not a place where you field known losers. I think with the era of the Super PAC we're going to see that even somewhat extend to the primaries before long, but there's no question in my mind that nobody will ever get to piss away hundreds of millions in a nation-wide effort more than once.
posted by phearlez at 7:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

A political reporter for Buzzfeed has two neutral sources confirming Dolores Huerta's claims.

Snopes rates it "false" and links to video evidence.
posted by dialetheia at 7:35 PM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

Cruz is a megalomanic with his own agenda, truly believes he was called by God to usher America through the Tribulations, who has worked his entire life solely to become president and bottomless billionaire backing. He's not dropping out till the convention.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:36 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Firewall State: If the Republican campaign is to return to normality, it will do so in South Carolina

Since we're going back in time.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I do think Cruz will wait until the last possible second, yeah.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 20, 2016

Clinton seems focused on doing what it takes to avoid a 2008 repeat (which seems like her campaign advisers have focused on) and are positioned to contest every state rather than risk being caucused to death ala Obama 08.

A win in Nevada will almost certainly stop some of the bleeding and then you have SC where she's still a massive favorite mainly due to her dominance among minority voters. Solid wins in NV and SC will basically strengthen her position going into Super Tuesday. Bernie is by no means out of the running but his chances of negating her strength before the big Super Tuesday states get to vote are running out.

Yes Hillary has significant problems moving forward but the general direction of the campaign seems to indicate that while it certainly won't be a coronation it's unlikely to be a repeat of 08 either. Considering that Sanders has repeatedly said that he's going to support the eventual nominee no matter what it just remains to be seen if the Bernie supporters that currently say that Clinton is a deal breaker will backtrack for the general election or if Stein will get a large number of protest votes in solidly blue and solidly red states.
posted by vuron at 7:40 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Bush speech is about to re-run on MSNBC, FYI, if you missed it the first time.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

"[Cruz] has worked his entire life solely to become president"

And yet somehow failed to notice he was a Canadian citizen until 2013, that's the part that boggles my mind.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Maybe Bush 41 could try to pull a Grover Cleveland.
posted by FJT at 7:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

The Bush speech is about to re-run on MSNBC, FYI, if you missed it the first time.

Thanks, I'm there. I haven't enjoyed a brutal loss this much since we voted Santorum out in PA.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:44 PM on February 20, 2016

Etrigan: I can think of approximately seventy million better ways to express that than chanting "English only."

Then breathe easy, because it's becoming clear that that didn't happen.

Here's a live stream from the caucus in question. It looks like what happened (starting around 53:33 in the stream) is someone in the audience says there needs to be a translator for those in the audience who only speak Spanish. The moderator says that the first Spanish speaker to get to the stage can do it (54:00). Confusion starts as Dolores Huerta starts heading for the stage, while you can hear someone else in the crowd saying "She's a surrogate!" (~54:13) There's confusion in the crowd, and you can hear someone shouting "neutral!" (~54:24-33) By now, Huerta is on stage and the moderator says "we already have one translator" but an alternative translator who is a Sanders supporter climbs up to the stage (54:37). The moderator seems kind of flustered, says he imagines about half the crowd speaks Spanish and says that if Huerta says anything pro-Hillary, they'd be able to catch it (55:04). There's some "come on!" from the crowd and someone speaking with the moderator on-stage (55:12) before the moderator says "We're going forward in English only" (55:17) and asks people to help translate for anyone next to them who doesn't speak English (55:34).

Here's an alternate video that captures different crowd noise, looks to be from somewhere in the 54:13-37ish range of the stream from above. You can hear the "neutral!" chanter. The original poster reportedly claimed in the now-deleted Facebook post that had the video that Sanders supporters were demanding "ENGLISH ONLY!"

Obviously, there's no way to say from these videos that nobody in the crowd was saying those things. However, there have been other witness statements from Erin Cruz (towards the bottom) who said there was a "neutral" chant since Huerta was a vocal Clinton supporter and dressed head to toe in Clinton gear, but that the moderator was the only one who said "English only," and Susan Sarandon, who was also there and confirmed those points. Also, in an interview with CNN (see the 8:16 p.m. update on this page), Huerta's recap of the story no longer has anything about people chanting "English only," and seems to match what's shown in the videos.

There may have been some individual person in the crowd at one point who yelled "English only!" and wasn't captured on the videos. But it's pretty clear that the Sanders camp wasn't insisting on English only, since they were sending up a translator of their own, but rather that some were concerned about possible bias specifically from Huerta being the sole translator. To cast this story as a crowd of racist Sanders supporters chanting English only is pretty clearly misdescribing what actually took place (so much so that Snopes has already rated it an unqualified false) and I hope those rumors won't continue to spread.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [34 favorites]

Maybe Bush 41 could try to pull a Grover Cleveland.

If he tried I worry he'd pretty soon be pulling a William Henry Harrison.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Jebs face looks like it wants it's glasses back.
posted by futz at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016

Re: Ted Cruz's Canadian citizenship:

That is kind of nuts to me too. Like, what do you mean you went to Harvard Law School and never bothered to think maybe I am also a citizen of a country which has jus soli citizenship laws and on whose soil I was indeed born?
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

He's got his brother's eyes. Bet that's why he started the campaign with glasses.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:46 PM on February 20, 2016

More on Bush's insane cash burn: Inside Jeb's $150 Million Failure.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wow. That was sad and pathetic.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:48 PM on February 20, 2016

More on Bush's insane cash burn: Inside Jeb's $150 Million Failure.

Shock and awwwww
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:52 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jeb's son George Prescott Bush will probably be the next major hope to establish a dynastic ruling family. Unfortunately he's got a pretty decent shot as he's much more telegenic than his dad or uncle and he'll play solidly among Latino voters.
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on February 20, 2016

I wonder how many of the candidates wives are truly on board with their husbands presidential ambitions?
posted by futz at 7:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Schlock and naw!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

There may have been some individual person in the crowd at one point who yelled "English only!" and wasn't captured on the videos.

I totally wouldn't be surprised if that happened. And I know everyone's spirits are high just right after this primary, but I believe her claims that someone yelled at her "English only!" It shouldn't matter if this was a Sanders or Clinton supporter. That it even happened is shameful and should be called out.
posted by FJT at 7:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

There absolutely should have been neutral translators at every caucus site. This is example #10,000 of how caucuses are poorly organized and undemocratic.
posted by dialetheia at 7:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [21 favorites]

Trump's crowd is rabid
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:58 PM on February 20, 2016

Here's a summary of the translation fiasco thing from ThinkProgress that basically reiterates the narrative above.

I will say that it is kind of a fuckup for the Democratic Party that they didn't make sure to have translators arranged for the caucuses. Having been in contentious / political meetings where some participants spoke only English, some only Spanish, and some were bilingual, I can attest that it is really frustrating and unfair (and unhelpful) to have non-neutral translating happening.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I wonder how many of the candidates wives are truly on board with their husbands presidential ambitions?"

I'm dead curious to see how Melania Trump plays with Trump supporters as the candidate families start getting more exposure. I mean, she seems like a nice person, smarter than Trump, sophisticated and cosmopolitan. But I wonder how a multi-lingual immigrant is going to be received by angry xenophobes who want to build a giant wall on the Mexican border.

Obviously she's also his third wife but I don't think GOP voters actually care about how many times a candidate has been married and divorced; I think divorce as an issue bothers evangelical voters but divorce-as-personal-history-for-a-candidate has never seemed to matter in my lifetime. She's also 20 years younger than he is but Trump will just announce that that's because he's winning and that will cut off that entire relatively irritating line of inquiry.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:01 PM on February 20, 2016

Jeb's son George Prescott Bush will probably be the next major hope to establish a dynastic ruling family.

It's like he was bred specifically for the task. And how unoriginal are the Bush family naming conventions? I took the liberty of seeding a Markov chain with the Bush family tree, meet your future presidential candidates of 2088-2116, America:

Sheldon Neil Bush
Walker Prescott Bush
Barbara W. Bush
Walk J. Bush
Samuel G. Prescott
NeilWalker Prescott
NeilPrescott G. Bush
George J. Bush
John Prescott Bush
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:02 PM on February 20, 2016 [11 favorites]

Trump kicking Bush while he is down - that short-fingered vulgarian doesn't even have a whiff of noblesse oblige about him, it's salt the earth all the way.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

...Sheldon?
posted by saturday_morning at 8:04 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I mean, she seems like a nice person, smarter than Trump, sophisticated and cosmopolitan. But I wonder how a multi-lingual immigrant is going to be received by angry xenophobes who want to build a giant wall on the Mexican border.

She's European. They only hate the more melanin-rich kind of immigrant.
posted by Justinian at 8:06 PM on February 20, 2016

By 2116 I bet we will have a Hillary Hussein Bush Sr.
posted by ian1977 at 8:08 PM on February 20, 2016

...Sheldon?

Prescott Sheldon Bush was the fascist that tried to overthrow Roosevelt. Bush 41's dad. The generator liked that one for some reason.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:11 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wouldn't be shocked if the Bush family were raising generations of Sarduakar in the swamps of Florida and the deserts of West Texas. After all gotta have the threat of overwhelming force in case the Clinton family tries to lead a rebellion of CHOAM.

I wonder what organizations the Spacing Guild and Sisterhood will come out of
posted by vuron at 8:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

There's a JEB Jr?!

That family tree is really interesting.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:20 PM on February 20, 2016

That it even happened is shameful and should be called out.

There is no evidence it DID happen, and plenty of reason for Hillary's supporters to keep insisting that it did, though. Which is again, why people don't like her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:20 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

Trump won all 50 SC delegates. When is the next contest when Rubio or Cruz will win a majority much less all?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jon Favreau ‏@jonfavs 16m16 minutes ago
Marco Rubio's gonna do five Sunday shows to celebrate a comeback that netted him ZERO delegates 🍾🎉
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

There is no evidence it DID happen, and plenty of reason for Hillary's supporters to keep insisting that it did, though. Which is again, why people don't like her.

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. In the confusion of the event, somebody or somebodies could have yelled that out. Now, I completely believe she may have been mistaken in thinking a Sanders' supporter did that. But, as I said it doesn't matter which supporter it was. I've had assholes throughout my life making fun of my friends for having different names or not being able to speak English. And I've worked at call centers in California where when people find out my foreign sounding name or hear one of my coworker's accents, they loudly say they want to speak to a "real" American. So I am going to be just a little bit more sensitive about this and going to believe someone when they say that, even if I don't necessarily agree with their politics.
posted by FJT at 8:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

"As America’s bridges, roads, and other infrastructure dangerously deteriorate from decades of neglect, there is a mounting sense of urgency that it is time to build a giant wall."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:29 PM on February 20, 2016

I hope those rumors won't continue to spread.

Too late.

CNN
WaPo
Yahoo
HuffPo
Vox
etc.

Steinem, Lewis, now Huerta... which progressive icon of days gone by will be next to disgrace themselves with some ridiculous statement in an attempt to boost the Hillary campaign?

But the media is instead going to use this as another opportunity to lecture America about the misbehaved Bernie Bros.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:29 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

There is a tremendous difference between someone yelling it out and "Bernie supporters chanted..."
posted by Drinky Die at 8:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [16 favorites]

John Lewis is one of the greatest living American heroes. Talking about how he has disgraced himself is not helping your cause and is one of the reasons people don't like your guy.
posted by Justinian at 8:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

You can quibble around the use of the word "disgrace" or whatever but he did a really bad thing in promoting FUD on someone who fought for civil rights for what appears to be part of a campaign narrative.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [15 favorites]

I have no real opinion either way, but it wasn't just 'Bernie bros' who had an issue with Lewis's comments.
posted by dialetheia at 8:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [13 favorites]

There is a tremendous difference between someone yelling it out and "Bernie supporters chanted..."

Yes, she's a Clinton supporter with her own sets of bias and seriously Sanders supporters and Sanders are blameless in this. I am just extra sensitive to something like this and would not be surprised that someone yelled it out in the room.
posted by FJT at 8:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Talking about how he has disgraced himself is not helping your cause and is one of the reasons people don't like your guy.

And running a dishonest whisper campaign reminiscent of George W. v. John McCain in South Carolina is why others don't like Hilary.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:39 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

What "whisper campaign" has Hillary run that comes anywhere close to what GWB did to McCain in South Carolina?
posted by sallybrown at 8:41 PM on February 20, 2016

Carson campaign is still in a strong position, they tied for second in the delegate haul in SC.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:42 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

Justinian, I'm not a Bernie supporter (but I can forgive you for that assumption since this is a campaign season and I'm attacking Hillary-related entities). I'm not a Democrat, nor a member of any political party. I just really despise what Hillary stands for and the way that her campaign is being run.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

What "whisper campaign" has Hillary run that comes anywhere close to what GWB did to McCain in South Carolina?

I don't really know how to compare "He fathered an illegitimate black child," and "He is lying about having worked for civil rights." I'll leave that to someone less drunk.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

When did Hillary or her "whisper campaign" accuse Bernie of lying about having worked for civil rights? That's a rather exaggerated depiction of what John Lewis actually said - unless you're referring to something else.

Attacking a candidate's spouse and young child by stoking racism against her is always going to be way further out of bounds to me than attacking the actual person who chose to run.
posted by sallybrown at 8:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

When did Hillary or her "whisper campaign" accuse Bernie of lying about having worked for civil rights?

I'm not sure what else you can conclude the message is when he comes out and says he has no memory of Bernie at the time and then Capeheart grabs the photo story and holds on with dear life to that sinking ship. Dirty politics doesn't work by having the candidate straight up make an accusation, it's all whispered bullshit.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

When did Hillary or her "whisper campaign" accuse Bernie of lying about having worked for civil rights?

First there were Lewis' comments, which he later had to walk back and clarify because so many people interpreted him as saying that Sanders was lying about his background. Then around the same time, this story about civil rights-era photos being wrongly attributed to Sanders was broken by a reporter whose partner has worked for the Clinton State department and Foundation since 2004: "This picture right here that they’re sending around, trying to say that he’s been in the trenches, fighting for us, fighting for civil rights?” Capehart said. “That’s not Bernie Sanders. That’s Bruce Rappaport, a fellow student activist at the University of Chicago."

His story turned out to be completely false - somebody had requested that the University of Chicago library change the captions on the photos from Sanders to Bruce Rappaport in mid-January. Capehart still refused to retract the story even after the photographer confirmed that it was Sanders (and Capehart didn't contact the photographer before running with the story). That's all covered in this piece: The Jonathan Capehart saga, or why progressives don't trust the media. Taken together, many people believe that the Clinton campaign is trying to create an aura of doubt around Sanders' documented civil rights background.
posted by dialetheia at 9:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [21 favorites]

careless bullshit whispers
posted by ian1977 at 9:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

Yeah, John Lewis's comments were a dick move, but nowhere near GWB vs. John McCain level. Really, it was more of a swiftboat-lite.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:01 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

To me, Lewis was implying "Bernie didn't do anything big in the movement, he was a nobody. I never met him because he wasn't important, he wasn't a big leader like everyone is making him out to be." Not that "Bernie is lying to you despite the photo evidence that's all over the internet" which would be an incredibly dumb accusation.
posted by sallybrown at 9:02 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

And I mean, I still have a lot of questions about how the birther whispers gained momentum during the 2008 primary too.

Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

Not that "Bernie is lying to you despite the photo evidence that's all over the internet" which would be an incredibly dumb accusation.

Enough people took it that way that he had to clarify a few days later: "I was responding to a reporter’s question who asked me to assess Sen. Sanders’ civil rights record. I said that when I was leading and was at the center of pivotal actions within the Civil Rights Movement, I did not meet Sen. Bernie Sanders at any time. The fact that I did not meet him in the movement does not mean I doubted that Sen. Sanders participated in the Civil Rights Movement, neither was I attempting to disparage his activism. Thousands sacrificed in the 1960s whose names we will never know, and I have always given honor to their contribution."
posted by dialetheia at 9:05 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I find that Obama whisper campaign way more offensive (again, because it stokes racism against somebody, especially someone who probably gets threats against his life on the reg). Still not as bad as bringing the candidate's child into things, but that was a clear case of bad faith on the part of the Clinton campaign, not even a surrogate.
posted by sallybrown at 9:06 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't know why it has to be compared against other whisper campaigns to be problematic. The mysteriously changed photo captions and the Capehart story are the most troubling parts to me.
posted by dialetheia at 9:07 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

As of 5 hours ago, Jeb Bush's Facebook site was encouraging people to buy Jeb! merch. The link to Jeb's dropping-out speech appeared 3 hours later. Womp-womp
posted by dhens at 9:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear

Ugh, if Sanders really wanted to decrease Clinton's popularity with black voters, he should really try to find a subtle way to remind them of the 2008 primary season.

(which, as ugly as this one's gotten, is nowhere near as horrible. It's a wonder I voted for anyone)
posted by dinty_moore at 9:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 20m20 minutes ago
"@mikeliberation: This is the best reaction shot I've ever seen lol #Trump2016"
posted by Drinky Die at 9:18 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

which, as ugly as this one's gotten, is nowhere near as horrible

Yeah, I'm surprised a lot of people seem to think it's been worse this year. It may just be that I'm less personally invested this time around but 2008 seemed off the charts worse in comparison to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

More on those Capehart details here.

I agree, 2008 was still much uglier. I can't remember how far into things we were by the time the "he's not a Muslim, as far as I know..." stuff started, though.
posted by dialetheia at 9:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I dunno, maybe its because I'm a Sanders supporter and I'm on the losing end, but I feel like the primary is much more divisive this time around. At this point, I feel like establishment Democrats and portions of the Democratic base hate me at a personal level.

Those groups still want me to vote for their preferred candidate in the general, though .... which I will.
posted by eagles123 at 9:34 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

I can't remember how far into things we were by the time the "he's not a Muslim, as far as I know..." stuff started, though.

Looking at the timestamp of the Guardian article, that was a few weeks after Super Tuesday. So, nowhere near the end of the eventual delegate-and-superdelegate slog.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:37 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I could be wrong, but a lot of the 2008 ugliness was Hilary taking pages straight from the Republican playbook then too, was it not? It's not like this is her first go round, it doesn't take much at all for her to reach into the dirty tricks playbook, and if she's feeling really cornered, to the Lee Atwater stuff.

That's how she works, it's how she ran State see: the email scandal; and it's how a Clinton III White House will work.

That's why a lot of people don't trust her, even on her own side. She's a flawed candidate with 30 years of bad publicity, much of which is richly deserved. I don't want to see President Trump as much as anyone else, but Hilary Clinton as the only viable choice makes me ashamed to punch the 'D' ballot.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:41 PM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

She's like a less liberal, less charming version of Nixon.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:44 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

If she's all we've got to run against Trump then we may be mega-fucked.
posted by Artw at 9:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

I could be wrong, but a lot of the 2008 ugliness was Hilary taking pages straight from the Republican playbook then too, was it not? It's not like this is her first go round, it doesn't take much at all for her to reach into the dirty tricks playbook, and if she's feeling really cornered, to the Lee Atwater stuff.

To be fair, the sexism against Clinton seemed much worse in 2008, too. As often as Clinton is called calculating, hard, emotionless, ect in the media these days, it seemed to happen ten times as often in 2008, with incredibly unflattering pictures to boot.

I mean, remember when there was the photo op where she broke down into tears as a way to show her 'feminine' side? What the fuck, America. What the actual fuck.

Clinton is a really a man, Bill would actually lead, Clinton is calculating, Obama is a Muslim, Obama has a crazy preacher, Obama isn't 'really' Black.... add in Prop 8 and the entire election cycle was a crash course in how to completely fail in intersectionality.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

... So... what your saying is that I should be stocking up on cans of dog food and a can opener for the impending radioactive post-apocalyptic hellscape?
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:49 PM on February 20, 2016

I'm sure I would metabolize thirty years of being firehosed with heinous sexist bullshit and loathing with effortless grace and dignity.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:51 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

At this point, I feel like establishment Democrats and portions of the Democratic base hate me at a personal level.

That's a good point - the general temperature feels similar but I don't feel like there was nearly as much anger and resentment from the establishment towards Obama in 2008 as there has been towards the grassroots this year. It certainly has made me feel much less welcome in the party. Part of it has to be that the DNC stayed out of it almost entirely in 2008, whereas now it's run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was Clinton's campaign chair in 2008.
posted by dialetheia at 9:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [12 favorites]

... So... what your saying is that I should be stocking up on cans of dog food and a can opener for the impending radioactive post-apocalyptic hellscape?

My menu is TVP, multivitamins, and lots of different flavoring packets.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:56 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm sure I would metabolize thirty years of being firehosed with heinous sexist bullshit and loathing with effortless grace and dignity.

Wait, are you saying that enduring sexist attacks justifies stuff like smearing Obama as "not a Muslim as far as I know" and circulating pictures of him in Indonesian dress?
posted by dialetheia at 9:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

... So... what your saying is that I should be stocking up on cans of dog food and a can opener for the impending radioactive post-apocalyptic hellscape?

Yes! The good news is that there is probably a buy one get one for 50% off deal somewhere. Remember when it used to be buy one get one free?
posted by futz at 9:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I can think that Hillary Clinton has been through more bullshit and subjected to more irrational hatred than any other living politician without it necessarily following that that justifies any particular thing she's done.

Sure, but I don't see any other way to interpret your words than to characterize the smears you were responding to as not acting with "effortless grace and dignity" in the face of sexism. Maybe I misinterpreted the context of your statement - what was the behavior that you were characterizing that way if not the smears?
posted by dialetheia at 10:12 PM on February 20, 2016

Sexism exists and Hillary has been thru hell because of sexism != Hillary is the right candidate

Racism exists and Ben Carson has been thru hell because of racism != Ben Carson is the right candidate.
posted by ian1977 at 10:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

Merely pointing out that politicians are politicians, and politics is politics.

The bulk of this thread has been one long series of attacks on Hillary Clinton, but when it comes down to it, we are dealing with two generally well-meaning but disingenuous career polticians / sausage makers, surrounded by arguably less honest, career-minded individuals, trying to get and maintain their own proximity to power... all trying to put a shine on their particular ball of mud. (Mud perhaps being a bit generous, really.)

The idea that getting rid of Citizens United or campaign finance reform is somehow going to fix the essential dishonest nature of the game is kind of naive. It's like going to a magic show, expecting to see actual magic.
posted by markkraft at 10:13 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Merely pointing out that politicians are politicians, and politics is politics.

I am totally appalled that anyone would interpret her comments about Obama "not being a Muslim, as far as I know" as just "politics." Gross.
posted by dialetheia at 10:15 PM on February 20, 2016 [13 favorites]

two generally well-meaning but disingenuous career polticians / sausage makers, surrounded by arguably less honest, career-minded individuals, trying to get and maintain their own proximity to power... all trying to put a shine on their particular ball of mud.

Really nice try on the false equivalency, too.
posted by dialetheia at 10:15 PM on February 20, 2016 [19 favorites]

Basically I'm really tired of hearing people say "I just don't LIKE her, she's such a POLITICIAN," and I'm nervous that Sanders supporters, in their eagerness to propel their candidate to victory in the primaries, are taking a real scorched earth approach towards somebody who would be a decent, if flawed, first female president.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

It's incredibly ironic that you'd use that argument to implicitly defend a completely disgusting insinuation she made about her previous Democratic opponent, then.
posted by dialetheia at 10:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

>That's a good point - the general temperature feels similar but I don't feel like there was nearly >as much anger and resentment from the establishment towards Obama in 2008 as there has >been towards the grassroots this year. It certainly has made me feel much less welcome in the >party. Part of it has to be that the DNC stayed out of it almost entirely in 2008, whereas now it's >run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was Clinton's campaign chair in 2008.

It's not just the DNC, but yeah, I half expect the Democrats to become the first party in history to actively ask people not to vote for their candidate.

Either way, I just have a bad feeling about how this played out. The 2008 primary might have been ugly, but the party came together pretty quick after it was over. This time around seems like it might do lasting damage.

A really selfish part of me is almost glad Sanders looks like he is going to lose because it means the movements supporting him won't get as much of the blame if things go as bad over the next 8 years as I think they might.

Who am I kidding, though, the establishment will still find a way to blame Sanders supporters for not voting for their candidates or something.
posted by eagles123 at 10:17 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wasn't trying to implicitly defend anything. I've been following Clinton's career since I was a teenager in the 90s and I think the way she's been treated by the media and the public has been, oftentimes, gross and awful. I'd appreciate being taken at my word when I'm trying to explain the context I'm speaking out of.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:24 PM on February 20, 2016 [8 favorites]

I apologize for losing my patience a bit, but you folks do realize the gravity of the situation, right? What's going to happen if Trump or Cruz or Rubio actually win this election? This internecine bickering is not just disheartening, it's positively irresponsible, given the stakes.

Please, for your fellow citizens and for those of us who aren't American and have no say, despite the fact that we're going to have to deal with the fallout too: vote for the Democrat, talk up the Democrat, whoever it ends up being, whether you like them or their supporters or not, and maybe ease off on the circular firing squad stuff, at least until the election's over. It's the shits, but so it goes.

(That's not to say that reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of the two potential Democratic nominees isn't both good and useful. It is. But.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

So mother-in-laws goldbug previously Ron Paul supporting now Sanders leaning conspiracy theorist boyfriend is now all about how Trump is telling the truth about 9/11, and that "truth" seems to go beyond general Bush useless into jet fuel not melting steel beams territory - is Trump actually making noises like that on the campaign trail?
posted by Artw at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2016

Trump is a walking cognitive psychology experiment designed to see how far a candidate can get by appealing purely to people's fears and authoritarian tendencies. So ............. probably.
posted by eagles123 at 10:30 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

two generally well-meaning but disingenuous career polticians / sausage makers

Oh come on, now. Lots of reasons have been put forward for why people shouldn't support Sen. Sanders but disingenuousness has not been one of them. Call him simplistic, call him naive, call him idealistic, call him a left-wing nut, sure; this doesn't pass the laugh test.

Look, we all know that Sec. Clinton will more than likely be the Democratic nominee. As a left-wing, gay, brown social democrat, can somebody please help me get excited about this? Sell me on her! Show me how she's going to at least stand up for my values as opposed to fighting a rearguard action against the idiots in Congress!

I would love to get passionate about Sec. Clinton's candidacy for many reasons, not least of which being that it's about goddamn time there was a woman running shit around here.

But thinking about that moment that she takes the oath of office, which should be this huge, historic, long-overdue moment? It makes me feel like when my husband took me to New York City for Valentine's Day a couple years back, and I'd never been but of course always wanted to go, but it was fucking cold the whole weekend and basically I just remember freezing my ass off in Times Square waiting in line to get cheap off-Broadway tickets.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:31 PM on February 20, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't want to be at great odds with any Clinton supporter. Truly....narcissism of small differences in the greater scheme of things. But still, there are differences betwixt the two. Clinton rubs me the wrong way for many reasons...dynasty, disingenuous, establishment. But at the same time I get her appeal to some people and I don't want to begrudge anyone that appeal. She's a viable woman candidate. For the presidency. That's amazing and about 100 years overdue in any measure. For that reason I will happily happily vote for her if she wins the nomination. But still.....go Bernie. And shame on Hillary for not tacking left from the get go.
posted by ian1977 at 10:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Art,
I think Trump is saying that the Saudia Arabia is connected to what happened on 9/11. As far as promoting truther theories- I have not seen evidence of that yet.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:32 PM on February 20, 2016

Personally, I'd just characterize stuff like insinuating that Obama is a secret Muslim as pretty "scorched earth" material, myself. Those Islamophobic rumors continue to dog him to this day and it's completely shameful. I still can't figure out what other behavior you were referring to in your comment, but I'll drop it.
posted by dialetheia at 10:33 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Well, I think she's being held to a higher standard than the last several dozen+ years of male establishment presidential candidates had to deal with. I didn't like how her 2008 campaign was run either, it was hers to lose and she lost it fair and square, and I was more than happy to vote for Obama. I'm just not on board with pulling out all the stops to paint her as a corrupt crypto-right-wing monster to try and secure a nomination for Sanders. Sanders himself seems to be pretty on board with unity for whoever gets the nomination, I wish more of his supporters were following his lead in that respect.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

So I just want to make sure I have this straight:
Insinuating that Obama is a secret Muslim: "she's being held to a higher standard"
Simply pointing out the historical fact that she insinuated he is a secret Muslim: "pulling out all the stops to paint her as a corrupt crypto-right-wing monster"
posted by dialetheia at 10:45 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

I agree. She is held to a higher standard. So was Obama. And so was Sanders in some ways. They are all out of the mainstream for some measure of mainstream. I think the dems will continue to be held to a higher standard while apparently the republican standard will seems to know no bottom.
posted by ian1977 at 10:46 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

No, you're tacking my comments to some very specific events in the 2008 campaign and that's not what I was commenting about.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:48 PM on February 20, 2016

Ding, dong, the dynasty is dead: so long to Jeb Bush and the family legacy - "There is some consolation in seeing a dynasty of genteel political malfeasance and mass death undone by a TV showman who recognizes that the audience now wants the same product, just bigger, louder and cruder."
posted by futz at 10:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

The idea that getting rid of Citizens United or campaign finance reform is somehow going to fix the essential dishonest nature of the game is kind of naive. It's like going to a magic show, expecting to see actual magic.

And to respond to this directly: I actually would have agreed with this in the past. I'm not really a silver-bullet kind of guy. If you'd asked me a year or two ago what the biggest issues that need to be addressed in the US are, I probably would have said income inequality, race relations / white supremacy and militarism. It's largely due to Sen. Sanders' harping on the legalized corruption in Washington, and his somewhat unique experience as a long-time politician who because of the idiosyncrasy of Vermont politics has been able to comprehend at an intimate level how sausage gets made in Washington without having to get sucked into the power structure, that I've come to see that this is probably a prerequisite to getting all these other problems addressed.

So it's not so much that we supporters of Sen. Sanders are showing up at a magic show expecting to see real magic: it's Sec. Clinton who's pretending that she can get the work of the people done while she's wearing golden handcuffs. That's where the magical thinking is really at.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [14 favorites]

Look, I'll drop it after this, but as someone who has also experienced a great deal of sexist bullshit in my own life, I resent the hell out of anyone using sexism as any kind of cover for the kind of shit she said about Obama in 2008.
posted by dialetheia at 10:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [5 favorites]

The Republican standard is whoever can make Caligula look like a paragon of moderation and compassion.
posted by eagles123 at 10:49 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

Just flagged eagles123's comment for making me picture Trump's hand covered in whipped cream doing things I won't suffer anyone to envision that hasn't seen Caligula the movie.

*only pretend flagged
posted by ian1977 at 10:53 PM on February 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Well I should likewise drop it too, but I'm trying to be clear that I wasn't intending to excuse any particular thing she did to Obama in 2008. That's not the conversational thread I was following.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:54 PM on February 20, 2016

If you want a picture of the future imagine short vulgarian whipped cream covered fingers fisting 99% of America. Forever.
posted by ian1977 at 10:58 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Just flagged eagles123's comment for making me picture Trump's hand covered in whipped cream doing things I won't suffer anyone to envision that hasn't seen Caligula the movie.

I haven't seen that movie, but now you've made me curious..................
posted by eagles123 at 11:00 PM on February 20, 2016

can somebody please help me get excited about this?

There's already more than enough excitement (and danger). Since the Civil War, the only way the Democrats managed to keep the White House and have one president succeed the other is for the previous president to die somehow.
posted by FJT at 11:05 PM on February 20, 2016

You tube search 'Caligula wedding present' if you'd like to see Malcolm McDowall do his best Trump impersonation.

I kid! McDowall as Caligula=10x more classy than a Trump presidency.
posted by ian1977 at 11:10 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

What I can't get past is the sense from so many Clinton supporters, and from Clinton herself, that she is somehow entitled to the presidency, that she's earned it or deserves it because nasty sexism or lots of experience or her turn or Republican horrors or whatever. No one is entitled to or deserves the presidency. This is not internecine fighting among Democrats about the better candidate in the primary: the Clintons have treated the Democratic party as their personal property for decades, and some of us really resent it and want the party back. And if Hillary is really so tattered and scarred by treatment of her over the years, she can retire! She's really rich and nearly 70 and has had an amazingly successful professional life (and, as mentioned upthread, the Democrats actually have a pretty deep bench of other leaders).

Mostly, I wish people would stop telling me how I'm supposed to think of this person. I've lived in the Clintons' world, to varying degrees, my entire adult life, and I've watched as decision after decision Bill and then Hillary made have yielded results from horrible to disastrous. I do not trust Hillary Clinton's judgment, and no argument will convince me to ignore what I have witnessed and how it has affected me through my life.

If you disagree and/or cannot accept that, that's fine. But stop telling me I'm wrong. It's offensive and presumptuous, especially when I'm told how I must vote regardless of my evaluation of a particular candidate. And all of this has absolutely nothing to do with support of another candidate--this was my judgment in 2008 (borne out then by how poorly she managed her campaign and the tactics she employed), and it remains my judgment now, especially after her tenure as Secretary of State.

It's OK for someone to have a negative judgment of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, and that judgment really can be rooted simply in evaluation of her past performance and current actions. Reasonable people can disagree, even when looking at the same information. I'm not sure how I'll vote in the general election if she's the candidate, but it's my damn vote. Stop telling me what I'm supposed to do with it.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:16 PM on February 20, 2016 [38 favorites]

Since the Civil War, the only way the Democrats managed to keep the White House and have one president succeed the other is for the previous president to die somehow.

Respectfully, this is not completely accurate.
Harry Truman was a Democratic President that followed Franklin Roosevelt.

Technically, yes; Roosevelt died and then Truman took office but then he was was also re-elected.

A Democrat was in the White House from 1933 to 1953.
20 years!
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:17 PM on February 20, 2016

I don't mean excited about the general situation, I mean excited about Hillary Clinton. And actually not me in particular (I live in a deep blue state and my vote for President is about as important as a piece of one-ply toilet paper) but people whose vote might actually matter but who probably won't vote unless they're actually excited about the person they're coming out for.

Also, if Hillary Clinton isn't elected it won't be because of a no-democrat-is-elected-in-post-civil-war-America-immediately-after-a-Democratic-president-unless-that-president-died-in-office rule because, well, that's not a rule, it's just an observation. I might as well argue that no Latinos, women, Vermonters or reality-TV-show real estate moguls have ever been elected President, so Ben Carson is obviously going to move into the White House next year.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:19 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

>That's a good point - the general temperature feels similar but I don't feel like there was nearly >as much anger and resentment from the establishment towards Obama in 2008 as there has >been towards the grassroots this year.

To me its more reminiscent of the post-2000 bad feeling between Nader voters and mainstream Democrats. What's raising the temperature is that it's very difficult to make the case for idealism without seeming like you are personally attacking more pragmatic voters - who in turn feel that they are being reasonable and realistic but who appear implicitly to be asserting that more idealistic voters are stupid or deluded. Tactical considerations suddenly turn into something much more visceral and divisive. And, of course, both the "protest/conscience vote" which throws the election to the other team and the political compromise which sells short those in need are both frightening and frighteningly familiar possibilities.

There was a solid dose of Messianic politics following Obama around during the 2008 primaries, but most intelligent people who bothered to pay attention understood that he and Clinton were both mainstream Democratic centrists (aside from the Iraq vote, I don't remember any specific elements of their voting record being raised). Sanders is explicitly making a stand against pragmatic politics of the sort that both Obama and Clinton have spent their careers practicing. Which brings that chasm between the pragmatists and the idealists to the fore in a way I don't think it was in 2008.

It certainly has made me feel much less welcome in the party

Can't say the Sanders folks have been particularly friendly and welcoming to anyone who disagrees with them, including here on Metafilter. It's a polarizing race, and I suspect its going to leave lingering aftereffects within the party no matter who wins the nomination and the general - and if we do lose the general, the mutual recriminations are going to be far nastier than Nader '00 ever were.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:26 PM on February 20, 2016 [9 favorites]

Quite honestly, if this race will teach Democrats to have passion and fire, the same zeal that Republicans have used to bicker endlessly about the purest and most potent candidate, then all of this bad-blood spilling not be for naught.

But after a nominee is chosen, Democrats will also have to also learn discipline and steel, the same will that Republicans have used to single-mindedly and single-heartedly vote for whomever their candidate is, regardless of the bad blood that had been spilled mere months before the nomination.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:32 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

but people whose vote might actually matter but who probably won't vote unless they're actually excited about the person they're coming out for.

That's a turnout problem, and one felt acutely in non-presidential years and perhaps even in future elections too (can you imagine people getting super excited about O'Malley?). I don't know if it's possible we can rely on exciting candidates every election.
posted by FJT at 11:32 PM on February 20, 2016

About that Sanders supporters chanting "English only" allegation:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

I guess the Clinton people are going to go after fucking Susan Sarandon now. It's shit like this that fucking disgusts me. Fine, support Clinton. I completely understand that. I'll never understand or support this shit. Shit like this helps nobody. It doesn't just hurt Democrats; it hurts the fucking country. It's even gonna come back and bite Clinton in the ass eventually because what goes around comes around.

Anything to win the news cycle, though. Win the battle, lose the war. And I'm not talking about the war against Sanders.
posted by eagles123 at 11:43 PM on February 20, 2016 [10 favorites]

but people whose vote might actually matter but who probably won't vote unless they're actually excited about the person they're coming out for.

I've never been excited about a candidate in any meaningful sense of the word, and I've voted in every election since I came of age. I've always felt that making politics a part of life, like paying taxes and buying groceries, is a far healthier way of handling things. And I wonder how many people who are "excited" about their presidential candidate are equally excited about the congressional, state and local races without which capturing the White House is just a Supreme Court justice seat and four years of un-exciting rearguard action.

I've banged the drum hard enough in other threads so I'm not going to go on at length about it here, but - Clinton or Sanders, neither of them are going to be able to play a very effective game - offense or defense - without some decent coattails. Frankly, that looms far larger to me than which of them actually gets the nomination at this stage.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:47 PM on February 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Exciting" doesn't have to mean, like, sexy (an adjective that I doubt has ever been applied to Sen. Sanders in a political context). But it does mean that a candidate should be able to articulate to voters how taking time out of their day will concretely benefit them. Which in the case of many infrequent voters may mean waiting in line, figuring out how to squeeze voting in between work, getting kids to/from school, etc.

I'd love to see Election Day be a national holiday, or even to have a legal requirement that eligible voters must at least go to their polling place, combined with more automated voter registration and so on. In the meantime -- yeah, especially for Democrats a huge part of being a good Presidential candidate does mean energizing the base and turning out marginal voters.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [6 favorites]

That Guardian piece futz linked upthread is a marvelously vicious Bush dynasty post-mortem. Recommended.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:48 PM on February 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

so, why didn't Sanders have a translator at a Nevada event? Kind of a stupid move, that.
posted by angrycat at 11:54 PM on February 20, 2016

The Democratic Party should have provided neutral translators, not the campaigns.
posted by dialetheia at 11:55 PM on February 20, 2016 [18 favorites]

Besides, if you actually watch the video, they did have a volunteer translator from the Sanders side - the moderator made the decision not to let either side translate for some reason. It's a Democratic party caucus fuckup, not either campaign's fault.
posted by dialetheia at 11:56 PM on February 20, 2016 [17 favorites]

Yeah, why is it the responsibility of the Sanders campaign to provide a translator? I would think the Clinton people would have equally valid objections.
posted by eagles123 at 11:57 PM on February 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Can't say the Sanders folks have been particularly friendly and welcoming to anyone who disagrees with them, including here on Metafilter.

As a Sanders supporter, I've felt the same way. This has been a really polarizing race, and it's getting very tiring. It's been endlessly frustrating the way people have talked at each other about this.

The one thing that really sticks with me is the sentiment that one could only support Sanders if they didn't live in "the real world," or that they were hopelessly naive, or caught up in a Tea-party-like fervor. I haven't held back about my criticisms of Clinton, but I don't think someone needs to be unreasonable or naive to support her. I've really tried to be fair about the disagreements people have had here, and I've tried to be clear that I don't think Clinton is a bad person. But it's like we end up talking about supporters as often as the candidates' issues themselves.
posted by teponaztli at 12:05 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

can you imagine people getting super excited about O'Malley?

At this point, I'd be excited because his supporters weren't as scary as Hillary's and Bernie's.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:12 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yeah, the polarization makes me feel like the voters who usually don't pay much attention to the election until the general are gonna be in for a surprise when they stumble upon the Tarantino-esque bloodbath full of dead Clinton and Sanders supporters at each other's throats.
posted by FJT at 12:24 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is it this polarized on the Republican side?
posted by FJT at 12:27 AM on February 21, 2016

I apologize for losing my patience a bit, but you folks do realize the gravity of the situation, right? What's going to happen if Trump or Cruz or Rubio actually win this election? This internecine bickering is not just disheartening, it's positively irresponsible, given the stakes.

I lived through the end of the cold war, I watched Threads when I was 12 and the last 18 months on both sides of the Atlantic have made me seriously worry that we're heading for dystopia.

And yet, it is also the closest we have come to having actual socialist leaders on both sides of the pond in half a century!

As we're in Hollywood Screenwriter reality all I can say is "I'm too old for this shit".
posted by fullerine at 12:37 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

The morning afterwards (well, here in England, anyway) and the bookmaker odds have settled somewhat.

On the Republican side, a two horse race, and not much difference between the slight favorite Trump (10/11) and Rubio (13/10). The rest are all long shots.

On the Democrat side, Clinton remains solid favorite (1/5) with Sanders at roughly 4/1. However, most of the bookmakers are offering not-short-but-not-complete-outsider odds on Biden at roughly 20/1.
posted by Wordshore at 12:48 AM on February 21, 2016

Is it this polarized on the Republican side?

Yes and then some, I think. This is a list of the dirty tricks Ted Cruz pulled this week alone, the week after Trump went nuclear on the Republican party in the debate (accusing Bush of lying to get us into Iraq and literally telling Jeb his mom should be on the stage instead of Jeb if she's so great) then called Cruz a "pussy" at one of his rallies. I've seen some extremely nasty rumor campaigns about Marco Rubio's personal life this week, too.

There might not be as much social media squabbling because they've already self-sorted into little pockets and forums, and there aren't as many general-interest conservative spaces anymore like there are general-interest liberal spaces. Generally, there are establishment spaces, where people are trying desperately to convince themselves that Rubio can really pull it off and trying to figure out how they can knock out Cruz to beat Trump; there are movement conservative spaces, where they complain about Trump not supporting eminent domain and plot how to smear Rubio to get Cruz in position to beat Trump; and there are identity conservative spaces, where people just say the most racist shit imaginable, make fun of Jeb Bush, and make terrible insipid memes to support Trump.

The three wings don't talk to each other in public as much, is all. There has been an uneasy alliance between the movement types supporting Cruz and the establishment types supporting Rubio because they have a common enemy in Trump, but now that it's basically a three-way race, it will probably get much uglier soon (as indicated by Cruz's dirty politicking against Rubio this week). People are counting Cruz out because he didn't do as well with evangelicals as he should have, but he's still polling better than Rubio in most states, and I doubt Cruz would ever drop out for the good of the party - Cruz wouldn't even tie his own shoes for the good of the party - so Rubio will continue to split the anti-Trump support with Cruz unless one of them is forced out somehow. If Ted Cruz had ever cooperated with another human being before in his life, I'd have more hope about them uniting to knock Trump out somehow, but I don't see it happening - Cruz is physically incapable of being cooperative by almost all accounts.

Their coalition is basically a smoking ruin. Even evangelicals are defecting for Trump and there seems to be nothing the party leaders can do to keep things together. They probably still hate Democrats enough to turn out most of the base, don't get me wrong, but the grassroots is in complete open rebellion against the establishment/money people over there, too - more so even than on the Democratic side.

The movement & establishment conservatives still can't seem to understand why the hell the identity conservatives are so in love with Trump and they've been even more condescending and openly hostile about it than the Democratic establishment has (with good reason, in a lot of cases) - e.g. that "Against Trump" issue that National Review put out that backfired so thoroughly on them. Meanwhile, both Trump and Cruz talk about Republican leadership as if they are giving the farm away to Obama and driving god-fearing conservatives to certain damnation (which is the base dynamic that's driven their historic obstructionism). He's been doing it with ads and mailers already, but I expect Cruz to ramp up that "Rubio = ESTABLISHMENT!!!" stuff in the media very soon.

The rhetoric among supporters is orders of magnitude more overheated than on the Democratic side, too - think gross Godwin's law stuff about John Boehner personally marching brave conservatives off to their deaths while Obama sits by and laughs. That's the level of distrust and contempt they have for the Republican establishment at this point. That dynamic is, of course, their own damn fault, but it's sinking any candidate with even the barest minimum history of, you know, actually trying to govern. If you think anything you've seen on the Democratic side is gross, don't look up the word "cuckservative."

Republicans really shouldn't be surprised by Trump's success, though. Republicans operate according to Worthington's Law ("more money = better than"), which makes them susceptible to any billionaire who wants to run - see also Carson and Fiorina. Trump is the logical extension and reductio ad absurdum of the Republican ideal, as Sam Seder nailed perfectly way back in June. "They have no way of dismissing him because he is exactly what their vision for America is: a nativist billionaire who simplifies everything down to their lowest common denominator and talks tough. I mean, what else has been the Republican project?"
posted by dialetheia at 1:15 AM on February 21, 2016 [31 favorites]

What's the difference between movement conservatism and the GOP establishment? And where does the Tea Party fall into? Its rank and file is most certainly identity conservatism, many of whom are now with Trump, so Rubio and Cruz both being TP alum but are in separate tendencies makes it all the more puzzling- and interesting.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:25 AM on February 21, 2016

Huh - I guess all that makes me feel better about what is going on with the Democrats ............. except for the little detail about Republicans having a lock on the House and controlling many state governments.

Still really interesting, though.
posted by eagles123 at 1:35 AM on February 21, 2016

Movement conservatives are guys who Really Really Care about conservative orthodox ideology, like opposing eminent domain (I think I left a "not" out of my sentence above!). They're the "intellectual" wing of the party, insofar as you can describe any group that includes Jonah Goldberg as "intellectual" (I mean, William F. Buckley they're not). The establishment guys don't care nearly as much as they claim to about the ideological stuff - they care about protecting their money and power and not much else, when it really comes down to it. There's probably still a decent amount of overlap between those two groups, but the ideological heart of the party has been increasingly aligned with the Tea Party since the last Bush administration.

The Tea Party seemed to be a (temporary?) alliance of movement and identity types against the establishment, where Ted Cruz represents the movement types and Sarah Palin represents the identity types (e.g. she probably barely even knows what eminent domain means). Her endorsement of Trump was a great example of how Trump has split apart that Tea Party alliance. It was a huge betrayal to Cruz, who she'd supported before because they were allies against the establishment in the Tea Party - but when Trump entered the race, it became crystal clear that she valued the identity stuff much more than the ideology, so she chose Trump over Cruz. The same has been true for many conservatives. I think a lot of the movement people are shocked that the ideological support for the party is truly so narrow while the identity support is so broad and deep (another thing that really shouldn't surprise them).

Trump has effectively split the Tea Party apart into ideological and identity wings, and it turns out the identity wing is much stronger so far. So now the movement guys are trying to ally with the establishment again to knock Trump out. Who knows which of those alliances will last, but it's been fascinating to watch.
posted by dialetheia at 1:40 AM on February 21, 2016 [22 favorites]

This is all very fascinating because back in the simple days of Bush we could simply think of conservatism as the three-issues triad of fiscal (tax-cutting, balanced budgeting- though haha given Bush's wars, government shrinking, deregulation), social (evangelicalism, dispensationalism, anti-abortions-and-gayism), and international (neoconservatism, but any sort of hawkery would do).

I can't quite make heads or tails of the Wiki definition of movement conservatism (for starters, what's a "traditionalist", given the context), but it seems to be umbrella factions that's composed of all of the issues I listed above. So what issues do the establishment and identity conservatives care about? And are these three groups the only components of the GOP?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:40 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Thanks, dialetheia, this is very interesting.
It looks like a trend across the Western countries - the UK/EU thing is more about identity than anything else, and all across Europe traditional conservatives are losing to nationalistic and anti-immigrant parties.
I suppose we'll all have to go to Canada in the end, they seem to have gotten over it.
posted by mumimor at 1:47 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

This article helps illustrate what I'm talking about - Inside the secret meeting where conservative leaders pledged allegiance to Ted Cruz. Many of those leaders are the evangelical movement people, whose dedication to conservatism is ideological and premised on anti-abortion, anti-gay, "pro-family" stuff. They ended up settling on Cruz after much debate, but there was a pro-Rubio contingent arguing for an alliance with the establishment.

However, despite a lot of that muscle lining up behind Cruz and despite Trump's relative wishy-washiness on choice and Planned Parenthood, a plurality of evangelicals went to Trump today in SC. Those are folks who likely aren't driven toward conservativism by the Christian ideology; they're people who identify as conservatives because they primarily feel persecuted by elites and minorities and identify themselves in opposition as "Real Americans."
posted by dialetheia at 2:29 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Re: the Latino vote split in Nevada, it sounds like the entrance polls support Sanders' campaign's claim that they won the Latino vote by 53%-45%, but the Clinton campaign is trying to cast doubt on those results. The person responsible for the polling pushed back on the Clinton campaign spin about geographic distribution of delegates and Latinos while noting that the margin of error could mean it was closer to a tie. Either way, it sounds like her "Latino firewall" wasn't nearly what her campaign thought it would be thanks to Sanders' inroads among young Latino voters:

"Lenski added that Sanders’ overall lead was driven by a huge advantage among younger Hispanic voters.

“Sanders completely dominated among Hispanics [under age 30], but Clinton won every Hispanic age group 30 and older,” Lenski wrote. “Hispanics as a whole are younger than non-Hispanics, so Sanders’ strength among [younger] Hispanics counts for more because of the younger skew among Hispanics.”

Moreover, Lenski said, those younger Hispanics — especially college students — may not live in the majority-Latino precincts where the Clinton campaign is touting its delegate haul as evidence of her performance among Hispanics statewide."
posted by dialetheia at 3:43 AM on February 21, 2016

I'm dead curious to see how Melania Trump plays with Trump supporters as the candidate families start getting more exposure.

I read an interview with her in People a few weeks back while killing time in the grocery line. Those two have a very 50s marriage- he makes all the money and decisions, I do all the child-rearing and home-decorating. To me it sounded bloodless and weird, but his elderly supporters probably love it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:11 AM on February 21, 2016

My Democratic state (CO) House Representative Joe Salazar has endorsed Sanders.

I'll be interested to see what effect, if any, this has on his race. He won his last election by 221 votes, and I think high turnout and voter enthusiasm are absolutely necessary to widen that margin this November. I'm also interested to see what sort of support (or resistance) Salazar gets from the state Democratic establishment, given Governor Hickenlooper's dismissal of progressives as "aggressive" in making his case for Clinton.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:49 AM on February 21, 2016

Quick reminder: please don't edit comments for more than typos; if you want to update, make a new comment. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:01 AM on February 21, 2016

As a left-wing, gay, brown social democrat, can somebody please help me get excited about this? Sell me on her! Show me how she's going to at least stand up for my values as opposed to fighting a rearguard action against the idiots in Congress!

Well, after many years of being opposed to it and some heartfelt triangulation, now that gay marriage is legal, she is boldly no longer opposed to it. I mean, really, you can't beat those liberal credentials.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:02 AM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]

Leadership!
posted by cjorgensen at 6:09 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Sanders has policy positions that do appeal to many Latino voters that do demographically skew younger than the average. Health care and college are 2 massive concerns among just about every younger cohort.

Clinton who is pretty much the odds on favorite at this point needs to figure out what is driving Sanders popularity among millenials and add policy planks that encompass some of those policy demands.
posted by vuron at 6:15 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is there a way for Hillary to do that without more accusations of being disingenuous? Maybe if she waited until after she's secured the victory and framed it (say, free college) as an explicit outreach to Sanders supporters - "I know this is important to you and your voting bloc is important to me, so I've figured out a way to make this work with my economic plan"?
posted by sallybrown at 6:18 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

After a lovely, apolitical evening, I'm stunned to wake up to this news about Delores Huerta. Steinem and Albright were hurtful and disappointing, but I've had the honor and privilege to have worked with Delores Huerta so this is personally devastating.

For someone who has been the victim of so much sexism it's gross that the first people Hillary and her supporters threw under the bus were young women. After seeing the results in SC I'm starting to have serious concerns about whether or not she can beat Trump so I have no idea why the presumptive nominee keeps trying to alienate a significant portion of the base.

On preview, sallybrown, here's the problem as I see it. When Hillary confronted Bernie abiut the Bernie Bros he unequivocally disavowed them. He called them disgusting, and said he didn't want anything to do with them because that's not what his campaign was about. When Albright said women like me were going to hell, and when Steinem said I was just boy-crazy, Hillary laughed it off and said I was overly-sensitive. Bernie did exactly what we ask men to do: he didn't question the allegations, he stood up for the women who weren't even voting for him. Hillary, on the other hand, doubled down and now appears to have tripled down. It's ironic that the "one true feminist" candidate has done more to divide women in this country than anything I can think of in a long time.

At this point I'd respect her a lot more if she just came out and said I needed to vote for her so Trump won't be president. Another suggestion: stop talking about how awful Sanders supporters are and start talking about the issues.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:31 AM on February 21, 2016 [35 favorites]

A lot of people are scared. Really scared. People make poor decisions and act rashly out of fear, and fear also influences how we interpret things (such as perhaps hearing the words "English only," which all sides acknowledge was said, and making assumptions about who was saying that, how many of them were, and why). People who are into the horse race nature of politics also generally act like complete jerks about their candidates, imo. (For example, rereading some parts of this thread in the light of day...lots of spiky attitude about a lot of things.)

Things are going to get a lot worse from both sides before they get better. Especially because of the constant focus in the news lately on breaking down Democratic voting by ethnicity and race, when it seems clear as day that age is more of a driving factor.
posted by sallybrown at 6:41 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Looks like it's going to get worse on the national level before it gets better, too. Too bad there's nowhere on the planet to run from the effects of the nightmare policies either frontrunner is going to enact.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

I totally agree about age being an issue. It's been clear for a long time that this primary was mainly breaking down along age lines; we saw it in NH when the only group the broke for Hillary was over 60, and then again as endorsements started coming out of the African-American community ahead of SC*. And yet, so much of the legitimate criticism of Clinton is dismissed as sexist or personal, over and over again. So why is the campaign perpetuating this? That's the question I have been asking here for weeks. I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton wants to bring along Bernie supporters.

*It's not clear to me if that's the case with Latin@s since Nevada also had a heavy union component.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:54 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

So why is the campaign perpetuating this?

Because it's perceived as effective and cost free.

The first might be true.
posted by Artw at 6:56 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Room 641-A, if Clinton and Trump are the candidates, "Vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump" is going to be her best option as a campaign slogan, I think. There are too many people who don't like her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump Trump
Dump the Trump
Show Trump Your Rump
posted by sallybrown at 7:00 AM on February 21, 2016

Regarding the Huerta issue:

Yes a neutral translator should've been present as a way of making Latino voters feel welcome
Huerta took on that translator role and was perceived to be biased (although I do think it's possible to translate fairly and be a supporter of a specific candidate) by Bernie supporters.
Rather than use two translators (or a neutral translator) the official chose to go with english only for the caucus thereby alienating some people including Huerta.

I don't think that anyone particularly comes off looking good in this issue.
posted by vuron at 7:13 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

For people who still believe in Bernie, now is probably the time for another donation. He's burning through cash it as he goes, when it runs out the campaign will be done.

Sen. Bernie Sanders drastically ramped up his campaign's spending in January as the Democratic primary contest engaged, racing through nearly $35 million as he worked to try to match the infrastructure that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton built over the course of last year.

As a result, even though he outraised her for the first time, Clinton expanded her cash lead by the end of the month. After spending $21.2 million in January, Clinton ended the month with nearly $33 million in the bank. Sanders had almost $14.7 million.

A huge share of Sanders's spending in January — $14 million — went into television ads, outpacing the $10 million that Clinton put into advertising. That helped him get more commercials on the air in Nevada in the run-up to Saturday's caucuses, which Clinton won.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 AM on February 21, 2016

Clinton who is pretty much the odds on favorite at this point needs to figure out what is driving Sanders popularity among millenials and add policy planks that encompass some of those policy demands.

Not really possible due to her being so deeply entrenched as the establishment candidate, And it's a hostile establishment that sees millenials as excess biomass and certainly isn't going to offer them anything like decent healthcare or education without crushing debt
posted by Artw at 7:20 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

Well, this is weird: news broke this morning that Romney was set to endorse Rubio this week. Rubio's camp just responded saying the reports were false. Wha?
posted by sallybrown at 7:21 AM on February 21, 2016

Two possibilities there. It's just about the timing, or he's the backup QB for the convention if this goes sideways so he isn't going to endorse.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 AM on February 21, 2016

Given that Trump is winning, which other views should we update?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Why would Rubio come out and deny it, though? Just say "We haven't heard anything beyond the news report but would be gratified for anyone's endorsement" or some such nonsense.

Unless Rubio's camp leaked the endorsement and Romney pushed back very hard...
posted by sallybrown at 7:24 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

3. Republican primary voters are more racist than we had thought.

Eh, more like, "than we politely pretended."

Backlash against immigration and immigrants sets in more quickly, when middle class wages are stagnant, than we had thought. And true cosmopolitans are hard to find.

The backlash has been there all along. Trump just stoked the fire.

The Black Swan view of the world makes even more sense. We wrongly think things that are different are impossible.

Big time yes. The voters can do anything they want if they start rejecting the message from the establishment that the only thing they can do is live in the establishment's world.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

My first thought when the rumors started to fly was that a Romney endorsement would hurt Rubio more than it could possibly help him. With Bush gone he's already the establishment and "moderate" wings' last best hope. What he needs now is to pull in Cruz and Trump voters, and they hate that guy and his 2012 campaign.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:35 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Given that Trump is winning, which other views should we update?

Hmm. Can't say I'm one of the people surprised by Trump's success, but let's look at that..

1. Social media are more powerful than we had thought, and more powerful in politics in particular.

Maybe? This guy has been on television 24/7 since he announced though, traditional media serves him far better than everyone else. What I'd say is notable about him and social media is he'll just straight up say the kind of shit you'd see in Facebook posts or forwarded email without any filter, no need for any dogwhistles.

2. Republican voters are less conservative, less “Tea Party,” and less libertarian than many people had thought. And the “periphery Republicans” are stronger and more numerous and more easily excited than we had thought.

Can't say I see anything to this theory. Less religious maybe? Especially if that's offset by racism? But conservative values have always seemed like a front for hate to me, and libertarians just whiney jerk tax dodgers. Trump is pretty in line with all of them.

3. Republican primary voters are more racist than we had thought.

Can't say this is suprising AT ALL. Maybe how much they'll openly embrace it is.

4. Backlash against immigration and immigrants sets in more quickly, when middle class wages are stagnant, than we had thought. And true cosmopolitans are hard to find.

The fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and all the crappy "austerity" measures that have cropped up in its wake are a perfect breeding ground for fascism worldwide. Not a surprise, but certainly true.

5. The value of commanding and dominating media attention, in a year with no clear front-runner Republican candidate, is higher than we had thought.

Absolutely true. It'll be interesting if he'll be able to steamroller his democratic opponent with the media so easily, my money is on yes.

6. Trump is more skillful at trolling and pulling levers of public opinion than we had thought.

Being a shitty TV show host might be more of a skill than we thought. Perhaps this is the future of democracy.

7. Democracy is less stable than we had thought.

See above re:austerity. It makes fascism an easy sell. We are all super-fucked now, because nothing he does whilst in power, even if it is disastrous, is going to make it less of an easy sell.

8. New Yorkers are more nationally marketable than we had thought.

Yeah, I guess republicans don't actually care that much about good old boys if you give them an actual nazi.
posted by Artw at 7:45 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Romney probably won't endorse until it's certain because he still remains a viable compromise candidate if a brokered convention is likely. If Rubiobot can't start doing better then it's unclear if the party elite will coalesce behind him.
posted by vuron at 7:49 AM on February 21, 2016

Given that Trump is winning, which other views should we update?

It's good to keep in mind that Trump only won 32% of the vote in South Carolina. 68% of Republican voters voted against him and while obviously many of those voters might have Trump as their second choice, there's still a sizable opposition to him. With Bush out and if Kasich and Carson drop out, that frees up almost 25% of the vote that will probably lend more support for Rubio or Cruz.
posted by octothorpe at 7:57 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Those that didn't vote for Trump voted for Cruz, and Rubio is a joke candidate. I mean, I guess they could all switch to him if the other two stop throwing them raw, bloody meat and they feel like throwing the election instead, but it doesn't seem likely.
posted by Artw at 8:01 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wow this conversation is moving fast. I just wanted to address:
Sanders is explicitly making a stand against pragmatic politics of the sort that both Obama and Clinton have spent their careers practicing.

I'd agree if this used the term triangulation instead of pragmatic. The reality and evidence is that Bernie has used his political voice to very much move and shape conversation and policy. Both as an executive (mayor) and legislator. His goals are real things in the world for real people, not some abstract or academic ideals. That's why some of his early allies see him as a sell out to the forces he claims to fight against.

To paraphrase a candidate from the other side. He knows what he is doing.

I return to my refrain of being very disappointed that Hillary has not used this moment to recognize and embrace the young progressive movement in the party but rather to scold it about how getting what you want requires hard work and holding your nose. I know that's what she has experienced in life - in spades. But this was a chance to dream and move towards a better future. I think that's being missed.
posted by meinvt at 8:06 AM on February 21, 2016 [15 favorites]

meinvt, I think that's a feature of Hillary wanting to be president, and not caring so much about the presidency or the future of the country.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jack Kemp's Power Lesson for Hillary Clinton

Kemp eschewed pragmatism for vision and leadership. Then he went on the offense to change political dynamics. Sometimes, instead of compromising, you just have to go for the big play.

Lately, Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been criticizing Bernie Sanders’s proposals not so much because they are wrongheaded, but because they are too utopian to pass Congress. I find this to be a curious line of attack because, in effect, Clinton is playing by Republican rules—saying that Democrats should only propose things that could be enacted by a Republican Congress.

Economists would call this an example of static analysis, assuming that circumstances will not change or that leadership is incapable of altering political possibilities. If Republicans had held this same point of view, Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut never would have been enacted and, very likely, they would never have gained control of Congress. The 1981 tax cut fundamentally altered political dynamics.

I'm personally growing sick of this 'pragmatism' argument from Clinton and Co., and it boggles my mind that so many of her supporters have picked it up and run with it. Has this refrain - one of 'daring' to only imagine or talk about the possible - ever been so front and center before?

I guess someone should go back in time and tell MLK to keep his dream under wraps and stick to talking only about the pragmatic.
posted by syzygy at 8:14 AM on February 21, 2016 [22 favorites]

double block and bleed: "Kinda like getting to live in your favorite H.P. Lovecraft story."

Ahem.
posted by schmod at 8:20 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm personally growing sick of this 'pragmatism' argument from Clinton and Co.

@tinyrevolution: Democrats: "Nothing's free kids we'll never have free healthcare or free college or a living wage or hey how did Trump become president"
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:23 AM on February 21, 2016 [28 favorites]

I do think there is room for a political revolution but I don't really think it's possible to lead that revolution from the office of the President. Think of it this way, the current power dynamics in Republiclandia are driven by decades of work at the local and state level which made it possible to basically give the Republicans a almost permanent structural majority in the House (due to gerrymandering and the nature of incumbency). It has made the Republican party incredibly strong although it's also made it next to ungovernable because ideological purity is viewed as more important than pragmatism. If the Republicans were actually trying to get anything done it would be problematic but honestly status quo suits conservatives just fine.

In contrast the Democrats have been seen as the big tent which allows for much more ideological differences because at the end of the day there is a great deal of agreement over the desired ends but a lot of of disagreement over the means to achieve those ends.

Personally I'm not comfortable with the idea that Democrats should mandate ideological purity tests either way.
posted by vuron at 8:28 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

But this was a chance to dream and move towards a better future. I think that's being missed.

I don't think they really have a sense of there being a future. There's just PRESIDENT CLINTON as an end goal and nothing after that matters.
posted by Artw at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

"It can't be just about what we're going to give you" That can't be an actual quote. This is something a republican must have said to smear progressives right before we take back our party from the neocons in tie-dye and bellbottoms.

*looks up the content of Hillary's Nevada victory speech* Woah, she really did say those words. I'm actually honestly hurt. Secretary Clinton, I know you will never read this, but I just want you to know I'm saddened by your gross mischaracterization. Do you honestly believe that the future of the Democratic party, millions of young people of all colors and creeds, just want handouts from the government?

I can't believe how out of touch she is. Clearly there are two Democratic parties, one filled with a 'pragmatic' old guard, haunted by Walter Mondale, afraid of anything but incrementalism, and a vibrant young coalition hungry to stamp out injustice and inequality in all of its modern manifestations.

'It can't be just about what we're going to give to you'? Really now? Okay, I'll vote on election day come what may, but I won't be surprised if half of our party feels totally alienated and disenfranchised. I'll do the minimum here, and even that will be a struggle. I really hope the minimum is sufficient. If after dragging all of us through the mud it is still not enough...then...well I guess I'll just suck it up and soldier through a long dark fascist winter. If such dire circumstances come to pass, I will take great comfort in seeds sown and the thought of so many healthy noble seedlings pressing up against the ice, desperate for a spring which will soon come.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 8:33 AM on February 21, 2016 [25 favorites]

Her argument against anything progressive is that it would take effort and time to change things, and that's clearly possible because PRESIDENT CLINTON is the end and there is nothing beyond that. It's weirdly nihilist.
posted by Artw at 8:39 AM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]

I don't think elect President Clinton is by any means the end goal.

I think the current thinking among some liberals are as follow:

1) Lock in at least 4 years more of a Democrat President so that ACA continues to be safe.
2) Confirm a Scalia replacement if Obama can't get it done.
3) Nominate and confirm a RBG replacement if necessary.
4) Use the administrative power of the executive office to continue policies pursued by Obama
5) Continue to highlight Republican obstructionism in a hope that the few remaining rational members of that caucus will bring the nutcases to heel.
6) Inspire a generation of young girls and women by showing that yes a Woman can be President.

I understand that from a progressive viewpoint what I just listed is insufficient but it's complete unclear how the current progressive agenda will even be considered by Congress much less enacted and while the Bully Pulpit has power it's remarkably limited in it's ability to get Republican congress critters to do anything as evidenced by the continual failure of Obama's attempt to push some sort of meaningful dialogue about gun violence to the forefront.
posted by vuron at 8:46 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

vuron, as a Sanders supporter, I think many of us are willing to gamble with a 4 year GOP presidency that gives us a huge progressive/liberal spring point in 2020. Highly preferable to 4 or 8 years of Clinton, IMHO.

Being willing to make that bet means being willing to gamble with other peoples' lives, families, jobs, and money. People of color, Muslim people, kids who President Trump would send to war, people with insecure employment, who could lose jobs if the economy crashes again, etc. Four years is a hell of a long time for people lacking the insulation of privilege.
posted by sallybrown at 8:55 AM on February 21, 2016 [26 favorites]

As someone who has lots of friends that could lose out significantly if Republicans get the Presidency in 2016 and are able to lock in a young Scalia replacement and replace RBG with a conservative and push through a gutting of ACA the idea of a short term loss for long term gain is exceedingly problematic.

I understand that people want to achieve big goals like single payer healthcare and universal higher education and I think those are laudable goals but I also like to think that sometimes the political landscape forces the liberals to play defensive for a while. I suspect that 2016-2020 is going to be a continuation of the last 4 years in which Democrats have had to play defensive vs Republican attempts to rollback progressive change.
posted by vuron at 8:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm not convinced Trump is going to get anywhere near the White House, but as a queer person, I am well aware of the risks. I'm not saying people should vote against Clinton if they want her to be president. I'm saying, as many people have said in this thread, that I'm going to use my own vote how I see fit to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:59 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Democrats have been playing defense my entire life.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:07 AM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]

vuron, as a Sanders supporter, I think many of us are willing to gamble with a 4 year GOP presidency that gives us a huge progressive/liberal spring point in 2020. Highly preferable to 4 or 8 years of Clinton, IMHO.

As a Sanders supporter, that argument is insane, self-defeating and nihilistic. I was hugely critical of Clinton earlier in this thread, but I will absolutely vote for her and loudly do everything I know how to encourage other people I know to do the same. In the general. I hope to all things sacred that that will be enough to overcome her huge liabilities, and that if elected, she can manage to avoid her own natural tendencies and run a scandal free administration long enough for demographics to work their magic and grow the Democratic coalition so that the next national figure really is a progressive and not a Clintonite.

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:07 AM on February 21, 2016 [37 favorites]

tivalasvegas: Look, we all know that Sec. Clinton will more than likely be the Democratic nominee. As a left-wing, gay, brown social democrat, can somebody please help me get excited about this? Sell me on her! Show me how she's going to at least stand up for my values as opposed to fighting a rearguard action against the idiots in Congress!

Clinton Credits Nevada Victory To Inescapable, Pitch-Black Tide Of Fate

But echoing some people above, if HRC is the nominee I will vote for her and make damn sure to vote D in downticket races.
posted by dhens at 9:18 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Plus it basically makes you one of those Annoying Nader voters. You're seriously looking at that and thinking "Yes! That is the hill for me! I shall stand in the wreckage of 2020 America and yell at clouds whenever anyone implies my choices led to that!".
posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

I guess I don't understand why someone aligned with Bernie's goals but who finds Hillary too repellant to vote for, and feels the need to cast a vote, would ever vote GOP instead of a third party candidate like Jill Stein (who is much closer to Sanders than anyone in the GOP)?
posted by sallybrown at 9:22 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

I'd say voter apathy is the biggest risk with Clinton.
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.

I don't think this Trump = Hitler analogy is very helpful, or true for that matter.

First of all, Hitler had convictions and followed, if not created, a twisted and perverted ideology. It's all laid out in his book "Mein Kampf", written in 1923. And as twisted and perverted this ideology was, Hitler was pretty consistent about it. In any case, I don't think he's ever been accused of being a flip-flopper on social (or any other) matters.

Trump, on the other hand, makes it up as he goes along. There are no solid convictions worth mentioning. The book he is known for ("The art of the deal") is not about any personal (moral) convictions, but about a methodology. It's about HOW to reach a certain goal, and not WHAT that goal should be.

If anything, I think Trump is much closer to Berlusconi: the grandiosity, the superficial charm, the exaggerated self-importance, the pathological lying, the constant denigration of competitors, the manipulativeness, the complete absence of a moral core, the refusal to ever apologize for anything, the irresponsibility, etc.
posted by sour cream at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

People make poor decisions and act rashly out of fear, and fear also influences how we interpret things (such as perhaps hearing the words "English only," which all sides acknowledge was said, and making assumptions about who was saying that, how many of them were, and why).

I guess you're more charitable than me, because I have a hard time understanding how someone could hear the amplified voice of the moderator standing several feet away on stage use a phrase once in the context of a sentence and honestly interpret that as a group of people in the crowd, coincidentally all supporting the candidate you oppose, chanting that phrase (i.e., loudly and more than once).

It sounds like Huerta was upset about what she felt to be disrespectful treatment by the caucusgoers, and that's certainly unfortunate. But then she started a rumor that something happened that didn't happen and it's spread like wildfire and may be hurting her opponent's rising support in minority communities, which the candidate she supports desperately needs to hold on to in order to win the nomination. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I disagree with you about which way Occam's razor cuts this time.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2016 [17 favorites]

would ever vote GOP instead of a third party candidate like Jill Stein

Maybe the Democrats prevented the Green party candidate from getting on the ballot in a particular district. Wouldn't that be a cruel irony for the Democrats.

(Truth be told, I have no idea if this is happening this time around, but it definitely was during the Nader campaign.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:29 AM on February 21, 2016

The strategic voting thing continues to be a pointlessly divisive argument for everyone who doesn't live in a swing state. I'm glad that my vote won't really count so that I'll be free to vote my conscience if Clinton is the nominee.
posted by dialetheia at 9:34 AM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

And as twisted and perverted this ideology was, Hitler was pretty consistent about it.

obligatory Sobchak "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos"
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:34 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

The big question in my mind about Trump is will he follow through on all the stuff he says he will do. It seems...unlikely...that he will force Mexico to pay for a large wall on the border, or that he really will ban Muslims from entering the US. But I have a good friend whose Muslim parents live outside the US. To her, this is not just Trump blather, it's something that could make a large negative impact on her life.
posted by sallybrown at 9:37 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump now questioning whether Rubio is eligible to be President:

There is a lawsuit pending in Broward County, Florida, challenging the eligibility of both Cruz and Rubio — Cruz because of where he was born, Rubio because of where his parents were born.

“I think the lawyers have to determine that that — and not— it was a retweet, not so much with Marco. I'm not really that familiar with Marco's circumstances,” Trump said Sunday morning.

This is just so gross and disheartening.
posted by sallybrown at 9:40 AM on February 21, 2016

That's fine. My objection is to hectoring strangers about Nader and whatnot and acting entitled to votes when it truly doesn't matter for most of us. At least find out if their vote is strategically important before telling people who they are required to vote for.
posted by dialetheia at 9:45 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

::hits bong:: Is, like, anybody really eligible to be President?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:47 AM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

To her, this is not just Trump blather, it's something that could make a large negative impact on her life.

Yes, she's right. Even if he doesn't build the wall (and I actually think he will and provide Mexico the loan while he's at it), it still wouldn't be good for either group if Trump is elected. If you believe that the election of the president kind of sets the mood of the temperament of the country, then electing Trump would pretty much give the okay to every closest racist, bigot, and white supremacist to start harassing and pushing around immigrants and minorities. And when the US gives into unchecked populism and nativism, those groups get hurt.

I don't want four years of that. I don't even want a Purge Day of that.
posted by FJT at 9:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [7 favorites]

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.

Bernie Bros are accelerationists who support Trump now, this is definitely a concept worth holding on to
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:55 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm definitely voting 3rd party if she is the nominee in a state that, if the Republican wins the Presidency, is one that is probably going to swing to them for the first time in a while. If anybody tries to blame me for the loss when I've been screaming from the rooftops that she is dangerously vulnerable to a loss compared to other names the Democrats could have nominated, I'm not gonna even argue. I'm just gonna laugh. The party made her nomination happen, it can take the blame or the kudos however this turns out.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump now questioning whether Rubio is eligible to be President:
“You're really not sure that Marco Rubio is eligible to run for president? You're really not sure?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“I don't know. I really — I've never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he's not. And I retweeted it. I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and I retweet things, and we start dialogue and it's very interesting,” Trump said.

I heard someone on the Internet say that Trump is really a shape-shifting reptile. Personally, I don't have an opinion on that. I think, it's up for the people to decide whether it is true. But, IF it is true, then one should take a really hard look on whether shape-shifting reptiles are eligible for the presidency.
posted by sour cream at 10:00 AM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Frankly, if Hillary is as half a compromised a DLC-corporatist-neoliberal-New Democrat as the rhetoric against her claims, she'll do just fine as a heel for progressives and leftists to rally around for the next four years. Elect her and then attack her policies while she's sitting in the White House, and prepare to primary her in 2020. If she's really so bad, then Andrew Johnson her, that is if American progressives can really have the tenacity and cohesion to match the Radical Republicans. Either way, if Hillary will actually push left, then you get what you want. If she stays the same, or even goes right, then make an example out of her. Win-win. There's no need to go full accelerationist by electing a GOP candidate.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:27 AM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]

Nobody is intentionally going accelerationist at all, luckily. People might be talking about it in a tiny corner of reddit somewhere, but the vast majority of Sanders supporters, if they decide not to support Clinton, just won't vote (with the apparent exception of roomthreeseventeen, who has a pre-existing affection for Bloomberg - which is fine! Luckily we are all free to vote as we like). Apathy is the real danger. I would love it if people voted out of duty, but much of the Democratic coalition simply doesn't. There needs to be a reason for people to vote for someone, not just against people. Democrats win when we have a positive, exciting, coherent message that can turn out our voters.

You make a great point about 2020 though - looking at the splits for voters under 45 (of whom Sanders won 75% in Nevada yesterday, with a stunning 89% of people under 30!) does make me much more hopeful about the future of the party.
posted by dialetheia at 10:38 AM on February 21, 2016 [16 favorites]

More on Bush's insane cash burn: Inside Jeb's $150 Million Failure.
-
“The Jeb people knew that literally every day when he was governor, he’d walk the steps of the Capitol at a jog pace,” one longtime Bush bundler and confidant said recently. “The building was 30 stories high. You’d hide because you wouldn’t want him to catch you and make you walk the stairs. He’d email you at 5:30 a.m. This was not at all a low-energy guy. It wasn’t true, but it stuck.”

“They got defined as ‘low energy’ by a guy who took an escalator to his own announcement.”
posted by Drinky Die at 10:44 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Claim Of Bernie Sanders Supporters Chanting ‘English Only’ Is A Lie
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

I believe that youth are definitely the future of the party and want to do whatever is possible to ease the generational gap between Clinton and Sanders supporters.

My read is that Bernie is fighting more for the heart and soul of the party and if the electorate chooses Clinton he would be a good leader in getting her elected despite policy differences.

I think the same thing happened in 08 where despite Clinton and Obama having significant differences she joined his cabinet as one of the strongest Secretaries of State in recent memory.

The war should be about ideas and I don't have any problems with a centrist democrat adopting progressive ideas because thats the way Democratic principles tend to operate.

Youthful progressive voices will go a long way towards negating some of the fearful reactionary politics that's still dominating the other end of the electorate.
posted by vuron at 10:49 AM on February 21, 2016

There's One Reason Why Jeb (!) Was Always Destined to Fail: He was the wrong candidate in the wrong place in the wrong year.
posted by homunculus at 10:54 AM on February 21, 2016

dialetheia's breakdown of different GOP sub-factions earlier was very helpful, and explains why many of the Tea Party actually detest Trump (question #2, Quinnipiac University National Poll, 2-17-16), and that among groups within the GOP, he loses out only them and the "Very Conservative" (question #1). I guess if Cruz and Rubio both lose to Trump, we really are seeing the dissolution of the Tea Party movement and its discrediting as a political brand, though for totally different reasons from what I suggested a year ago.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 AM on February 21, 2016

Sanders and Trump: how the political and media establishment got 2016 so wrong:

A middle class that once saw itself central to the American Dream now seems to be on the outside looking in. And what they see with their noses pressed to the glass is a top tier of Americans accumulating wealth and income with little room at the party for anyone else. ...

Americans have long looked to government to right this imbalance, but this time they see Washington bailing out those on top at the expense of everyone else. In a 2015 Pew survey, about seven in ten Americans said that government economic policies since the recession have helped large banks, financial institutions, corporations, and the wealthy — and have done little or nothing at all to help the middle class, small businesses or those in poverty.

And politicians to their ironic credit confirm exactly what the American people are seeing: tone deaf Republicans who want to water down regulations on the financial industry and prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy – and tone deaf Democrats who claim to speak for working families but take millions in donations and speaking fees from the same Wall Street investment bankers whose recklessness helped create the crash.

What many Americans see is a go-along, get-along political culture that coddles the status quo establishment and holds no one responsible for the economic hardship the few visited upon the many.

So where do they turn for explanation and help? Enter Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

posted by dialetheia at 11:16 AM on February 21, 2016 [9 favorites]

It'll be interesting to see what Nevada looks like for the Republicans on Tuesday. After that, they only have that short haul until Super Tuesday when I think this'll become a lot clearer.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:17 AM on February 21, 2016

Millenials know this isn't about 'free stuff'. This is about getting back 'stolen stuff'.

The end result is that the have nots continue to bicker over a declining portion of the pie. Witness the age divide in this thread between Boomers and Millenials.

That dynamic is also why Sanders' policies are intended to increase the portion of the pie we're fighting over. I mean, that's the very definition of fighting income inequality.

so here's a chart showing labor's share of the national income and here's one showing capital's share or corporate profits as a percentage of national income (longer term series back to the 1930s; note: different measures/denominators, but they all mostly tell the same story...)

what's driving this? even as wages have lagged productivity growth for the US economy as a whole, banking sector compensation has far exceeded its productivity (which is partly why goldman sachs is questioning its own existence ;)

anyway this is all to say that kocherlakota has followed up his earlier post on faster growth is possible with another showing how increasing labor's share of the pie (and participation rates) would boost growth!

This picture is key in understanding the opportunities that may be available. It depicts the evolution of labor share - the ratio of real wages to average labor productivity - in the nonfarm business sector. This ratio remains low by historical standards. The low level suggests that, for whatever reason, labor is unusually cheap... The prospect of higher demand could lead to more innovation and faster total factor productivity growth over this period. I argue here that we saw exactly that kind of effect from anticipated higher demand in the Great Depression. Such an effect would make faster growth an even better deal.

posted by kliuless at 11:34 AM on February 21, 2016 [11 favorites]

Flirting with 4 years of Trump, who let's say this again for the benefit of Bernie Bros, is almost literally Hitler, is out of the question.

Could you walk that back a little, please? Asking as a woman, ardent Sanders supporter, and daughter of a Holocaust survivor.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:43 AM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

Reflecting on the Trump SC win this morning, I certainly understand the fear that that guy could actually become president. But the only way I can see that happening is if the Republican party blows up so completely that there is no actual party left by September, and we have 3 or 4 candidates running in the general election. His nativist, racist garbage is appealing to a rabid base, but the U.S. is only about 64% white (I'm assuming very few non-whites are on board the Trump train). That means he starts with a maximum possible base of around 60%. Given that many, many white people are not actually nativist or super xenophobic or deeply racist, I don't see how Trump could possibly break 35-40% general support, no matter how rabid his base becomes. (Unless, that is, I live in a really different country than I've experienced my entire life. Which is possible, but I've been around a bit.)

So if it's a two-way race, I can't see him winning. (The thing about appeals to fear based on race or ethnicity in the 21st century is that there are just far more non-white people around, and far more white people who love, work with, are friends with, have married non-white people than even 20 years ago. Race and ethnicity become more difficult to otherize every day.) The fear for me is that if we have 3 or 4 candidates in the general election this fall, 35% could become a winning percentage.

A few scenarios*:

1. Trump wins the R nomination, runs against D nominee in a two-way race. Democrat wins.

2. Trump wins R nomination, Bloomberg enters and we have a three-way race. Bloomberg would take votes from the D candidate, sure, but also from Trump. I don't see him taking enough votes to pull a D candidate below, say, 40% (though I'm not real confident about that). Or perhaps Bloomberg could pull enough votes from both to win.

3. Trump wins majority delegates, R establishment freaks and keeps the nomination from him via brokered convention. He runs as independent, we have three-way race with two hard-right candidates and the D nominee. Outcome becomes less clear, but I still see the Democrat winning.

4. Same as above, but Bloomberg still enters and we have a four-way race with two hard-right candidates, a right-leaning centrist independent, and the D nominee. Outcome very unclear, maximum fear scenario.

One thing, however, is clear to me: whoever wins will be the candidate who captures the voters described above: "A middle class that once saw itself central to the American Dream now seems to be on the outside looking in." On preview, no matter the variables, I think whichever candidate can most effectively distill, explain and sell the essential point of kliuless' excellent comment above, will likely have the winning campaign message. Trump is hitting those notes, but the hate and otherization is a deal-breaker for most of us. I just fear an election scenario where "most of us" will not be the determining percentage of voters.

*n.b.: this all may be totally stupid. As a thoughtful person--like everyone commenting here--I often lean on reason and information and facts too much when trying to predict things like this, and have a hard time accounting for emotion in people's decision-making.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:43 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

why can't we say Trump is Hitler-esque? There was a really interesting piece on Slate discussing similarities between Trump's approach and fascism, and while there were significant distinctions, there were eerie similarities.
posted by angrycat at 11:47 AM on February 21, 2016

What is the evidence that Clinton can win the general election in the current climate? ("All the Republicans are crazy" doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing argument.)
posted by an animate objects at 11:49 AM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary, if it's not too late. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'll vote for her in the general.

And if Clinton wins the general, then on the very day of her inauguration I'm going to put a bumper sticker on my car that says DON'T BLAME ME: I VOTED FOR BERNIE.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:53 AM on February 21, 2016 [15 favorites]

What is the evidence that Clinton can win the general election in the current climate?

Hypothetical questions can't have evidence-based answers. The future hasn't happened yet.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:54 AM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Didn't mean to be too pithy in my reply just then: I mean to say that, if Clinton can capture the voters who are disenfranchised with the power structure and status quo, which is clearly not working at all for most of us, then she can win. If not, not.

I have my own opinions about her insight, ability, and willingness to do that, but can't know what may happen this fall. I've never seen an election like this.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:56 AM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

You can call Trump anything you want and say anything to get Hillary elected. I'm done here.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:58 AM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

why can't we say Trump is Hitler-esque?

You can. Someone in this conversation has simply asked that you refrain from doing so, as that specific comparison is deeply personal and emotionally charged for her. So, do as you wish, but one hopes that politeness and respect will influence further possible comparisons along those lines.

On preview: Room 641-A please don't exit the conversation. I value your comments, and when thoughtful people exit any conversation, we are poorer for it.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:00 PM on February 21, 2016 [14 favorites]

A few scenarios*:

5. Same as 4, except the D nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. RNC is already over for a week and Trump has already announced his third-party candidacy. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure. Soft five-way race. The War of the Five POTUS.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:02 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

The primary evidence for Clinton is as follows:

538 Electoral College votes
Democrats have 247 safe votes
Republicans have 206 safe votes
85 in battleground states.

Of those Ohio, Virginia, Florida are the most critical and indeed if Republicans lose Florida or Ohio they basically can't win.

So really the entire election tends to be decided by voters in a handful of states many of whom are whiter than normal (Iowa and Ohio), older than normal (NH and Florida) or will be driven by Latino GOTV efforts (Colorado and Nevada).

So a lot of Hillary's electibility is driven note by head to head polling but how she does among critical voting blocks in these battleground states.

That's why Hillary is focusing so much on Unions, Black voters, Latino voters, etc because they tend to break pretty solidly democratic and GotV strategies can really payoff.

Sanders would have the same structural advantages as Hillary but it's currently unclear how strong his support would be among these critical voting blocks in battleground states mainly because there hasn't been a whole lot of public polling thus far.
posted by vuron at 12:06 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

But isn't the big thing thats missing from this conversation who they choose as VP's? I seem to recall it being a very close game with McCain until he chose Palin as his running mate.

It seems to me that since virtually none of the candidates are ideal (I realize that is always the case, but this year it seems especially so)greater weight would be put into who's on the ticket with them.
posted by newpotato at 12:08 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, I mean, Romney was probably always going to lose, but picking Paul Ryan hurt his campaign. And Sarah Palin. Yeah.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:09 PM on February 21, 2016

I think it was a combination of Palin turning people off, McCain appearing clueless when the financial crisis hit, and Obama appearing competent in an environment where a lot of people were looking for an alternative after 8 years of the Republicans fucking up. Democrats were winning House and Senate seats in red states in those days too.
posted by eagles123 at 12:11 PM on February 21, 2016

Hillary would likely pick a younger Latino leader especially against Trump for a variety of reasons but mainly because the Democrats have been looking for a strong Latino Democratic leader since at least Cisneros and a Latino VP would definitely help solidify the Democratic party as the party that embraces Latinos.

Sanders would likely need to pick a more centrist female VP (preferably minority and southern) do undo some of the conservative rhetoric about "NY values" aka Anti-semitic dog-whistles.

Ignoring the hangers on on the Republican side:

Cruz, likely needs to pick a more centrist Northern but that won't undermine his support among evangelicals.

Rubiobot- Nikki Haley

Trump basically some "maverick" that won't mind being a persona-non-grata in Republican circles. Probably a former Republican wonk of some type or a Maverick like Joe Lieberman from across the aisle.
posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on February 21, 2016

Trump/The Plumber '16
posted by Artw at 12:21 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

There are actually some schools of thought that indicate that it actually helps the Republican agenda when they are the party in opposition to the Presidency because then they can engage in wanton obstructionism and still advance a conservative agenda at all levels of government. When they actually have the Presidency they don't typically know how to govern particularly well and tend to overreach alot.

Of course with 2 supreme court seats likely up for grabs in the next Presidency it's a bad time to be the opposition party because we could easily see a transition from a 5-4 narrow conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal majority (or even 6-3 if Kennedy leaves) or a shift to a near impregnable 6-3 conservative court.
posted by vuron at 12:24 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

A Bloomberg-Webb ticket would make sense in the context of a bipartisan unity run, not that there's any chance of it happening.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:24 PM on February 21, 2016

Rubio should pick Kasich. Try and nail down Florida and Ohio. I don't know who Haley brings into his camp for the general. Though I think it would be a really good thing for the Republican party to set up Haley as a future leader.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Rubio is going to be gone long before we get to the summer.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

It can't be just about what we're going to give you

What pisses me off about this comment so much is that implying that Sanders supporters - the same supporters who are responsible for the volunteer work and contributions that make up the overwhelming bulk of his support - don't work hard, and are looking for handouts. His entire campaign has been built on the hard work of his supporters.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [25 favorites]

I'm not comfortable with the idea that Democrats should mandate ideological purity tests either way.

Ah, the "purity test" ploy -- implying that anyone who finds Clinton's antiprogressive history objectionable is somehow rigidly dogmatic. Apparently, we should all be more flexible, and not ask our politicians to have values that agree with our own.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:37 PM on February 21, 2016 [12 favorites]

Schlock and naw!

Speaking of which, Jeb! gear is still available -- at full price, of course.
posted by GrammarMoses at 12:41 PM on February 21, 2016

Um. I am not calling Trump Hitler to get Clinton elected. I am wondering why, when there is open discussion of Trump's fascist's tendencies, is it not okay to talk about it. Do I need to name another fascist? Do I need to not say fascism? Do I need to say that I am not accusing Sanders's supporters of fascism?

I just sort of don't understand the universe this thread is coming from, aside from a roaring Hate for Clinton that sort of devours everything in its path.

I didn't mean for anybody to rage quit the thread over it, honestly.
posted by angrycat at 12:50 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't know that I'd call Trump a fascist, but I would say that he wants to be a unitary executive who embodies the state and promises to restore the volk's destiny by punishing the simultaneously weak and strong other who have cheated them.
posted by The Gaffer at 12:54 PM on February 21, 2016 [15 favorites]

I'm not clear where the idea that he wants to be a unitary executive comes from. His pitch is that he can make anything happen by making a deal, not that he will do it himself by force of will.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:55 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

I am wondering why, when there is open discussion of Trump's fascist's tendencies, is it not okay to talk about it.

Did her original request not answer that question for you? Throwing Godwin arguments into things is understandably very offensive to many people. All she was asking was for you to be sensitive to the feelings of people for whom Hitler is not a rhetorical device.

Could you walk that back a little, please? Asking as a woman, ardent Sanders supporter, and daughter of a Holocaust survivor.
posted by dialetheia at 12:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am not calling Trump Hitler to get Clinton elected.

You'll have to quote where someone said that, because I have not read that in this thread.

I am wondering why, when there is open discussion of Trump's fascist's tendencies, is it not okay to talk about it.

It's absolutely OK, no one has said otherwise.

Do I need to name another fascist? Do I need to not say fascism? Do I need to say that I am not accusing Sanders's supporters of fascism?

In order: yes, because someone very politely asked you to, and explained why; no, see above; no, because that's a strawman you are projecting onto comments that have not said that.

I just sort of don't understand the universe this thread is coming from, aside from a roaring Hate for Clinton that sort of devours everything in its path.

Well, I've been reading a really interesting thread with thoughtful and very informed discussion that has occasionally become heated and personal, but not overly so. It seems to me that you're projecting quite a lot onto what you're reading that is not there. I am willing to be corrected on that, but you'll have to point to specific comments.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:05 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

On another note, I very much related to this thoughtful article about the lingering misogynist issues with Bill Clinton's treatment of women. I was the same age as the author when the Lewinsky stuff came out and I remember internalizing a lot of bad slut-shaming lessons about how nobody believed "trashy" women and how it was somehow her fault that Clinton was in trouble, too. This part in particular had me nodding along vigorously:

"Regardless of which side of the aisle you sat regarding Bill Clinton’s subsequent impeachment – the “he’s a scoundrel” side of the aisle or the “he’s good at his job, so whatever!” one – the whole nation agreed that Lewinsky was a disgrace. Hence it’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton agreed. Or that I agreed, too: Lewinsky was disgusting. I would never be that kind of girl. But as the sexual dramatics unfolded each evening on the six o’clock news and I began late-adolescent forays into things that fell short of sexual relations, I privately wondered: if Monica Lewinsky was a slut, what did that make me?"
posted by dialetheia at 1:09 PM on February 21, 2016 [17 favorites]

Could you walk that back a little, please? Asking as a woman, ardent Sanders supporter, and daughter of a Holocaust survivor.

Well, since I was the one to initially throw out the Hitler comment, I won't again, it was a throwaway line that shouldn't turn into an emotional derail. Insert your choice of lesser fascist dictator instead. I'd simply note the comparison is apt in tone, if not specific methods.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:16 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

dialetheia, thanks for posting that. Excellent essay.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:17 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

fascism has a broad spectrum of applicability according to Umberto Eco
posted by bukvich at 1:45 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

Talking about Trump and fascism is fine, but let's drop now who meant what by saying what and whether it was good faith, bad faith, or clueless.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 1:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

C-SPAN is showing the Sanders rally in Greenville, SC today - Ben Jealous, former president of the NAACP, is speaking now.
posted by dialetheia at 2:25 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

One of the most interesting things about the reintroduction of class issues into the Democratic campaign has been finding out what people believe constitutes "middle class." I've even seen people on twitter arguing that people making $100k+ are middle class! Even granting that different incomes go further in different cities, it's still pretty amazing. I really liked this breakdown of what Americans actually make:

-If you make more than $10,000, you earn more than 24.2% of Americans, or 37 million people.
-If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans.
-If you make more than $30,000, you earn more than 53.2% of Americans.
-If you make more than $50,000, you earn more than 73.4% of Americans.
-If you make more than $100,000, you earn more than 92.6% of Americans.
-You are officially in the top 1% of American wage earners if you earn more than $250,000.
posted by dialetheia at 2:34 PM on February 21, 2016 [16 favorites]

That Lewinsky article is really great dialetheia - it's everything I've been thinking about the situation (I'm also nearly the same age as the author and grew up in the same region, so it really reflects my experiences).
posted by melissasaurus at 2:44 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

One of the most interesting things about the reintroduction of class issues into the Democratic campaign

Economic class issues, perhaps, but I ain't heard shit about social class coming out of the Democrat side. Which is too bad for that party because TRUMP's great advantage is being lower class and unashamed of it. E.g. TRUMP could certainly afford a more refined hairstyle which the higher classes would not mock, but instead he maintains his signature 'do and gains power when his enemies resort to joking on it. You see above "short-fingered vulgarian" quoted - the old-school meaning of "vulgar" is "of the commoners".

There was recently this post linking a fine essay on social class, but to ctrl-f trump on the Metafilter comments was to see "Phrase not found".
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

When I say no purity tests I mean things like "No new taxes ever" and "Abortions should always be illegal" which are definitely present on the Republican side. For the most part I haven't seen similar pledges on the left and for the most part that seems to make the left more likely to actually govern.
posted by vuron at 4:11 PM on February 21, 2016

I've even seen people on twitter arguing that people making $100k+ are middle class!

What? That's nonsense. Just ask Hillary Clinton:

Mrs. Clinton is using a definition of middle class that has long been popular among Democratic policy makers, from her husband to Barack Obama when he was a candidate: any household that makes $250,000 or less a year.

posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:35 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

What's really telling about that statement is that $250,000 or less a year has been the benchmarch for the past twenty-odd years.
posted by dinty_moore at 4:37 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

Hillary Clinton needs hope and change. Can she accept that before it's too late?
posted by Artw at 4:42 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders uses the same definition guys. It's a stupid definition but lets not pin it on Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 4:56 PM on February 21, 2016

Cite?
posted by dialetheia at 4:57 PM on February 21, 2016

Bernie Sanders says lower turnout contributed to his Nevada loss to Hillary Clinton:

About 80,000 people showed up for the state's caucuses, a significant drop-off compared to 2008, the last time there was a competitive Democratic race, according to officials at the Nevada Democratic Party. That year, 117,600 people participated.

posted by octothorpe at 5:07 PM on February 21, 2016

This is the most interesting link about Donald Trump and economic and social class I've read this election season. It's from a reasonable conservative perspective and I think it's worth reading the whole thing. It misses some things, like the waning power of organized labor, that are factors in the current situation, but it is still the best look at class from a conservative perspective I've seen.

Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment

It so happens that you can determine a huge amount about the economic and social prospects of people in America today by asking one remarkably simple question: how do they get most of their income? Broadly speaking—there are exceptions, which I’ll get to in a moment—it’s from one of four sources: returns on investment, a monthly salary, an hourly wage, or a government welfare check. People who get most of their income from one of those four things have a great many interests in common, so much so that it’s meaningful to speak of the American people as divided into an investment class, a salary class, a wage class, and a welfare class.

It’s probably necessary to point out explicitly here that these classes aren’t identical to the divisions that Americans like to talk about. That is, there are plenty of people with light-colored skin in the welfare class, and plenty of people with darker skin in the wage class. Things tend to become a good deal more lily-white in the two wealthier classes, though even there you do find people of color. In the same way, women, gay people, disabled people, and so on are found in all four classes, and how they’re treated depends a great deal on which of these classes they’re in. If you’re a disabled person, for example, your chances of getting meaningful accommodations to help you deal with your disability are by and large considerably higher if you bring home a salary than they are if you work for a wage.

posted by Drinky Die at 5:07 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders uses the same definition guys.

Not for purposes of who's exempt from new taxes, he doesn't.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:14 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is $250,000 middle class? Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders think so. From CNN Money.
posted by Justinian at 5:22 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also Sanders's and Clinton's Fake Middle Class from Bloomberg View. I hope that's enough.
posted by Justinian at 5:23 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

From an academic sense upper middle class does extend all the way up to the top 1%. So basically household incomes in the range of 97,000+

Note this also typically excludes household wealth in the form of home equity because for the most part that is a non liquid asset.

For a site like Metafilter that has a high percentage of highly paid tech professionals in exceedingly expensive cities there are probably further gradations but for the most part middle class is a very broad category.
posted by vuron at 5:25 PM on February 21, 2016

I don't want to quibble or anything, but both of those articles start from Bill Clinton's definition and only note that Sanders says he wants to increase taxes on "the wealthy" - he doesn't mention the middle class at all in any of the quoted statements. The assumption that he's implicitly saying that anyone who isn't "wealthy" is necessarily middle-class seems unsupported. I do love CNN calling candidates out on a fake middle class definition, though, when they'd be the first in line to criticize Sanders for "middle-class" tax increases on ... earners making less than $250k.

I guess if we're using the mean income to define the center, maybe that kind of analysis might make sense? But since the income distribution is damn near exponential, that would be totally inappropriate. Quintiles seem like a much more appropriate way to analyze it, so according to e.g. the Brookings Institutions's figures, the middle quintile, or true middle-class, would be from about $40-65k. That seems much more reasonable. The upper middle class should be the next quintile at $65-105k - and the lower-middle class should be the quintile below at $20-40k.
posted by dialetheia at 5:43 PM on February 21, 2016 [7 favorites]

Most Democrats tend to use an expansive view of the middle class because selling big tax increases on upper middle class workers in coastal cities have been a rough sell. You are going to struggle to convince coastal liberals that are already priced out of the housing market that they need to sacrifice more.

Let's not pretend that Bernies plans can entirely be funded by eating the 1%
posted by vuron at 5:58 PM on February 21, 2016

Well, as far as the health care plan goes, the 1% starts at $250k and that's where he starts increasing income tax rates. Starting at $29k, people would pay a 2.2% income-based premium on their payroll taxes that is intended to replace health care premiums currently paid to private insurance companies, so not a "real" tax increase when weighed against the much greater amount they're saving on those exorbitant premiums. There are employer taxes and an increase in capital gains taxes and estate taxes as well, but none of those really hit the middle class (and again, that employer tax replaces the employer contributions currently paid toward private insurance premiums - most employers would save money). His estate tax increases only affect estates > $3.5 million, and the college plan is paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation that is already working in many countries and has been recommended by hundreds of economists.
posted by dialetheia at 6:07 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

So the 1% is comprised of.....3 million people? Or is it less than that cuz they don't count the childrens and the unemployed?
posted by ian1977 at 6:09 PM on February 21, 2016

Let's not pretend that Bernies plans can entirely be funded by eating the 1%

No-one ever has. Healthcare is paid for by taking the current payroll deduction for an HMO, and putting it into a Trust, and since the middle-men who don't add value, but do add cost are cut out, we have enough money to extend coverage to everyone.

It *does* suck if you are, say, the CEO of a Health Insurance company, but you know, fuck them.
posted by mikelieman at 6:10 PM on February 21, 2016 [22 favorites]

More about the phone calls before the Nevada caucus: Harry Reid delivers for Hillary Clinton
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:37 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think Trump should pick Michele Fiore as his VP (or maybe a Cardassian)
posted by ambulocetus at 6:38 PM on February 21, 2016

yeah he should totally go with Gul Dukat. at least that way we wouldn't have to put up with him for long.
posted by indubitable at 6:42 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

VP Camacho or nothing I say.

Or maybe VP Ben Carson. I could see him doing that.
posted by ian1977 at 6:43 PM on February 21, 2016

VP Ben Carson

Oh please oh please oh please. He has all the WTF of a Sarah Palin and none of the charisma.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:46 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think trump would like that Carson would never ever ever upstage him.
posted by ian1977 at 6:47 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

He's such a low energy guy.
posted by peeedro at 6:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump would pick Carson as his running mate but then insist that Carson be played by Cuba Gooding Jr.
posted by ian1977 at 7:01 PM on February 21, 2016 [9 favorites]

This may have been suggested upthread, but the "Clinton stops Bernie" dynamic is mostly a media invention. Surely people have noticed that Clinton ekes by in the two caucuses (which is inside pool, politically speaking.) I'm not surprised, and neither should anyone else be surprised that when party machinery is such an elemental part of the tabulation, the party machinery has an advantage. Let's wait to see how primary votes turn out before we extinguish the Bern. He's done quite well thus far (N.H) and South Carolina will tell us a lot.

The tendency to see this as a horse race is natural, but the real timbre of this cycle is in how well the disaffected "regular" folks make their voice heard.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:31 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

Change "well" to "effectively."
posted by CincyBlues at 7:33 PM on February 21, 2016

Let's be honest the Sanders proposal includes a 6.2 employer side payroll tax and a 2.2 income tax increase plus some other tax policies around the edges but the vast majority of it is in the form of increased payroll taxes and income taxes.

That's not necessarily a dealbreaker for me by any means even though I think the possibility of getting it past a Republican dominated congress is basically nil. But you have to deal with a whole range of criticism concerning your economic assumptions. Even if you somehow get the liberal economists to assume that Friedman's projections are somewhat in line with reality (which based on the analysis of Thorpe, the CEA Economists and Krugman all seems unlikely) you still have to deal with all the right leaning economists that will pull out economic projections that show Sanders proposals shrinking the economy and costing jobs.

Who is right? It's hard to say because economic modeling when you try to deal with trillions of dollars worth of programs is incredibly tricky and let's be perfectly honest prone to shenanigans when you get into dynamic modeling. I personally would like to see additional analysis of the universal health care proposal because personally I would like for the US to adopt universal health care (although I'm not firmly committed to the single-payer alternative as there is some evidence that a mixed model works in some European nations like France).

Even beyond the economic analysis I would like to hear more details on how Sanders plans on dealing with Republican obstructionism because as much as I would like to believe that a series of marches on Washington might influence Congress the recent election trends especially in non-Presidential election years has shown that the voters simply won't punish the Republicans for being obstructionist and actually Republican members of Congress are actually more afraid of being primaried to the Right than they are of seeming incompetent at governance.
posted by vuron at 7:42 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

So the 1% is comprised of.....3 million people? Or is it less than that cuz they don't count the childrens and the unemployed?

Typically they talk about household units since that is the way taxes are calculated and the census does its surveys.

So there are 125 million households in 2015. The top 1% of households would be 1.25 million. The average household is about 2.5 people, so you might say that there are 3.1 million people in families of the 1% including their children. So your estimate was about right.
posted by JackFlash at 7:45 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

Let's be honest the Sanders proposal includes a 6.2 employer side payroll tax and a 2.2 income tax increase plus some other tax policies around the edges but the vast majority of it is in the form of increased payroll taxes and income taxes.

... in lieu of private insurance premiums, yes. I mean, I get that the Republicans will use that misleading framing, but it's important to be honest and note that those taxes will replace all private health insurance-related costs for baseline care.
posted by dialetheia at 7:46 PM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

I would like to hear more details on how Sanders plans on dealing with Republican obstructionism

Anecdotally, Sanders served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007, and in the Senate from 2007 to the present, and over the course of that time developed a reputation for being able to cooperate with Republicans and reach mutually agreeable compromises. I know that's no guarantee that the current crop of Rs wouldn't just obstruct and stymie him at every turn, but why would they treat Clinton any differently?
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:47 PM on February 21, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't want to reopen an old debate, and I'm not much one for the idea of newspaper bias, but I was trying to find a Times article earlier and googled "sanders site:nytimes.com". Wow -- even in the context of having just lost Nevada, that's a lot of negative coverage with almost nothing positive going back multiple weeks. Maybe it's just reflecting Google bias towards popular articles or the establishment more generally, rather than NYT bias per se, but it's kind of striking, at least at this particular moment (presumably it will change in a few hours or days).
posted by chortly at 8:14 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

I see from this NYT article that the Clinton campaign has succeeded in getting their spin put on the Latino vote in Nevada. Their argument is severely flawed because they fall victim to the ecological fallacy, though - just because they won in more heavily Latino areas doesn't mean they won the majority of Latinos. As the pollster himself pointed out, many younger Latinos live in whiter areas or in college districts, and Sanders cleaned up with younger Latinos. Really disappointing to see such a facile analysis in the New York Times. They could easily argue that it could have been closer to a tie because of the high margin of error, but there's no reason to disbelieve this poll just because the Clinton campaign makes an appeal to a clear logical fallacy.
posted by dialetheia at 8:14 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Clinton's proposals are simply a lot less dramatic and thus require only marginal Republican buy-in. In contrast Sanders proposals require a campaign described political revolution even though the exact dynamics of achieving that political revolution seem to be somewhat vague.

I like Sanders and might even vote for him in the primaries in Texas (early voting next week) but I also don't think his legislative agenda is particularly plausible in the current political climate.

But if his agenda can bring out the millenials and not scare off too many of the centrist Democrats I'd be happy to support him in November.

On the other hand if he can't close the gap with Clinton I'm also going to be content to vote for her in November. In short I like that the party is trying to collectively arguing about how to achieve progressive ideals whether it's Clinton's pragmatic incrementalism or Sanders revolutionary stance because I think there is widespread consensus among both Centrists and Liberals about the basics of domestic policy.

I think there is more differences of opinion on foreign policy with Clinton representing a more interventionist viewpoint but it's pretty clear that both candidates see a moral obligation for the US to use it's influence to better the world (although obviously difference in tactics) as both Clinton and Sanders seem to reject isolationist tendencies.

I suspect that the political will is not really present in regards to implementing a single-payer solution because it seems that a plurality of voters seem somewhat happy with their current health care options and ACA has made some substantial improvements around the margins (this is even better in states that adopted the Medicaid expansion for lower income residents). Health Care is still a big concern among a lot of voters especially in regards to out of pocket expenses in the form of copays and deductibles but ACA has done a remarkably decent job of reigning in health care expenditures and expanding access to health care insurance.

I'm definitely interested in the universal higher education proposals although the details are a little light and I suspect that the majority of the programs would be devoted towards offering 2 years at a Community College because they are generally the best suited towards absorbing a massive influx of students and educating them at a low cost per semester hour. A lot would have to be done so that the lions share of any program doesn't go to the whole industry of predatory for-profit Higher Ed institutions but that is another program detail.
posted by vuron at 8:22 PM on February 21, 2016 [1 favorite]

3 millionish 1%ers. So that is....60,000 per state? (Obviously not evenly distributed but whatevs) Not trying to be obtuse but I just never really wrapped my head around it. 60,000 per state. That's like one decent suburb per state filled with people making over $250,000 per year. But what's the spread amongst them? The difference between the low end and the top end is so yuge that 250k barely seems to count. How many $1M per year people are there?
posted by ian1977 at 8:34 PM on February 21, 2016

That's something like 0.4%. The 0.5% mark is around $870,000.
posted by Justinian at 8:40 PM on February 21, 2016

The pollster also pointed out that based upon the low sample size of Latinos in the entrance poll the margin of error one way or another could account for Sanders victory among Latino voters.

I think the safest assumption given the sample size is that results are inconclusive with the understanding that neither party might have an advantage in regards to Latino voters at least within the context of caucus goers (who I think most people would tend to agree represent the most involved party members). It seems both camps have reason to spin NV positively.

I'm less clear about the long term impact of Latino voters because Texas is the first primary that Latino voters will be a dominant voice and unfortunately polling in Texas has been remarkably limited with PPP having the only recent (and relevant) poll.

The interesting thing will be whether Sanders organization can use the remainder of this week to close the ground in SC where African American voters are clearly the kingmakers (55 percent of SC primary voters were African American in 2008). Sanders absolutely needs to close the gap among African Americans to avoid Clinton having a major victory there.

I think Early Voting will be an interesting thing in regards to the primaries as it's unclear if Early Voters will still be feeling the Bern of a NH win or if the Clinton victory in NV (and presumably SC) will impact Early Voting for the Super Tuesday primaries. Personally I think people are probably more willing to give Sanders a shot now than they have been but if he gets hammered by some bad polling data there could be a late break towards Clinton.
posted by vuron at 8:42 PM on February 21, 2016

So call it half of 3 million....that seems low for the 250k folks. Only 1.5 million people make between $250 and $870k? It seems like there would be quite a few more people making ~$250k. Dentists and lawyers that own their practice. Realtors in high price areas. Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse it just seems...low. $250 isn't THAT much in an area like San Francisco. It's a solid middle class lifestyle that you could get for like $80k in the Midwest right?
posted by ian1977 at 8:44 PM on February 21, 2016

Trump consulting with Rudy Guliani and other unnamed leading Republicans. Who's ready for Secretary of Defense Rudy "9/11" Guliani?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:53 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I see from this NYT article that the Clinton campaign has succeeded in getting their spin put on the Latino vote in Nevada."

The headline "No, the Polling Doesn’t Prove Bernie Sanders Won the Hispanic Vote in Nevada" is exactly accurate. It simply does not prove the assertion of the Sanders camp, nor does it specifically refute it, even though it lays out reasons not to trust the claim.

This is basically a case of cherrypicking a favorable exit poll which also proved to be quite wrong about the final outcome of the contest.

Given that Sanders' campaign manager put out a press release headlined "Sanders Wins Latino Vote in Nevada", while losing the strongest latino precincts -- as well as those used by casino workers -- by about 20 points, there is ample evidence to point out that the entrance poll in question got it wrong. Nate Silver said as much. Frankly, it was an unwise thing for Tad Devine to claim, as it flies in the face of the bulk of the evidence, has racially-clueless overtones, and makes subsequent claims by the Sanders camp less credible and likely more subject to thorough review by the press.

Here's what NBC said about their entrance poll the other day
"Hispanics – nearly two in 10 caucus participants – are tilting to Sanders, with 54 percent support"... but it also goes on later to say "a 14-point margin of sampling error".

So, we're talking about 54% support, plus or minus 14 points... assuming that the polling is actually as scientific as they claim. Any Sanders supporters here believe that translates into "Sanders Wins Latino Vote in Nevada", even when the poll's outcome was clearly off in other major respects?

It would've been far wiser to say "Sanders Gains Strong Support From Latinos in NV", laying out the evidence that tilted their way and letting the media draw their own conclusions, *especailly* after a significant loss.

The truth is, unless all the people doing the entrance polling spoke Spanish -- highly unlikely -- it's really easy to see how these kinds of polls can be fundamentally flawed, as it would skew their respondents towards younger, English-fluent, activist latino voters who wanted to disclose their voting intention.

Silver was exactly right last week about Nevada being a really hard state to poll for, and caucuses in general being much harder to poll for, too. Entrance polls in this case suffer all of these problems, and then some.
posted by markkraft at 8:53 PM on February 21, 2016

ian1997, if you read Thomas Piketty's book he's mostly in agreement with you that the problem isn't so much the 1% but the 0.1%. The people making $250,000 a year are late career doctors and lawyers and executives who really did work their way up in the hierarchy and whose high income basically pays for them to put their kids through college without debt and have secure retirements, but not to establish massive inheritances or create dynasties, and they live a lot more like people earning $60k than people earning $1m. (Also as it is family income you can even, somewhat rarely, get into the 1% with a couple who are both late-career civil servants or skilled tradesmen, at least in union states.)

Piketty's suggested reforms to fight inequality focus mainly on the 0.1% and above whose money starts to come from inheritance, capital investments, and things like that, rather than from a salary for labor.

Not that $250k is anything to sneeze at! But you're right that it's not really the same order of magnitude as a Mitt Romney type, and that a lot of proposed reforms focus on investment income and capital gains that would affect the superrich far more than the "mere" 1% who work for a living and earn a salary.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:56 PM on February 21, 2016 [8 favorites]

Keep in mind that the 1% typically mainly measures direct income numbers and doesn't really address accumulated assets unless those capital gains are realized in a given year. Which most investors tend to avoid for reasons of tax liability.

The number of households with combined income of higher than $400,000 a year (which represents the 1%) tends to decrease rather rapidly as the wealth concentration just gets bigger and bigger.

The 1% represent people typically at the top of the ladder in terms of professional development (established lawyers, doctors, top middle managers) or more probably two income families with high status professions. Some small business owners tend to operate in this range during solid years but can feel intense pressures during economic downturns. The people above this level are almost exclusively members of the executive class and tend to be clustered really heavily among global cities (NY, LA, Chicago, SF, etc). On a local level these almost always represent the top business leaders for a given community and they tend to be clustered in tightly controlled communities.

At the top levels you also get into a ton of social class issues where those that are still making the bulk of their money in the form of salaries tend to be looked down among by those that make most of their wealth in the form of capital gains (ie the investor class).
posted by vuron at 8:57 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Thanks Eyebrows McGee. I don't have a stance to agree Or disagree with on this.. Just trying to wrap my head around the numbers. I've never really sussed it out.
posted by ian1977 at 9:00 PM on February 21, 2016

Although...all in all, Obama is right. If we all just effing voted this would be a moot point. Sad really.
posted by ian1977 at 9:01 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think the issue with the Times article on the Latino NV vote is not the headline, but the conclusion: A Clinton Win, but Not a Landslide

It’s tough to give a poll subsample of some 200 respondents much weight, especially when it’s for a clustered group like Hispanics.

It’s even harder to give it credit when there’s so much reason to wonder whether it’s right. Mrs. Clinton fared well in majority Hispanic precincts. National polls show Mrs. Clinton faring well among Hispanic voters — and Mr. Sanders basically finished in line with national polls among both white and black voters.

All evidence considered, and although we can’t know for sure, I’d err on the side of a Clinton win among Hispanic voters.

But it would be hard to argue that she won Hispanic voters by a lot. Sixty percentage points could easily be too high if she indeed fared better among Hispanic voters in non-Hispanic areas. The entrance-exit poll result may not be perfect, but it certainly seems consistent with this possibility. If I had to bet, I’d say she won Hispanic voters by a somewhat more modest margin.
There's lots of reasons to doubt the accuracy of the exit polls. But deciding based purely on precinct-level extrapolation that he probably in fact lost the Latino vote, despite winning the (very noisy) exit poll by 8 points, is a bit much. It's replacing actual data with pure punditry.
posted by chortly at 9:16 PM on February 21, 2016 [6 favorites]

The challenge of course with dealing with the 0.1% is that capital has become hypermobile in the 21st century so the ability to effectively limit and tax the investor class is really challenging.

Basically the long in short of it is that the investor class really aren't loyal to the success or failure of any country (or company) and while they individually might profess loyalty to a given country they typically will invest in whatever will result in the highest safe return on investment.

For the bulk of the 20th century and most of the 21st century the US has been the home of some of the best and safest returns on investment and as a result the US economy has typically grown at a solid rate. Now a case is clear that income disparity has increased during the last 40 years and that a large sector of the US workers have effectively been screwed out of productivity gains and had those gains transferred to the investor class but it's unclear the best solution.

Increases in capital gains are a potential method but keep in mind that capital is hypermobile so if you make releasing capital gains in the US too onerous you shift investment to other countries thereby presumably weakening the US economy.

Increases of the top tax rates to pre-Reagan levels is another possible idea but it's important to note that there were way more tax exemptions in the pre-Reagan tax code so it's not entirely clear what level of effective taxation the top 0.1% actually paid. Finally you have the issue with people adopting tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes which based upon my limited reading were pretty damned high in the 70s.

With the preponderance of new tax havens for the ultra-rich I'm not sure how much new revenues can be captured from the merely super rich.

The result is that increasingly you need to look primarily at those in the economy who are still largely tied to place by their employment and represent a broad enough tax base that you can generate solid tax revenues without having to jack around too much with trying to pin down the 0.1%

So the question mark tend to be how can you include the well-off (basically the top 5% to the 0.1% of households) without causing massive backlash in terms of elections. For the most part Democrats have tried to focus on avoiding tax increases below the $250,000 a year number but the unfortunate reality is that focusing exclusively on those above $250,000 a year has only limited impacts in terms of increasing revenues simply because the tax base is so relatively small.

This is also why regressive taxation tends to be so popular because even a small tax increase on a broad base of the economy has big revenue impacts and lower income voters tend to not vote in the same levels as more well-to-do voters.
posted by vuron at 9:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

The pollster also pointed out that based upon the low sample size of Latinos in the entrance poll the margin of error one way or another could account for Sanders victory among Latino voters.

Yes, I actually mentioned that too. I have a strong background in statistics, including teaching stats to undergrads and graduate-level spatial statistics. I understand sample size, thanks. If their article had merely mentioned the margin of error, it would have been fine. It's their appeal to the ecological fallacy that undermines the analysis.

This bit in particular is completely unsupportable hogwash: "The actual election returns in Las Vegas’s Clark County hint at a different story. Analyzed neighborhood by neighborhood, they suggest that Mrs. Clinton might have won the Hispanic vote by a comfortable margin." That is the definition of the ecological fallacy. In the face of evidence to the contrary, this appeal provides no evidence that she won anything, let alone "by a comfortable margin." At best, she would be tied given the margin of error, assuming the sample was representative (which may or may not be the case, but that isn't the case they're making).

Given that Sanders' campaign manager put out a press release headlined "Sanders Wins Latino Vote in Nevada", while losing the strongest latino precincts -- as well as those used by casino workers -- by about 20 points, there is ample evidence to point out that the entrance poll in question got it wrong.

Nope - again, that's the definition of the ecological fallacy, not "ample evidence." Without knowing how many Latino voters voted in other precincts, you're just making unsupportable assumptions.

So, we're talking about 54% support, plus or minus 14 points..

Wrong, you're reading it incorrectly. A 14% margin means +/- 7%, as the Politico article rightly points out: "That means both Sanders’ and Clinton’s vote shares among Hispanic caucus-goers have margins of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points, putting Sanders’ lead technically within the margin of error."

has racially-clueless overtones

This is a hell of an accusation. I am completely done talking to someone who makes casual smears like this while simultaneously dismissing Clinton's unbelievably offensive Obama secret Muslim insinuations as "just politics." It's incredibly disingenuous.

I agree with chortly about the framing of the article. It's very misleading and a disappointing piece of campaign staff stenography from the New York Times.
posted by dialetheia at 9:28 PM on February 21, 2016 [18 favorites]

I would be kinda interested if anyone has a solid analysis of entrance poll accuracy vis-a-vis caucuses and primaries. I wonder if some of the data discrepancies can also be attributed to the nature of caucusing in general where a respondent might indicate that they are leaning towards on candidate and then choose to change their mind when exposed to the loud and often boisterous nature of caucuses.

The general tendency of even well respected pollster in regards to Nevada was kinda "lol we really aren't sure one way or another" which I think possibly highlights a weakness of polling in general but also quite possible a weakness in the caucus format in general.

I think there are reasons to believe that the caucus format is ideal in some ways (it arguably gave Obama the nomination in 2008 and probably resulted in Ron Paul having much higher visibility than he otherwise would've enjoyed) and less than ideal in other ways (it has some anti-democratic overtones and can easily be manipulated by a campaign with a good ground game) so personally I'd like to see more caucuses replaced by primaries but I also understand why tradition (and expense) tend to keep caucuses on the nominating calendar.
posted by vuron at 9:45 PM on February 21, 2016

I wonder if some of the data discrepancies can also be attributed to the nature of caucusing in general where a respondent might indicate that they are leaning towards on candidate and then choose to change their mind when exposed to the loud and often boisterous nature of caucuses.

I don't mean to pick on this, but what discrepancy? For the umpteenth time, it is a completely unsupported inference to say that just because she won in areas with more Latinos that she won Latinos overall. I'm not just being nitpicky - it's a very important fallacy and can lead to some very incorrect conclusions. Sample size and representative sample issues are much more important concerns.

Polling caucus states beforehand is extremely difficult because predicting turnout is so difficult. I assume they don't have as much trouble with Iowa because their likely voter models are much better calibrated with many years of data. Entrance polls don't have any of the same issues, which is why nobody had any other issues with the entrance polling from Nevada except this single result, for some mysterious reason. Margins of error are often large when you drill down into exit/entrance polls for any subgroups, but nobody cares about that 99% of the time when we report these results. You may have a point about people switching sides once they're inside - I've never caucused before so I don't know how frequently that happens. I would imagine that it would be difficult to say for certain how representative entrance/exit polls are because people don't report demographic information when they vote, but it should work just like any other sample as long as your sample is representative of your population.

I would love to see caucuses end altogether. Obama won them in 2008 because he had a vastly superior political organization and ground game, whereas this year Hillary is edging them out because she has the machinery of the Democratic party on her side. I would much rather see everyone go to a more democratic, secret-ballot primary. I think one of the reasons they persist is that they present a good opportunity for party-building, but surely there are better ways than a system that ends up deciding precincts on card draws and coin flips.
posted by dialetheia at 9:56 PM on February 21, 2016 [5 favorites]

A few comments deleted. These threads don't have to get into personal back-and-forths, and markkraft, I'm telling you for the last time, cool it with the super aggressive Hillary stuff, it needs to stop period.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:06 PM on February 21, 2016 [2 favorites]

A 14% margin means +/- 7%.

No, this is wrong. Margin of error is defined as the radius (half) of the confidence interval. In other words +/-7% means a 7% margin of error.

The 14% margin of error comes from a smaller sample of African Americans. You are talking about two different sampling errors, one of 7% and another of 14%.
posted by JackFlash at 10:09 PM on February 21, 2016

Sorry, I was using markkraft's incorrect phrasing in my response to him. It was a 7% margin of error, which he referred to as "a 14-point margin of sampling error". I think it's just a semantic point - it was absolutely a 7% MoE on the poll.
posted by dialetheia at 10:11 PM on February 21, 2016

Even beyond the economic analysis I would like to hear more details on how Sanders plans on dealing with Republican obstructionism because as much as I would like to believe that a series of marches on Washington might influence Congress the recent election trends especially in non-Presidential election years has shown that the voters simply won't punish the Republicans for being obstructionist and actually Republican members of Congress are actually more afraid of being primaried to the Right than they are of seeming incompetent at governance.

I would also love to see these details, from both campaigns. I have a feeling though that they're pretty realistic about the chances of getting things done through Congress and will try to push things on the executive side as much as is possible within legal constraints -- but of course they can't really be upfront about that before the general election since apparently a Democratic president can't sneeze in the Oval without Republicans accusing them of being a dictator.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 PM on February 21, 2016

And in passing, it is so depressing and disgusting that our elected legislative bodies have refused to do anything to address the problems in our country for six whole fucking years, ever since the Republicans took over the House.

I don't know what the best strategy is to deal with these recalcitrant assholes who are holding the country hostage. Do you try to build wedges between the rump mainline Republicans and the right wing, making an an informal coalition between them and Democrats? Do you use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to draw clear lines in the hope of shaming them and/or flipping control down the road? I just can't even anymore.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:36 PM on February 21, 2016

I don't know what the best strategy is to deal with these recalcitrant assholes who are holding the country hostage. Do you try to build wedges between the rump mainline Republicans and the right wing, making an an informal coalition between them and Democrats? Do you use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to draw clear lines in the hope of shaming them and/or flipping control down the road? I just can't even anymore.

I hate to throw this right back into the fire but I think what you don't do is elect the most divisive, status-quo person in the country to the office of the presidency. You don't do that, whatever you do.
posted by an animate objects at 10:40 PM on February 21, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, my general feeling is that only limited legislative progress is possible over the next 4 years regardless of whoever is the Democratic nominee (assuming that they win the General Election).

I'm not saying legislative progress is completely impossible but I think it's largely going to be focused on those limited areas where there seems to be a growing consensus across bipartisan lines on a need to enact some sort of reforms.

I think the most likely seem to be focused around some sort of education reform as No Child Left Behind is pretty unpopular on a bipartisan basis and there is more and more desire to enact reforms to prevent the negative impacts of NCLB like teaching to the test, etc.

I think there is actually growing consensus among some Republicans (and Democrats) that sentencing reforms need to be enacted but the devil is definitely in the details on that one.

Drug policy reform seems to largely being handled at the state level currently but if the rapid shift in the electorate towards supporting gay marriage as evidenced by public polling is an indication then I think in the next 10 years or so some sort of federal drug reform policy is possible (probably not in 4 years though).

Beyond that it's mainly focusing on the SCOTUS and locking in the current policy gains under Obama. I can't imagine much more than that being possible with the current crop of loonies.

That being said the President also has quite a bit of power via control over executive agencies so within the bounds of current legislation I think quite a bit of work can be done but I think unfortunately big shifts in entitlement programs are unlikely and major policy initiatives to address climate change are damned near impossible baring a major shift in public polling.
posted by vuron at 10:41 PM on February 21, 2016

Clinton's proposals are simply a lot less dramatic and thus require only marginal Republican buy-in. In contrast Sanders proposals require a campaign described political revolution even though the exact dynamics of achieving that political revolution seem to be somewhat vague.

Unfortunately it's hard to say because she actually has no health care plan beyond "defend and build on the ACA" and maybe some improvement on prescription drugs, but with no specifics. I keep hearing about how she has more realistic plans but I certainly haven't seen it on health care - and as someone who still can't afford coverage and is currently uninsured, it's one of my top issues.

The other thing she doesn't really have a serious plan for is climate change, which is a complete dealbreaker for me (I'm an ecologist and I do a lot of climate and species distribution projections). Basically her whole plan boils down to more clean energy proposals, which are certainly necessary but won't get us anywhere near where we need to be. Her opposition to Keystone XL was grudging at best, she won't commit to anything regarding any future pipelines, and she has promoted fracking all over the world as Secretary of State. It's a very underwhelming commitment to climate issues for the Democratic nominee.

But anyway, what can any Democrat do about the obstructionist Republicans? I think it's pretty silly to expect Republicans to cooperate with Clinton, either - she's the most hated figure short of Obama among their base, they can't go back to their home districts and defend cooperating with her any more than they can Obama. The long-term solution needs to be building the legislative wing of the party, which has unfortunately not been the highest priority of the Clinton-allied DNC recently. I mean, we aren't even running a candidate for Senate in Georgia this year. That's ridiculous. I also wish we could stop writing off the entire Congress as a lost cause - I see no reason to think we can't win the Senate and gain a decent number of seats in Congress this year as long as we actually have decent turnout (maybe short of a political revolution). If we're resigned to not even making gains in a Presidential election year, our legislative wing is truly fucked.
posted by dialetheia at 10:48 PM on February 21, 2016 [10 favorites]

what you don't do is elect the most divisive, status-quo person in the country

I quite agree, but it looks at the moment as if a slim majority of Democratic voters plus a big majority of Democratic party leaders disagree with that.

This is really touchy because it's totally not okay that this is the case and I feel really gross to have to make the point: but I think President Obama was constrained a lot in what he was able to push for because he felt he couldn't fall into the Angry Black Man stereotype, and I think a President Clinton will have some similar constraints, her personal political history aside, given the names she'll immediately get called as soon as she tries to call out some of this bullshit.

I mean, this is privilege at its most basic: Sen. Sanders gets to articulate his anger because he's a white male. Does that mean he'd be more effective? Maybe. Is it legitimate for progressives to take that fact into account when deciding on a candidate? I really don't know how to feel about that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:50 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Agree on all points with you, vuron and dialethia.

My own wheelhouse is health care policy, and I think there are some things that may be advanceable, specifically extra relief from high deductibles and premiums via greater subsidies to Marketplace plans. Of course this means higher federal spending on those subsidies and there will have to be a pay-for plan since we can only do deficit spending for bombs and tax cuts. I think it's not out of the question to get some revenues from financial services or capital gains taxes though -- the silver lining with Donald Trump is that he's opened some space for Republicans to support those things from the right.

Criminal justice / sentencing / drug policy, I agree that's another potential locus for productive legislation.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:01 PM on February 21, 2016

I quite agree, but it looks at the moment as if a slim majority of Democratic voters plus a big majority of Democratic party leaders disagree with that.

Actually, Bernie has the majority of Democratic voters.

Bernie Sanders: 151,584
Hilary Clinton: 95,252

Even if you factor in the caucuses, Bernie has the popular vote lead.
posted by kyp at 11:05 PM on February 21, 2016

I suspect that while not as visceral as the racism directed at Obama or the sexism directed at Hillary, Sanders will likely face a decent amount of opposition based upon anti-semitism. I don't think that his membership in an outsider population inspires as much hate as say Obama's skin tone does but I definitely think it's a factor.

That being said if Republicans are going to block legislation just because Obama is black, or Clinton is a female, or Sanders is a Jew then fuck them. I'd rather not pander exclusively to white anglo-saxon protestants for fear of upsetting their privilege.
posted by vuron at 11:08 PM on February 21, 2016 [4 favorites]

Looking back at how we lost the 2014 midterms, I feel like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the DNC since 2011, really deserves a great deal of the blame for her leadership. By all accounts, her relationship with Obama and the White House has always been very fraught - according to White House staffers, she had "rarely even spoken with Obama since she took over in 2011" - and that was in 2015. A lot of people criticized Democratic leadership for running away from Obama in the 2014 midterms and it's hard not to wonder if her poor relationship with them affected that.

This tidbit from that Politico article also raised my eyebrows: "According to people who spoke with her, when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic. Under fire last fall for her leadership, she took Obama’s decision not to remove her then as evidence of renewed strength and said she was confident no one could get her out of the DNC before her term is over at the beginning of 2017, according to sources who’ve spoken with her."

Since the presidential campaign started, she's received a lot of criticism from other people in party leadership, not just for being partisan toward Clinton but for hamstringing the Democratic party in her efforts, like by holding a minimal number of debates instead of taking advantage of the free airtime like Republicans have (and it's allowed them to shift the Overton window substantially).

The losses to state legislatures during her tenure have been especially devastating. The DNC has an effort underway to take back state legislatures before the 2020 round of redistricting, but they have a ton of ground to make up - the Democrats have lost over 900 seats since 2009, with the majority of those losses on Wasserman Schultz's watch (the graph of our state legislature losses since 2011 on that page is truly depressing).

Tim Canova is primary challenging her in her Florida district this year as a direct rebuke for her leadership of the DNC. It'll be interesting to see if he can win. He posts in the Sanders subreddit and has raised a lot of funds from Sanders supporters who are unhappy with the DNC's overt bias this year. It'll be interesting to see if he can present a real challenge to her.
posted by dialetheia at 11:20 PM on February 21, 2016 [16 favorites]

Heh, we've had one primary and two caucuses. Bernie definitely did very well in NH but adding caucus votes to primary votes is perhaps not the best argument that can be made. Putting aside the issues with superdelegates (which I tend to dislike as a matter of principle) I think it's hard to say who is the most electable candidate right now with only a small fraction of the total convention delegates decided.

Personally I'd love for caucuses to go the fuck away because even though they allow for easier access by less funded candidates they are completely problematic from a democratic perspective.

I'm not sure how you could incorporate a way for less well-funded candidates to garner national attention within a primary only system but it should be possible. Maybe public funding of primaries would be a viable solution? I still feel like it's gotten to the point where a truly insurgent campaign from anyone who isn't a self-funded billionaire is pretty much impossible and even then those tend to be largely quixotic exercises in vanity.
posted by vuron at 11:22 PM on February 21, 2016

I mean, this is privilege at its most basic: Sen. Sanders gets to articulate his anger because he's a white male.

Well, he's also an old male, so he seems cantankerous and grumpy, which is regarded as adorable rather than actually threatening as if he was as young as say, Trump.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:34 PM on February 21, 2016

Trump will turn 70 in June.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:52 PM on February 21, 2016

[Trump's] nativist, racist garbage is appealing to a rabid base, but the U.S. is only about 64% white (I'm assuming very few non-whites are on board the Trump train). That means he starts with a maximum possible base of around 60%.

I see this argument all the time, and I think that a lot of people might be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
What you hear is racist ramblings. What a lot of other people, including many people of color, are hearing, is "Make America great again", "winner", "leader", etc.
What reasons are there to believe that people of color should not find this message just as attractive as white people?

Herman Cain: Donald Trump winning over black women:
“And let me tell you a phenomenon that I discovered on my radio show. I get callers who call up and say, ‘I am black, I’m female and I’m going from Democrat to Trump,’” he said. “They didn’t say they were going from Democrat to Republican, they’re going from Democrat to Trump. I think that’s part of the phenomenon.”

According to Republican pollsters and Mr. Trump’s allies, the Republican front-runner is poised to outperform Hillary Clinton among black voters in a general-election matchup, Politico reported.

“If he were the Republican nominee he would get the highest percentage of black votes since Ronald Reagan in 1980,” political consultant Frank Luntz told Politico. “They find him fascinating, and in all the groups I have done, I have found Obama voters, they could’ve voted for Obama twice, but if they’re African-American they would consider Trump.”
posted by sour cream at 1:44 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

According to Republican pollsters and Mr. Trump’s allies, the Republican front-runner is poised to outperform Hillary Clinton among black voters in a general-election matchup, Politico reported.

No.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:47 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Here's the referenced Politico link from that Cain piece. It also details his plan to win women voters over from Hillary Clinton:

In October, Roger Stone, Trump’s former longtime political adviser who left the campaign amid acrimony in August, published “The Clintons’ War on Women,” a book that portrays Bill Clinton as a serial sexual abuser and Hillary Clinton as complicit in silencing his victims.

Trump has seized on that line of attack this month. He greeted the New Year by tweeting, "I hope Bill Clinton starts talking about women’s issues so that voters can see what a hypocrite he is and how Hillary abused those women!” on Jan. 2. Five days later, his campaign released an Instagram video that features images linking the Clintons to Monica Lewinsky, Anthony Weiner and Bill Cosby and declares Trump “the true defender of women’s rights.

I can't see a lot of women being convinced to vote for Trump by that appeal, but it could certainly depress Clinton's turnout among young women (and I say that as a woman who is, in fact, pretty disgusted with Bill Clinton's behavior and concerned by what little I've heard about Hillary's discrediting and silencing behavior toward the women he harassed and took advantage of). She already needs to win a big margin among women to offset the larger-than-usual shortfall in the male vote that shows up in all the general election head to heads so far (booooo sexism). That piece is suspiciously short on any actual data supporting any of those claims, though, whether it's women or Black people for Trump.

That said, I think it's a mistake to assume that just because Trump is horrible to Latinos and Muslims, that all other non-white people are going to automatically hate him too. I saw a link right after South Carolina that showed a pretty decent correlation between his vote percentage and the Black population - but again that falls victim to the ecological fallacy and could also be due to collinearity with some other variable. The SC Republican electorate was like 96% white +/- 4% so there are nowhere near large enough sample sizes for Black Republican voters to even report a result in the exit polls (see, that's what they do when sample sizes are actually too low to tell what happened - they just don't report results, as opposed to reporting them and then letting the Clinton campaign write a full article of spin to explain them away!).

For example, I've seen a lot of people making assumptions about the "non-white vote" in the Democratic race, but that's really oversimplifying things (and in a nearly insulting way, IMHO), e.g. Sanders has clearly made inroads with many Latino voters where he's had time to campaign, but many Black voters don't seem to have warmed to him yet even when he's had the same amount of time (e.g. in Nevada). Making assumptions or projections based on the "non-white vote" would average out that variability and yield an incorrect projection.

That isn't to say that I believe the argument that Trump is going to win over a significant number of Black voters at all. I'm very skeptical. I'm trying to remember what racist stuff he's said about Black people specifically, though - it's all such a blur, he says so many racist things I don't know how he can even keep his own prejudices straight - and off the top of my head, he actually seems to do less of the anti-Black dogwhistling than many of his Republican colleagues have in the past, save for some comments about how he supports the hell out of the police. Mostly he sticks to anti-Latino and anti-Muslim hatemongering unless directly asked about e.g. Black Lives Matter, IIRC.

It also remains to be seen how his "brave truth telling" / cutting through conventional wisdom / being willing to grab onto a third rail with both hands strategy will be deployed against Democrats. The most effective thing he has done is to articulate things that many Republicans thought privately, but wouldn't say out loud. I can see how that would translate to the general with things like "come on, he's a rapist, stop fooling yourselves" about Bill Clinton, or "hey Black people, Democrats take your votes for granted and never do anything for you, Hillary called your kids superpredators and threw you in jail, stop voting for them!" I would say something about not thinking people are dumb enough to buy that stuff coming from him (as if he cares any more about women or Black people than even the worst Democrat), but ... those kinds of predictions haven't worked out well for me this year with respect to Trump.

It definitely gives me the howling fantods to think of him letting loose on Hillary in the debate, though. God only knows what he'll decide to bring up, and I'm concerned that her earnestness would make her an easy target just like Jeb's earnestness did for him. She also seems to like things planned out, and his specialty is being unpredictable. His success actually kind of reminds me of Walter White from Breaking Bad, in a way - he's successful precisely because he doesn't ever do what any of the seasoned, experienced people would expect, so nobody can ever predict what seemingly-insane thing he'll do next - but he's smart enough to pull off the unconventional strategy, so it works. tl;dr "Let's dispel with this fiction that Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing."
posted by dialetheia at 3:03 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

As if on cue, there's an interview with Al Sharpton that's mostly about Trump in Politico today.

In other news, Mika Brzezinski claims that "a print reporter" already has transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street speeches. I would rather have them come out during the primary than during the general - tying her to Wall Street won't just hurt her among Occupy Democrats in such an anti-establishment year.
posted by dialetheia at 3:37 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Luntz is not even remotely credible. What's interesting is that Luntz has been a primary attack dog against Trump in regards to the nomination and has been attacked by Trump supporters accordingly.

I am interested in what led to this thawing relationship or if this an attempt to sow doubt into the Democratic nomination process.

Anecdotal evidence seems to be the majority of his evidence and unless it's matched by polling data I am hesitant to take it on face value.
posted by vuron at 4:59 AM on February 22, 2016

In other news, Mika Brzezinski claims that "a print reporter" already has transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street speeches. I would rather have them come out during the primary than during the general - tying her to Wall Street won't just hurt her among Occupy Democrats in such an anti-establishment year.

They need to come out, like, yesterday. If there's anything even close to a "47%" moment in there...
posted by sallybrown at 5:04 AM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]

There probably are things that can at least be easily spun as similar to what Romney did, it's hard to avoid that, but I don't know if Mika Brzezinski's word is enough to accept that without actually seeing the transcripts.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:15 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Why Baby Boomers don't get Bernie Sanders: "The question is not why younger voters are embracing Sanders’s populist revolution, but why the Baby Boomer generation came to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton should become the standard-bearers for the nation’s liberal party. ...

The heyday of the [professional-managerial class] may represent the anomalous decades, and the Boomers the one generation that happened to benefit from its rise. That Sanders sounds so much like Democrats from a century ago may mark a return to normalcy in which the Democratic Party fights for average people without career choices. Most young Democrats are already there."
posted by dialetheia at 5:47 AM on February 22, 2016 [15 favorites]

Trump will turn 70 in June.

But he's been dyed orange, so he looks younger.
posted by Artw at 5:59 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Back on the left-leaning economist responses, Naked Capitalism has a nice roundup today complete with a great response from professor of economics & law and former financial regulator Bill Black (who was a central figure in exposing the S&L scandal) and a letter from Gerald Friedman demanding an apology from Paul Krugman for smearing him.

Yves Smith pulls no punches in her introduction to Black's commentary: "Let us be clear about the vehemence of the salvos aimed at Friedman: this isn’t just a bad case of tribalism and intellectual dishonesty. This is purveyors of a failed orthodoxy refusing to indulge any consideration of plans that would show how badly they’ve mismanaged the economy."
posted by dialetheia at 6:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [13 favorites]

WaPo: The moment of truth: We must stop Trump
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:57 AM on February 22, 2016

Wow, that WaPo piece is hilarious if it represents Rubio's best shot at the nomination. Nothing on Earth would sink Rubio's campaign as thoroughly as the idea that he was being propelled to the nomination by crossover Democrats. Besides, asking Democrats to switch sides to save Republicans from their own party is truly the reductio ad absurdum on all the "you have to line up behind ____ to stop the bad guys!" argument (second only to the time someone lectured me about how I had to get in line and vote for Bloomberg if Sanders was the nominee to save us from Trump, anyway). Now we're apparently on the hook for their self-inflicted lesser-of-two-evils problems too:

"Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump, but then again she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You, too, need to help the Republicans beat Trump; this is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, re-register and vote for Rubio, even if, like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I too would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee, but pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump takes the nomination. The republic cannot afford that."
posted by dialetheia at 7:06 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Rubio / Clinton '16.

Ha ha, good luck with that mate.
posted by Artw at 7:06 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean, fuck, I do not care for Clinton's stay-the-course agenda and I certainly do not care for her campaigning style, but at least she's actual presidential material with a shot at winning and the capability to do the job. Rubio is, what, third clown in a clown car? Nothing about him suggests any kind of competence or capability. Why do people keep waving this idiot in front of us?
posted by Artw at 7:10 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm not entirely sure that Trump can still collect enough delegates to win the Republican nomination.

Kasich is going to stay in at least until Super Tuesday mainly fueled by his showing in NH but it's looking more and more likely that he's only going to get marginal support moving forward as the establishment lane seems to be clearing for Rubiobot.

Carson is running a zombie campaign and seems like he can get 6% without even remotely trying. More and more it looks like his primary goal is not the Presidency but growing his brand. He's probably going to make a mint as a public speaker after this.

Cruz basically has no shot at outright winning the nomination at this point baring a major meltdown of Trump and Rubio. However he has the financing to stay in the battle for the long haul and it's not entirely clear who he is hurting worse Trump or Rubio. I haven't really looked in depth at some of the numbers but it's entirely possible that Cruz staying in the fight actually helps Rubio because it denies Trump the ability to outright win the nomination.

Rubiobot is kinda depressing because people are voting for him not because they like him but because they feel like he's the only reasonable alternative to Trump and Cruz even though his politics are almost as conservative as Cruz. Rubio also has the advantage of not necessarily needing to outright win the nomination, his major strategy is to keep someone else from winning.

With JEB! gone I think Rubio will probably safely pass Cruz as the Not Trump candidate with around 28-29% of the Republican vote. With Cruz handing around in the low 20s and Carson and Kasich lanquishing in the mid single digits the strategy seems to be rope a dope with Trump.

It's still a risky strategy and it might be worthwhile for voters in open primary states to cross the aisle to throw a blocking vote but honestly I have more concerns about Rubio in the GE than I do Trump (who inspires a very vocal fanbase but doesn't seem to be get much above a certain threshold of support.
posted by vuron at 7:13 AM on February 22, 2016

A $250,000 household income doesn't strike me as an insane definition for the upper end of the middle class. That's like, a doctor married to a lawyer or something, isn't it? It's not "I run a company or have inherited millions or live in a mansion" level, is it? I mean, yeah, it's probably people in a nice house who have an investment portfolio and all that, which is wealthy compared to most of the world, but I'm in a household with an income which is maybe 1/4 of that and we're also wealthy compared to most of the world.
posted by kyrademon at 7:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Since figures vary by source I'll just go by the Census income distribution on wikipedia, but $250k household income would put a family in the top 2.3% of all households in the United States - it seems pretty weird to call that "middle class" by any sane definition. What's even left for "upper class", at that point, much less wealthy? I might be willing to accept the very highest end of upper-middle-class, but even then that seems overly generous given that our hypothetical household would still make more than 97.7% of Americans.
posted by dialetheia at 7:26 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

I guess "middle" is like the 95% confidence interval? That's great -- record low poverty!
posted by chortly at 7:31 AM on February 22, 2016

Income and wealth are clearly connected, but not at all the same thing. I know some folks who live in expensive homes and inherited millions, or close to it, but also work and pull in relatively low incomes. Sometimes people own companies for various reasons related to their personal agendas and interests that make little money at all. In fact, if you are wealthy, depending on your values, you don't need a lot of income because you can live how you want without so much work and your wealth is a huge safety net.

The flip side is the obvious case of new and intermittent or short term high income, like a young guy out of poverty playing as a lineman in the NFL. This will bring a huge income for a few years at best, but offers no additional safety net and without careful planning may not even set the person up for a reasonably comfortable life after.
posted by meinvt at 7:31 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $'s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:35 AM on February 22, 2016

Has middle class ever historically represented the true median of society? Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious. If we were to examine the descriptions of the middle class in, say, they late 50's through the 60's would we actually find it represented a range of say 25% to 75% income across the population? I doubt it, because my perception is that middle class has often been aspirational - keeping up with the Jones's and all that.
posted by meinvt at 7:36 AM on February 22, 2016

> "I guess 'middle' is like the 95% confidence interval?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept that most people may consider a $250,000 household income too high to be middle class, but middle class also doesn't mean "the central third of people by income level", at least not by the normally used definition. That would put the upper limit of the middle class at somewhere around a $77,000 household income, which means an awful lot of two-job families would be surprised to suddenly find they were considered upper class.

The definitions I'd always vaguely mentally used would be (roughly speaking, since as has been pointed out, household income only tracks roughly to wealth) poor is below the poverty line and is about 20% of the people right now in the U.S., middle class is most of the rest, upper class/wealthy are the few percent of people at the very top with a (currently insanely) disproportionately high amount of the wealth. If you want to set the bar for the high end of the middle class lower than that, OK sure, but bear in mind that, say, an $150,000 household income is still wealthier than 90% of the country.

I guess I mentally put middle class as "people who work for other people" and upper class/wealthy as "people who own or run the businesses, or live off investments or inherited wealth". It's not something so important to me that I'll say you're wrong if you think otherwise, but it personally strikes me as odd to class "person who works at a relatively high-paying job" in the same economic class as "person who is a CEO or scion of a rich family".
posted by kyrademon at 7:47 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

As many as one in every hundred people may actually be a 1%er.
posted by Artw at 7:52 AM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]

Middle Class is a notoriously fluid concept. One of the more compelling models is the one that the Pew research Center uses which maintains that that Middle Class extends from 67% of median household income to 2X median household income adjusted for family size.

Lower Middle Class is x.5 to .67 of median and upper middle class is 2x to 3x of median.

So helpful table (not adjusted for family size because I'm lazy)

Lower Middle Class $23,163-31,038
Middle Class $ 31,038 - 92,652
Upper Middle Class $92,652 - 138,978

But this is really amorphous based upon number of income earners as a family with a lawyer making $95,000 a year is going to be perceived as being of a higher social class than a household with 2 Registered Nurses both making $65,000 a year.

Middle Managers at the terminus of their career often have significantly higher incomes than these numbers I have listed but are rarely perceived as being wealthy even though their household incomes, lack of kids and generally high level of personal wealth in the form of home equity put them clearly out of the range of the middle class.

This is generally why Democrats have avoided including the middle management tier in their tax increase proposals because a lot of Boomers at the terminus of their career are operating in this wage bracket and they don't want to lose many of them to the Republicans.
posted by vuron at 7:54 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Middle Class" has always meant "Not the Poor and not the Wealthy Elite."
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:56 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

I mean, to me the issue is that you're defining "middle class" as everyone except the ultra-wealthy and the poor, which might be the traditional "there is no such thing as class" American definition but it's not a particularly useful definition. There are a lot more gradations in there than just middle class. I do agree that whether a person gets their money from wages, salary, or investments makes a huge difference, but I certainly wouldn't class literally everyone who works for someone else in the true middle class either.

Americans are terrible at talking about this stuff, but other countries have it down better. The British class system is far more thoughtful and might be useful - UK culture is broadly similar enough to American culture that some of it might translate well enough.
posted by dialetheia at 7:57 AM on February 22, 2016

Really, we should just go back to using the terms "Peasant", "Bourgeoisie", and "Aristocrat".
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:59 AM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]

Did nobody at the WaPo tell Allen that she was writing her "switch registration and vote in the R primary!" for a paper that has much of its circulation in a state with open primaries but where the Republican Party is demanding a loyalty oath?
posted by phearlez at 7:59 AM on February 22, 2016

In many cases a CEO is an employee, even if they are ridiculously overpaid. And a fair number of small business owners struggle at middle class.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:01 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

"I think a Kasich-Rubio ticket would be great," Graham said late Sunday during an interview with Rita Cosby on WABC, describing Kasich as a "terrific" governor of Ohio and Rubio as a "very, very talented" senator from Florida.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on February 22, 2016

At least in my mind, a more useful consideration would be (assets - projected lifetime expenses). The middle class is lucky to do much better than break even or pass on home equity as inheritance, while the upper class, barring gross mismanagement, usually have their own safety net.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:13 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Kasich would have some of the executive experience that Rubio lacks and Rubio has much better support regarding Latinos and Evangelicals than Kasich is liable to garner.

Basically it's an extremely tactical ticket because it's designed to do well in the two states that Republicans absolutely have to win in November. It's completely uninspiring of course but that's electoral college math for you. It's main weakness is that it's a low energy matchup and would likely need to have only moderate turnout.

It would be interesting to see what sort of a ticket the Democrats could field that would negate it's advantages or if the Dems would in effect concede Ohio and Florida and focus on the smaller states and Virginia.

In general I don't have a real solid read on Virginia as it seems to be willing to elect Dems to statewide office but only if they are even more centrist than Clinton but I'm unclear if demographic changes have resulted in even more readiness to elect Dems since 2012.
posted by vuron at 8:15 AM on February 22, 2016

New West Virginia poll [pdf]: Sanders 57%, Clinton 29%
posted by dialetheia at 8:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

I think tactical tickets are a proven losing strategy for Democrats. One of the high points of the Obama 2008 campaign was the willingness to wage total war, and the result was more volunteers, more campaign funds, and the ability to turn historically red states into battlegrounds.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:36 AM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]

... which is why we fondly remember President Walter Mondale.
posted by 0xFCAF at 8:39 AM on February 22, 2016

> I would rather have them come out during the primary than during the general - tying her to Wall Street won't just hurt her among Occupy Democrats in such an anti-establishment year.

That's the way I feel, but then I am a biased Sanders supporter.

The way I see it is one of Clinton's "scandals" will stick. (I use the scare quotes on purpose.) I would much rather see her taken out as a candidate while there is still a viable option, than see Sanders lose, only for Hillary to do so as well in the general. I think that would be crippling to the party. People like to back winners.

Now, I also know that people have believed a scandal would take out the Clinton's (any day now) for decades and the only one that managed to even stick was a cigar and a blue dress (and this was her husband, not her). You also have a candidate that while she has a lot of shit in her closet, that closet has been pretty well ransacked over the years. There's not a whole lot more that you can lob at her.

This said, her dodging of the release, and her asinine responses (laughing it off, then saying she'll look into it, then saying everyone else first, etc.) only makes me believe there's something incredibly damaging in them.

To me, this and this look bad. Pressure to release is only going to increase, not go away. Your bias may be different.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:44 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

Nobody's alleging that Clinton is beholden to big Deli, but unregulated horseradish sides didn't plunge the country into a near-depression, pastrami speculators aren't effectively beyond the reach of the law, and nobody's worried that the federal government is effectively more loyal to sociopathic reuben-makers than to the citizenry.

Now, I don't think Clinton is some horrible finance-bot just hoping that the Joads get foreclosed on, but it's not completely crazy to wonder what a presidential candidate's view of the financial industry is, and closed doors often mean a different message.
posted by The Gaffer at 9:10 AM on February 22, 2016 [17 favorites]

That Clinton is assumed to be so corrupt and untrustworthy that she alone needs to release all her private speech transcripts (and what are we likely to see in them? Embarrassing examples of her blowing smoke up industry butts? Surely. Secret pledges to do the bidding of her corporate masters and crush the working class? Doubtful) while no other candidate is under any pressure to do so is a good example of the double standard she's held to.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:18 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

If you're talking about Virginia, they have dropped the loyalty pledge from the primary ballot.

I was; I missed that news. That's twice now they've backed down on that. Thanks for the heads-up.
posted by phearlez at 9:22 AM on February 22, 2016

Bernie isn't in the habit of giving these sort of speeches and the Republicans are so amoral and divorced from reality that their followers don't care and everyone else knows damn well what they stand for.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

Bernie Sanders hasn't given any private speeches to wealthy, powerful, America-threatening special interest groups, and we can safely assume that all of the Republican candidates are corrupt and evil without even seeing what they've said in the past.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:24 AM on February 22, 2016 [13 favorites]

Jinx, entropicamericana.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:24 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

That Clinton is assumed to be so corrupt and untrustworthy that she alone needs to release all her private speech transcripts...while no other candidate is under any pressure to do so is a good example of the double standard she's held to.

Or, one democratic candidate gave paid speeches to wall street firms of unknown content and the other has not. No one cares if the Rs release theirs because they're obviously bought and paid for. I'm not sure if Clinton is, but I'd like to know the content of the speeches before casting my vote. I won't be voting for a republican under any circumstance, so I don't really care what they do or do not release, it won't affect my vote.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:25 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

What other candidates? Sanders doesn't have equivalent speeches to release, and everyone who cares about Clinton's transcripts already assumes that all the Republican candidates are monstrous, so there's nothing to learn there.

We might see in the transcripts some revelatory framing - not a villainous desire to crush the third estate, but maybe something that speaks to how Clinton sees the world working and what's optimal or desirable w/r/t the financial industry. It's not slander to suggest that she might have said something she meant at a paid speech.

Fake edit: too slow
posted by The Gaffer at 9:27 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm worried that it will be Clinton/someone vs. Rubio/Nikki Haley.

I am not 100% convinced Clinton wins against them.
posted by wittgenstein at 9:28 AM on February 22, 2016

(On preview, pile on, but TL;DR: If John Kerry could be Swift Boated for actual bravery in combat, Clinton's stance on and connections to Wall Street are child's play for an opponent's campaign.)

I don't think it's a double standard for Clinton at all. She has one opponent in the Democratic primary, who has made a central plank of his campaign platform the fact that the financial industry cratered our economy through illegal actions, and has not only been held responsible (e.g., actual executives being criminally prosecuted) but has been rewarded.

Clinton, on the other hand, has not taken such a clear stance on the actions of the financial industry over the past 15 years, and moreover, has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment to go and speak to these folks and tell them...what?

If you don't see how easily that can be spun against her, I don't know how to explain it. Republicans successfully painted Kerry as a coward in combat, by talking about an incident where he behaved in a genuinely heroic fashion. If voters will accept that level of reality-inversion, it will be child's play to portray Hillary Clinton as a friend of Wall Street, and as someone who will enable the status quo (that's the status quo that fucked over so many Americans that Donald Trump is now a credible candidate for president).
posted by LooseFilter at 9:29 AM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]

Right, and because none of the people demanding Hillary release her transcripts give a shit what the Republicans say behind closed doors, the demand is, essentially, for her to offer up reams of potentially silly, ass-kissy, paid speech blather to be mined and picked over for use as negative sound bites in the general election.

Is Clinton going to smash Wall Street and send big bank CEOs to jail? Yeah, probably not. It'll probably be Obama II on that score. We already know this. Vote for Sanders if this is a dealbreaker for you, he's still in the race.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:30 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

the demand is, essentially, for her to offer up reams of potentially silly, ass-kissy, paid speech blather to be mined and picked over for use as negative sound bites in the general election.

Nope, it's a demand for her to offer up some transparency to earn my vote, now or in the general.

Vote for Sanders if this is a dealbreaker for you, he's still in the race.

It is among several deal-breakers for me, and quite a few other Democratic primary voters. That's the point.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:32 AM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

I kinda don't think releasing those transcripts would flip many votes for her anyway. It's a lose/lose for her unless it reaches some critical mass in the media and public attention, and it hasn't.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:34 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

That's kind of a different message and conclusion than the claim that this was an example of a double standard.
posted by phearlez at 9:34 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

and what are we likely to see in them?

This has already been linked exhaustively but I'll do it again. By all accounts, she told them the opposite of what she's been saying on the campaign trail. For the record, I really don't appreciate your mansplaining to women Sanders supporters about sexism because they don't want to elect someone who considers Goldman Sachs a prime constituency. This is as valid of a concern as it is when Republicans do it. The difference is that I don't vote for them.

What Clinton said in her paid speeches: Recalled one attendee, 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

Lament of the plutocrats: "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."
posted by dialetheia at 9:35 AM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]

It is a double standard (nobody else is being asked to release transcripts of private speeches), and it is a lose/lose for her.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:36 AM on February 22, 2016

unless it reaches some critical mass in the media and public attention, and it hasn't.

Wait until the general, if she is the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:36 AM on February 22, 2016

Also, if Clinton's speeches to special interest groups are "silly, ass-kissy blather," what does that say about her character? How do I know that her speeches to me aren't, in her mind, also silly, ass-kissy blather?

I know I'm an idealist in this, but I want my elected officials to say the same things no matter to whom they are speaking. That consistency of character and values lets me as a voter know whom, exactly, I'm voting for. This is the corrosiveness of the Clintonian way I wrote about earlier, that it's just normal politics or business as usual to tell people whatever they want to hear so that you can get elected, and that we should just trust them to do the right thing once they have power.

That's not OK. It's a very questionable ethical (and moral) perspective, and really as voters we can only ultimately vote for the person because we don't know what challenges and obstacles a leader will face once in office.

It is a double standard (nobody else is being asked to release transcripts of private speeches)

There is only one other candidate in the Democratic primary to ask, and he didn't give speeches to big Wall Street firms for more wealth than I will see in decades of work.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:41 AM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]

> "If John Kerry could be Swift Boated for actual bravery in combat ..."

Incidentally, my take home from that ended up being more that it doesn't actually matter even a little bit what a Democratic candidate did or didn't do in terms of what gets reacted to in the general election. What matters is they have enough money to respond to whatever gets thrown at them.

(Which means I'll be forking over some cash to whichever one gets the nomination this year, I think. This election strikes me as important enough to merit that.)
posted by kyrademon at 9:41 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

National Nurse Union Says UN Election Observers Needed After Clinton Camp's Tricks in Nevada
Union spokesperson Chuck Idelson told Raw Story that the red tees were not a first for Clinton supporters and that when nurses attending the caucuses pointed out the Clinton people to the press, they immediately changed back into Clinton campaign blue tees
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:42 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

For the record, I really don't appreciate your mansplaining to women Sanders supporters about sexism

This would be a double standard whether she's a woman or not.

I've seen your linked quotes before and "Embarrassing examples of her blowing smoke up industry butts" is how I was characterizing them.

Wait until the general, if she is the nominee.

And it might make a lot more tactical sense for her to release them in the general when there's only one other opponent who would need to release their own transcripts for parity, and the voters she's needing to win over aren't Sanders supporters who would see a dealbreaker in her speaking of the financial industry as a key integrated part of the American economy.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:42 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

New West Virginia poll [pdf]: Sanders 57%, Clinton 29%

Somebody who knows stats can go ahead and slap me down if I'm reading that poll data wrong, but my read of this poll is very interesting.

It looks like they surveyed 411 people and of that number, 208 were planning to pull a Democratic ticket and 159 were going to vote in the GOP primary. (Presumably the other 50ish were undecided?) This in a state which has swung strongly to the GOP since 2000. So right there that tells you that this state, which is probably a good proxy for Democratic fortunes in Appalachia generally, including key parts of eastern Ohio and western Virginia, might be looking to return to its New Deal Democratic roots with Bernie Sanders.

Again, what we're looking at is that white working-class vote in areas of the country that have been absolutely demolished by globalization and neo-liberalism - the Appalachian backbone, the rusted-out cities and small manufacturing towns of the Midwest - like Charleston WV, Toledo OH, Rockford IL, and of course (God help us) Flint MI.

The fact that a Brooklyn-raised Vermont Yankee Jew is beating someone who grew up in Illinois and entered public life as the wife of the governor of Arkansas is, well, very interesting to me, and should be absolutely terrifying to anyone who wants Clinton to beat the Republican in the fall.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:44 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich said Monday that he was elected to office at a young age with the help of an "army of supporters" that included women who "left their kitchens" to knock on doors for him."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:49 AM on February 22, 2016

> It would be pretty easy to spin that as 'speaking career to many diversified interests' instead of 'speeches to financial groups,' which makes it sound both unitary and small in number.

I mostly agree. I wish they had focused on just the speeches to the finance industry as well, since I honestly do not have a problem with her being paid what the market will bear for giving speeches. This said, I do think it would be interesting to see the content of some of the other speeches. I mean, what does a $200,000 speech read like? People give that kind of money because they believe they are going to get something in return, and you don't pay for return visits unless you dod get something for your money. If that's just a good speech, great, but that's gotta be a great tasting $5 milkshake.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:50 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

How is it a double standard? Sanders released his paid speeches. He made all of $2000 from them, which he donated to charity. Meanwhile Hillary and Bill have earned $35 million in personal income from speeches to financial services companies since 2001. Every indication is that she went to Wall Street and told them the bank bashing was "foolish" while she claims she "went down there to tell them to cut it out." She was caught in 2008 telling voters she'd work against NAFTA, then telling trade partners that she didn't really mean it (oh, and by no coincidence at all, the guy who went behind the scenes there is one of the four cosigners of that "left leaning economists" CEA letter, who knew). She did the same thing with trade pacts when she was Secretary of State.

If you can't see the difference and don't understand why that would bother people, I have no idea what to say.
posted by dialetheia at 9:51 AM on February 22, 2016 [23 favorites]

It is a double standard (nobody else is being asked to release transcripts of private speeches)

Calling this a double standard is really diminishing the legitimate sexism being leveled at Clinton, both overtly and which she suffers from people's internalized message. That's a real thing, and every Sanders supporter would do well to keep it in mind when they consider their reactions to her. I do.

But claiming it's a double standard is asinine. There's exactly two people in the democratic race and folks would like to see any and all paid speeches they gave to big money wall street operations. Since Sanders hadn't given any, he's done without being asked. Saying to the remaining candidate, hey, we care about the banks and financial crisis and regulation - we'd like to see what YOU said to them - that's not a double standard. That's an interest in a legitimate issue to other people.

You're not wrong that it's a lose-lose for Clinton to release them and I imagine I'd stonewall myself. But the fact that she's profited well from a relationship with people who the average voter - and Sanders supporters in particular - happen to dislike doesn't make it a double-standard. It's just a voter area of interest that she's badly positioned to cope with.
posted by phearlez at 9:54 AM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]

If Romney had to release his tax returns, Hillary should release her speech transcripts. There are always certain documents that candidates have that may be of specific interest to the public. Even ridiculous ones, like birth certificates. But in an era of social media and Wikileaks, public figures withholding information is regarded as shady.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:54 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Romney's '47%' comments didn't exactly endear to him Republicans, who do, generally, vote Republican, and who don't, generally, believe that Republican candidates are 'obviously' bought and paid for.

Yes, but the people in this thread who want to see the speeches are not these republican voters. There is no scenario in which I vote for any of the republican candidates. I am interested in having all of the relevant information to cast my democratic primary vote and, should Clinton win the primary, whether to vote third party (keeping in mind that, in HI, the election may be called before I can actually vote).
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

This would be a double standard whether she's a woman or not.

Huh? What is the double standard against, then? That liberals are not demanding that the Republicans release their speech transcripts? Because, we could I guess but we might as well just demand that they drop out for their horrifying public stances on things, and they'd have just as little incentive to give a shit about what we think.

They don't need or expect our votes. Clinton does.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:56 AM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

"Romney's '47%' comments didn't exactly endear to him Republicans..."

For better or worse, no one really asks for transcripts of the R's speeches because their curiosity is rather satisfied by the transcript of that one.
posted by klarck at 10:05 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Okay, I concede, if we limit the scope to Democrats and Sanders has already released all his speeches, it's not a double standard. It still doesn't make good tactical sense for her to release them before the general election, as I cannot imagine there's anything in those speeches that would flip the votes of any of the Sanders supporters demanding to see them.

She was caught in 2008 telling voters she'd work against NAFTA, then telling trade partners that she didn't really mean it

I'm having a really hard time getting this interpretation out of the linked article, which talks about Goolsbee speaking to Canada on behalf of the Obama campaign, and only mentions Clinton passingly in the context of her bringing NAFTA up in the primary debates.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:09 AM on February 22, 2016

> […] and what are we likely to see in them? Embarrassing examples of her blowing smoke up industry butts? Surely. Secret pledges to do the bidding of her corporate masters and crush the working class? Doubtful […]

That's the point. No one knows. It could be promises to go the status quo on non-indictments. It could be reassurances that trade deals or banking regulations will be positive for them. Could be that she'll fight to maintain laissez-faire banking regulations. Could be market tips.

Could actually be her promising to bust every single corrupt banker and that she feels they need to have their bonuses regulated. Should be that she's warning them that she'll break the big five.

Who knows? Now, why don't you know, and should you know?

> It is a double standard (nobody else is being asked to release transcripts of private speeches), and it is a lose/lose for her.

It is lose/lose for her only if what she said playing into the narrative of her being bought and paid for. If she didn't see that one coming I don't know what to say. She says she didn't know she was running for president. Ok, fine. But maybe, just maybe, if you think you might want to run, it might be better to avoid certain activities, that could make you look bad?

It's not going to go away. So what are her choices? Release them or continue to be beat up with them. The longer she waits the more it looks like she has something to hide. Eventually a clip of one of these speeches will leak and she'd gonna be hurt bad. Or, maybe not, but if you see a viable third option let me know.

As far as it being a double standard I hereby formally call for all candidates to release the text of all paid speeches to the financial industry (or otherwise). Let me know which speech of Sanders speaking to Wall Street you want and I promise I will do my best to get it.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:10 AM on February 22, 2016

Cornel West: ‘Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm roughly 9000% certain that if she said anything really campaign-destroyingly egregious, there's somebody in that audience of finance industry goons who hates her enough to leak it. So, y'know, hold tight, if there's a smoking gun in there, we'll hear about it sooner or later!
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:20 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

> And it might make a lot more tactical sense for her to release them in the general when there's only one other opponent who would need to release their own transcripts for parity, and the voters she's needing to win over aren't Sanders supporters who would see a dealbreaker in her speaking of the financial industry as a key integrated part of the American economy.

So you mean wait until the choice is between one person who is beholden to the financial industry and another person person who is beholden to the financial industry? I think that fairly encapsulates the reason why people are wanting to see these speeches while there is still a choice.

Thing is, let's say she does wait, and she does release them, and her opponent does as well. Do you think a GOP candidate is going to be saying anything surprising to Wall Street? Do you think the contents of a Wall Street speech will switch voters from the GOP camp into the Dem. camp (or the other way around?).
posted by cjorgensen at 10:24 AM on February 22, 2016 [6 favorites]

The Clinton team has already demonstrated multiple times that it is willing to use sketchy campaign tactics if they'll serve to get her elected. Okay, that's politics.

This is also politics: Clinton should be asked to release those transcripts at every appearance on the trail. She should see "Release the Transcripts" signs all day, every day. There should be billboards. Radio ads. Television ads.

And you know what? Calling for the transcripts is nowhere near as sketchy as the Lewis antics, or the Huerta antics, or the "I'm rubber, you're glue, the artful smear bounces off me and stays on you."

You are either satisfied with the establishment or you are not. Not really much middle ground on this.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:26 AM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

The truth is that you don't talk about the NWO in a paid speech to mid level guys at Goldman Sachs. That would be monumentally stupid and no matter what else she is or is not stupid is not a descriptor.

I think its legitimate for people to decide not to vote for her based upon speeches but I also think it's in her rights to not provide them.

The optics are that this is possibly an issue now but for tactical reasons she's waiting until Sanders drops from the race before releasing transcripts.

Wait until you have the nomination and dump transcripts on a Friday and laugh all the way to the election.
posted by vuron at 10:33 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

No, I think this whole thing is a sideshow, I think the content of these speeches is all "the deli meats industry is the backbone of our nation and I promise to fight for you blah blah fuckity blah"

Clinton is not going to smash Wall Street and instigate a revolution against the financial industry if she becomes president. This is not a question. It is known. If she's making noises in that direction during the campaign, she's blowing smoke in your direction, as every viable presidential candidate for the last two hundred whatever years has done. Yes, we deserve better. But it is what it is.

My whole argument in these primary threads has not been "vote for Clinton over Sanders," it's been "don't do everything you possibly can to undermine the likely Democratic primary winner in a long-shot bid to help Sanders win it." Because as much as we deserve real true principled progressive leadership, what we really don't deserve is President Motherfucking Cruz. But by all means, as long as Sanders is still running, vote for Sanders if you like him better. If he wins the nomination I will send him money and slap his bumper sticker on my car and pray to god that he becomes president.

And if somebody would like to point me to where a representative slice of Sanders supporters are converging and discussing this online, please point me in that direction, because in all the forums I've been able to find on my own I see a hell of a lot of "I will NEVER vote for Clinton in the general" and even plenty of "my second choice is Trump" and that scares the living shit out of me, so if you know anywhere I can stick my head into for some assurances that we're not all-in for the circular firing squad this year, please let me know.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:37 AM on February 22, 2016 [6 favorites]

I think its legitimate for people to decide not to vote for her based upon speeches but I also think it's in her rights to not provide them.

Of course it's in her rights to not release them, but if she's already 1) laughed it off, 2) "look[ed] into it," and 3) said she'd wait until everyone else does it, at a certain point, it's far more shifty pretend that the required circumstances haven't been met than to go ahead and release them. At this point, I figure that there's something damning in those speeches if she is pulling every tactic to not release them.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:39 AM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]

> It still doesn't make good tactical sense for her to release them before the general election, as I cannot imagine there's anything in those speeches that would flip the votes of any of the Sanders supporters demanding to see them.

If she releases them now and still wins the primaries it'll look like an honest and fair fight. If they come out in the general and they look bad there will be enough sour grapes to sink her campaign. People keep talking about the betterment of the party. I would suggest rather than putting forth a candidate that seems to be hiding something, something we all know will come out eventually, that perhaps we don't wait on this one.

> I'm roughly 9000% certain that if she said anything really campaign-destroyingly egregious, there's somebody in that audience of finance industry goons who hates her enough to leak it. So, y'know, hold tight, if there's a smoking gun in there, we'll hear about it sooner or later!

Probably right after the Wall Street reforming socialist is forced to drop out of the race.

> I think its legitimate for people to decide not to vote for her based upon speeches but I also think it's in her rights to not provide them.

100% agree. I believe in an informed electorate. If a candidate is refusing to allow an electorate to be informed she is subverting democracy. Again, your read may be different, and I am wearing my bias on my sleeve, but I have too many years working with journalists and too much of a journalist background to believe this is a story that should be let go.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:39 AM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

Link dump:
Hillary's Challenge With Trust

Which Reporter Has Copies of Hillary Clinton’s Secret Goldman Sachs Speeches?

Hillary Clinton faces one problem she didn't expect: Money

Nate Silver: Perspectives: -- Media thinks NV, SC were game changers for Clinton, Trump. -- Betting markets showed little change in nomination odds.

Why Sexism at the Office Makes Women Love Hillary Clinton [I strongly disagree with the author's premise that young women don't like Clinton b/c they haven't experienced enough sexism yet - I think young women are, more than ever, keenly aware of how (often older, wealthy, white) women also perpetuate the patriarchy/kyriarchy. Also, limiting women's concerns to parents' concerns (i.e., women=mothers or potential mothers) is really grating to a lot of women.]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:40 AM on February 22, 2016 [6 favorites]

> At this point, I figure that there's something damning in those speeches if she is pulling every tactic to not release them.

Next will be to promise she'll release every one of them, but then to jerk people around, delay the releases, then release only partial ones, then to finally pick a day to announce that she'll announce she's releasing them in their entirety, finally do so after the election, only to have some of them surface well after the inauguration. *cough cough*

Unlike Benghazi I think there's a there there or she would have complied already.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:44 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Like it or not FIRE industries are a massive part of the NY state economy and as a former NY senator it stands to reason that the financial industry would like to have her speak to them.

Does receiving speaking fees constitute being bought and paid for by a industry? Maybe but it's not clear that receiving speaking fees and campaign contributions result in quid pro quo in regards to political favoritism.

Furthermore looking back to open secrets political giving from Goldman Sachs indicates that in 2012 (last presidential election) Goldman Sachs gave $500k in aggregate to Republicans than Democrats. 47 Senators received money and 217 representative received money.

Obama got $210k and Romney got $1million.

I think if you look at speakers at Goldman Sachs you'll probably see a very similar pattern where a Bank tries to play both sides of the aisle in order to avoid negative legislation.

Yes corporate money has every possibility to be corrosive towards our democracy and there are ample reasons why campaign finance needs to be more comprehensively addressed but like it or not we live in a post Citizens United world and I'm not sure that Democrats should avoid corporate money because I don't believe that Democratic candidates should artificially hamper their campaigns.

I respect that some individual candidates might make a case that accepting corporate money is something that they want to avoid (at last in the case of direct campaign contributions, Super PACs make it impossible to track who is giving what to whom and why next to impossible) but I'm not sure that most or even many Democrats are willing to take that sort of pledge.

Yes that probably means that the Democratic party will remain at least nominally corporatist but the Democratic coalition seems to require both people power and money power to compete with Republicans currently.
posted by vuron at 10:52 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

And if somebody would like to point me to where a representative slice of Sanders supporters are converging and discussing this online, please point me in that direction

This thread right here?
posted by kyp at 10:55 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

How Clinton’s Obama Veterans In Nevada Postponed A Political Revolution (Buzzfeed)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

For someone who worked on the Watergate investigation and was right there for her husband's impeachment, you'd think Clinton would remember that It's not the crime; it's the cover-up was the major American political lesson of the last two generations.
posted by Etrigan at 11:01 AM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]

Republicans still rely on a lot of working class whites to fuel their campaigns (aka the Reagan Democrats) so they still have to maintain the illusion that they are invested in improving outcomes for all Americans even if the majority of that help comes in the form of trickle down economics in the form of tax cuts. You know the idea that a "Rising Tide lifts all Boats" or whatever the current defense for supply side economics is.

Romney talking about the 47% revealed the actually truth instead of packaging it up in the standard language of "Job Providers" etc which is the current vogue in Republican talking points.

It's the same sort of shit that Republicans are having issues with Trump concerning minorities. It's fine to be racist if you use coded language and dog-whistles but overt racism (or sexism or classism) is declasse and results in a temporary loss of Republican (and more importantly Independent) support and so should be avoided at all cost.

Dubya made a really effort at rebranding the party as compassionate conservatism but Romney and Trump kinda undermined that effort. Cruz of course would probably throw his grandmother in jail but Rubio is kinda being held out as compassionate (even though his positions appear to be just barely to the left of Cruz and actually way to the right of Trump).
posted by vuron at 11:03 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

[…] I'm not even sure what constitutes a gaffe for Republican primary voters vis-a-vis general election voters as a whole.

Yeah, few things make me like a GOP candidate, but an attack ad by a fellow GOP candidate sometimes comes close. I saw this ad for Trump that was all, "Trump is pro-choice! Trump believes in a high minimum wage! Trump wants to raise taxes on the rich!" and I was thinking, "Wow, this Trump guy doesn't sound…wait a minute!"
posted by cjorgensen at 11:04 AM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]

No, I think this whole thing is a sideshow,

If that's the metric for derision then there's plenty more involved in a primary and a general election to heap scorn on. The very nature of the Presidential election is a sideshow since 98% of what people expect candidates to talk about is shit they have little to no impact on.
posted by phearlez at 11:05 AM on February 22, 2016

Yeah, but we were talking about the transcripts in this thread, this morning, so I commented on that.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:10 AM on February 22, 2016

This furious desire to destroy Clinton without painting in comprehensible (to me) terms why Sanders will be able to accomplish x y and z is really dismaying to me. I hope this comment doesn't lead to the rage vomit. It just feels like the year 2000 much too much in terms of in party fighting.
posted by angrycat at 11:11 AM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

The fact that Trump is going after Rubio for not being eligible due to his parents being born out of the country makes me protective of Rubio, which I don't like.

But also if we're calling into question the idea that a person whose parents are born outside the US can be natural born himself, and a major candidate can make those claims without being just completely shut down on it, that's terrifying.

I doubt Donald Trump would be able to enact any legislation that would deport me based on the fact that my parents were not born in the US, though they were citizens by the time of my birth. But the fact that he starts those kinds of slippery slope arguments is terrifying to me.
posted by zutalors! at 11:13 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

Good points, vuron. This election cycle is as much about pro or anti- establishment views as it is about the respective parties. Sanders and Trump doing as well as they have prove this point.

That being the case, which candidate for the Dems has the highest potential to scoop votes from the Repubs? I submit that it is Sanders and not Clinton who has the best chance to do so. If the Democratic party is wise, and is playing for not only immediate electoral success, but also a long-term plan to recapture both federal and state legislatures down the road, then rejecting the past few decades of triangulated Republican-lite and re-embracing the historical role of the Dem party as the champion of the working class, dirt under the fingernails, not elite, Middle America is the way to go. Prosperity cures a lot of woes. Reagan Democrats will return to the party once they understand that it is the Democratic party which is actually creating a prosperous country.

I know I'm begging the question of the economic side, but tl;dr: Sanders is what Clinton (nor Obama for that matter) are not: a modern day FDR type.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:16 AM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]

> […] so if you know anywhere I can stick my head into for some assurances that we're not all-in for the circular firing squad this year, please let me know.

Problem with this idea is that this only seems to affect Clinton. Voter turnout is expected to be lower if she wins than if Sanders wins. She's the one people are saying is going to be hurt in the general. More Clinton supporters will "hold their noses" and vote for Sanders than the other way around. It's even part of Sanders's narrative.

So I'm not sure what the answer is. I detest the idea of fall in line, dammit (from either candidate). So to me it seems like get behind Sanders or join the firing line. But I could be wrong. I often am.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:20 AM on February 22, 2016

Well said, CincyBlues.

Framed all partisiney: anti-establishmentism gets looked at as a proxy for systemic reform. Should democratic voters surrender that to the GOP?
posted by The Gaffer at 11:20 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

This furious desire to destroy Clinton without painting in comprehensible (to me) terms why Sanders will be able to accomplish x y and z is really dismaying to me.

For me, I don't think any democrat can accomplish much without changing the Congress. But, I think that a Sanders presidency has a better chance of leading to a changing Congress than a Clinton presidency. I'm not necessarily interested in "destroying" Clinton, but I don't like the framing of her as the inevitable choice that has to be "destroyed" in order to have someone vote for someone else. My vote is not hers to lose, it's hers (or Sanders') to earn. I prefer to start at zero and look at the pros that I can accumulate for each candidate -- I agree with more of Sanders' policy positions than I do with Clinton's. To the extent I think Clinton will be better in accomplishing her policies, it's because, in my opinion those policies actually help corporate interests and will not be a true benefit to the working class (e.g., ACA is good, but the main winner is the insurance industry). I worry about short-term "wins" at the expense of long-term stability.

I'm not looking for reasons to destroy Clinton; I'm looking for reasons I should vote for her over someone who shares more of my views and who I believe will be better at moving the country toward a Scandinavian-style social welfare system. I haven't found a good reason to do so yet.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:23 AM on February 22, 2016 [17 favorites]

This furious desire to destroy Clinton without painting in comprehensible (to me) terms why Sanders will be able to accomplish x y and z is really dismaying to me.

It is because Bernie is at least talking about trying to implement x,y, and z, whereas Clinton is unwilling to even try x,y, and z may not even recognize the items x,y, and z are addressing as real issues.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:23 AM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

There is a lot of justified anger at both Clintons coming from the progressive left and a lot of passion for a candidate that they feel can articulate (and maybe deliver) their progressive policy positions. Combined with a late push to try to get out a counter-narrative in relationship to Clinton's victory in NV and likely dominance in SC and I can totally understand why intraparty tensions are a fever pitch.

Although honestly I remember the partisanship being much more noticeable in regards to Clinton/Obama in 2008. Keep in mind that this is an old thread on a very liberal site that is mainly being dominated by a handful of passionate Sanders supporters and some Clinton loyalists and a small number of people that seem to be more or less neutral but just are fascinated by the inside baseball nature of politics.

I think there is probably a growing realization on the part of Sanders supporters that a repeat of Obama 08 as an insurgent campaign is unlikely to be successful and there is some anger that what they see as good progressive issues seem to be continually ignored or negated by the other part of the party. At the heart of everything it seems like Sanders and Clinton are really just proxies for an underlying struggle between moderates and progressives about the course of the party.

Progressives seemed to be dominant in 2008 and then Obama seemed to backtrack and become a moderate (although some people were always skeptical of his progressive bonafides). 2012 was more or less an election where the progressive/moderate divide was ignored. 2016 is the return of the underlying conflict with the most likely conclusion being that a moderate will be the nominee yet again.

I think Progressives are angry that the democrats continue to run away from liberalism but it's not certain that they have the numbers necessary to reclaim the party from centrist moderates.
posted by vuron at 11:25 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Isn't the paid speeches issue fundamentally different from swiftboating in that it plays into (rather than against) how most people feel about Clinton (that she's less than honest and pander-y)? I remember reading around the 2004 election that the swiftboating was so incredibly damaging to Kerry because it turned the widely accepted perception of him as a war hero completely on its head (unfairly, obviously). The Wall Street sweet talking stuff is just going to confirm what a lot of people already think of Clinton. And lots of people have already made peace with voting for her in spite of those qualities...so it's not going to deter them. Even 47% was kind of different - everyone thought Romney was Richie Rich with a dancing horse, but he seemed like a fundamentally kind person, and that video made him seem cold-hearted as hell. (Same thing with the commercial about the guys who had to build the stage from which they got fired.) The Clinton email issue, imo, is going to be far more damaging than the Wall Street speeches, because it goes against the perception of her as savvy and responsible at her job (the qualities that people lean on when explaining why they're willing to vote for someone who seems untruthful).

I think it will be different if what's in those speeches goes past sweet talking and into damaging comments on current events like Ferguson, cruel/cold things about people struggling/entitlements, or includes classified information. (Part of the reason big banks pay big money to have a big shot come give a speech is to hear war stories about what life is like in the big leagues of politics, I would think, and she's already said the Osama bin Ladin killing is one of the things these bankers wanted to hear about.)
posted by sallybrown at 11:25 AM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

This furious desire to destroy Clinton without painting in comprehensible (to me) terms why Sanders will be able to accomplish x y and z is really dismaying to me.

The idea that Sanders has to have a concrete plan to pay for every one of his ideas, and has to show how he has the votes lined up, and how he'll somehow magically convince the GOP to be his puppet, before sanders can be considered viable, while none of the other candidates seem to face this burden is for sure a double standard.

Personally, this is another reason I think Clinton would make a horrible president. You think the GOP were an obstructionist party of no under Obama, just wait until they get another Clinton to kick around. I'd rather have Sanders, who has a track record of being able to work with the GOP, than Clinton who will for sure galvanize them into stopping her at all costs.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:26 AM on February 22, 2016 [10 favorites]

As the person running the insurgent campaign the unfortunate reality is that to a certain degree the onus is on Sanders to convince likely Clinton voters that their candidate is the better option.

Yes it's not entirely fair but the reality is that Clinton has been widely considered to the presumptive nominee ever since she took the Secretary of State job under Obama. That was a bury the hatchet moment and the point in which Clinton gained the long term support of the Obama for America organization if she put off running until 2016.

Yes it's probably a bit distressing that the presumptive nominee can more or less be decided by backroom deals year in advance of the actual election but that's more or less been the norm for both parties since the Clinton election of 92.

1996 Dole got his turn even though he was a crap candidate
2000 Dubya was the next in line for the Republicans and Gore was effectively unopposed
2004 It was more or less Kerry's turn (Dean tried running an insurgent campaign but failed).
2008 Obama actually succeeds in cutting in line based upon a novel campaign strategy and masterful microtargeting, McCain gets his turn
2012 Romney is more or less coronated
2016 Jeb! and Hillary are to presumptive nominees about 2 years out. Jeb crashes and burns and Trump comes out of fucking nowhere. Sanders attempts to pull an Obama -results are still somewhat in doubt.

Yes the predictable nature of American presidential politics is kinda stupid but there are enough weird variables (Ross Perot in 92, Obama 08, Trump 16 and maybe Sanders 16) that it's fun to watch even though some outcomes are fairly unlikely.
posted by vuron at 11:42 AM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

Haha that Harry Potter analysis!

Nevermind that Tom Riddle's policy positions are more in keeping with the Republican party...

Still Harry Potter is a bit of a git, he tends to do the right thing but typically succeeds more through luck than actual skill and persistence... okay I guess the comparison is probably apt if not altogether flattering.

Hopefully they actually read the book and remembered that in order to stop Voldetrump Harubio Potterbot actually had to let Voldetrump kill him. Will Rubio make the final sacrifice for the good of the wizarding community/party?
posted by vuron at 11:47 AM on February 22, 2016

In this analysis, who is Rubio's Hermione, i.e., the smart one who handles all of the intellectual and emotional labor?
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:51 AM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Politico: Rubio super PAC compares him to Harry Potter

Rubio is Gilderoy Lockhart
Cruz is Bellatrix Lestrange
Trump is Lucius Malfoy
Kasich is Cornelius Fudge
Carson is Sybill Trelawney
Bloomberg is Rufus Scrimgeour
Bernie is Mad-Eye Moody
Clinton is Hermione Granger
Biden is Ron Weasley
And, as everyone clearly knows, Obama is Harry Potter

(no one involved in politics is good enough to be Dumbledore, no one is yet dangerously effective enough to be Voldemort)
posted by sallybrown at 11:53 AM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Harubio Potterbot

amazing
posted by sallybrown at 11:54 AM on February 22, 2016

i would watch the hell out of that remake, sallybrown
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:57 AM on February 22, 2016

Cruz is Bellatrix Lestrange
Trump is Lucius Malfoy

Interesting. I would say Cruz was more like Lucius Malfoy ("true evil") and Trump is more like Bellatrix ("unpredictable evil; having fun just f*ing stuff up").
posted by melissasaurus at 12:00 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Part of my support of Obama in 2008 was this fear of obstructionism I really believed that he could get things done, that it was the Clinton the GOP crazy base frothed at the mouth over. And the GOP doubled down on obstructionism adding racism.

Now I am making a point to read the comments in the main stream media about Bernie to get a taste of what's to come and it ain't pretty. Us progressives love to see Bernie getting arrested as part of the civil rights movement, but that doesn't play well universally. Also he has never had a career outside of government. The right will excoriate him for this, always at the public teat as it were. They will go easy on him in the primaries because they love that shit is getting stirred, the Dems are doing part the their job for them. They will eat him alive in the general.

Also the comparison to FDR? He was also the former governor of New York state and former Secretary of the Navy. His wife was the niece of a former president.

I also worry that Bernie's age will be used against him. He's got five years on Hillary and four on Trump. After the age of seventy a five year gap is very meaningful. I worry about that a lot.

I would love a Bernie Presidency. I would love if he could cut thru the bullshit in a way that the low information voter could see that government does work in their best interest. But these are strange times, a sizable but growing minority is willing to vote for a reality TV star that has so many qualities and skeletons in his closet, a decade ago he was laughed off the national stage.

Hell, I just don't know anymore, but I'd rather people not damage Hillary. There are supreme court nominations at stake. Do we want to lose reproductive rights? Do we want the Transfer of Public Lands Act to become law of the land? I don't like that people are feeling like they are being silenced and told to shut up and vote for Hillary. Frankly I am not getting that message.
posted by readery at 12:01 PM on February 22, 2016

They will go easy on him in the primaries because they love that shit is getting stirred, the Dems are doing part the their job for them. They will eat him alive in the general.

I really don't see how that is any different than the GOP hatred for Hillary that goes back decades. I'm not sure there's anyone they hate more than Hillary.

Still, you can expect them to be nasty to anyone running on the Dem side. It is what it is.
posted by Fleebnork at 12:06 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

If Hillary wins the nomination, it is going to be much, much uglier than anything they could say against Bernie Sanders, IMHO.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:08 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

The big difference this election cycle, I think, is that it's the first presidential election since the huge economic collapse of 2007-8 with no incumbent, and where we have enough distance to have not only lived through the (ongoing) consequences of that collapse, but also to understand why it happened, who was responsible, and even moreso, to see clearly that the whole system is rigged to benefit the very few at the top (e.g., how has wealth vastly increased in the past few years but wages have not?). This is not news to a well-informed citizen, but most participants in our democracy are, sadly, not very well-informed.

But one's lived experience has a way of hammering the truth home, and we're far enough into this shitshow for there to be widespread understanding that it's the business-as-usual power elites who are responsible for it in various ways. Through both primaries, I see the American public practically screaming for fairness, that working folks should have a bigger share of the wealth we create. Somebody like Trump answers that head-on in really ugly, toxic ways, by scapegoating and otherizing various groups. Somebody like Sanders answers it head-on by giving a clear-eyed explanation of who is actually responsible, and wants to hold them specifically accountable in various ways.

None of the other candidates are doing any version of that, and I don't think any of them credibly can. I also think that the candidate in the general election who does that most successfully (whether accurately, fairly and productively, or hatefully, angrily and poorly) will be the next president. If both parties nominate an establishment, business-as-usual candidate, we should expect at least one major, independent candidate. That's how tectonic I think the financial and economic fairness and justice issues are.

I could be completely wrong about all of the above, and readily admit that, but that's my read on things now. It's why Clinton needs to stop being dismissive of progressive/younger Democrats (that "it can't just be about free stuff" line is odiously offensive), needs to realize that the speech transcripts aren't about the speeches per se, and why that could very well make her very weak in the general election. It's also the foundation of the Sanders "insurgency" (another odious label--the voters want someone other than the establishment-ordained, pre-selected candidate, how dare we??), and why I support that he emphasizes those issues above others.

I'm surprised that Clinton isn't being more savvy about this, and responding to it more substantially. But then again, as I've said above, I don't trust her judgment, so am not surprised she personally doesn't see it; I'm surprised no one around her is telling her this. She's like George Lucas making the SW prequels: apparently no one around her can tell her that her script is terrible.

And this isn't people damaging Clinton, it's not a circular firing squad: she is doing this to herself. I owe no primary candidate anything, certainly not the task of making their arguments for them. That's one of the main things they're supposed to be good at. One candidate out of the entire slate on both sides has persuaded me that he is worth my active support. I'm open to being convinced by another, but as things unfold I am persuaded more, not less, that there is only one worthwhile candidate in the race.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:10 PM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]

If people don't care about her receiving $15 million from Wall Street just this year, that's fine. If people don't care about Goldman Sachs referring to their payments to her as "Goldman handcuffs," (as in golden handcuffs) that's fine. Nobody is telling anyone not to vote for her or to "get in line" behind Sanders. You don't get to pretend that taking Wall Street money is some brave progressive position to take, though, or that she's subject to some kind of unfair attacks. This is her record. To me, the payments (especially given the goldman handcuffs stuff) constitute regulatory capture, which is not acceptable for an industry that destroyed $10.2 trillion in American wealth in 2008 and still poses systemic risks to our prosperity. And the straw manning about how people just want to childishly destroy the banks or don't understand how the paying-both-sides thing works (again, essentially regulatory capture) is condescending and ill-informed. The Goldman alum who was the head overseer the bailout and now runs the Minneapolis Federal Reserve even thinks the banks need to be broken up because they are still too big to fail and pose systemic risks to the credit and banking systems. It's simply incorrect to characterize it as some childish idealistic goal.

Meanwhile, other people are perfectly within their rights to consider her Wall Street payments a dealbreaker and be very concerned about the electoral impact of running a Wall Street candidate up against a guy like Trump, whose #2 selling point all year (second only to The Wall) has been how he's free from the influence of special interests and big money donors. Further, we are still in a contested primary no matter how badly some people want Sanders supporters to stop exercising their rights in our democracy, so people are entitled to talk about why it makes their candidate look better and why it makes him more electable. Lots of other people in the Democratic party find it troubling too, or it wouldn't be half the issue that it is. Just because you don't think Sanders has a chance doesn't mean that everyone is required to line up behind Hillary. Sanders has said he's taking this to the convention and I expect him to be true to his word - he'll have a tremendous influence on the platform and help organize a true Democratic grassroots that way.

Even from a "pragmatic" electability standpoint, the payments are a problem because it completely neutralizes many of our best lines of attack on Republicans - "in the pocket of big business", "only looking out for rich people" comes off a wee bit hypocritical when you got $15 million from Wall Street just this year. That's the problem with Democrats doing this, for people who only care about the ends and not the means - it's one of our last sources of moral high ground on Republicans, and if Trump gets to turn it around and hold it over our heads, it will be so ugly and we will look like awful hypocrites. He's going to destroy her in a debate over it. I can already see him talking about how she's so bought, he paid her to come to his wedding and pretend to like him and she did it. But I'm sure it will be Sanders' supporters faults for pointing out the simple facts way back in the primary, and not her own fault for doing something so fundamentally foolish when she knew she was going to be running for president soon.
posted by dialetheia at 12:14 PM on February 22, 2016 [31 favorites]

"don't do everything you possibly can to undermine the likely Democratic primary winner in a long-shot bid to help Sanders win it."

Nah, fuck that, because that "likely Democratic primary winner" is pursuing a scorched-earth strategy and doesn't care about alienating a significant number of Democratic primary voters by doing so. So far as I can tell most of her campaign consists of "here's why you shouldn't vote for my opponent" rather than "here's why you should vote for me", which is much the same as the campaign she ran in 2008; she's a bad campaigner, a bad candidate, and will likely, if elected, be a bad president. Better than any of the Republicans? Sure, but that's not very difficult. Going into this election season I was feeling a bit ambivalent and generally "meh" about the prospect of eventually having to vote for Hillary, but the longer it goes on the more I'm reminded of why I didn't support her 8 years ago. Come November, if she ends up with the nomination, I won't be voting for her, I'll be voting against the Republicans.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:19 PM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]

In fact, he's already used that line on her in one of the first Republican debates. Here's a preview of the Trump attacks on how she's bought and paid for:

“I gave to many people,” Trump said, defending his political donations to candidates from both parties before explaining what he got in return. “With Hillary Clinton I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding,” he said. “She had no choice because I gave.”
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

The "Goldman Handcuffs" thing sounded a little too @GSElevator, so I looked it up and it was started by this guy. Sure, he was a GS partner until 2001, but now he's a "self-fashioned political pundit".
posted by casaubon at 12:37 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also the comparison to FDR? He was also the former governor of New York state and former Secretary of the Navy. His wife was the niece of a former president.

I don't intend this as a personal criticism, but rather want to suggest it as a wedge into something illuminating (at least from my biased perspective.)

The idea that I was comparing Sanders to FDR as a matter of social class, as opposed to my actual intent--which was to suggest a nested set of economic policy proposals similar to FDR--is the result of the distance that so many Democrats have shifted away from historical concerns of the party. Yes, of course, social issues are crucial, social standing is important, but the fracturing of the party into identity politics--at the sacrifice of a more or less unifying agreement with respect to economics--is a large part of why the Democratic party apparatus has become Republican-lite.

As succinctly mentioned throughout this thread by dialetheia, LooseFilter, and others, the reawakening of youthful Democrats to economic issues is largely a result of their being victims of the consequences of this shift in the party. Clinton knows this or she wouldn't be artfully smearing Sanders as a single issue candidate. I suspect the idea behind that is to marginalize the idea--or at least to muddy the waters with respect to economics--such that folks will be less willing to grapple with the often complex ideas which economic policy poses. Far easier to say: "See, I'm the one who deals with everything; just leave the hard thinking to me."

It's not only a dubious campaign ploy, it's also damaging to the long term interests of the party as a whole, as well as being condescending and damning to many, many party constituents.
posted by CincyBlues at 12:38 PM on February 22, 2016 [13 favorites]

Ted Cruz today fired his campaign’s communications director Rick Tyler – the guy in charge of social media, among other things – for claiming that Marco Rubio had renounced his Christianity by mocking the bible.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:47 PM on February 22, 2016

Something I'm thinking about: right now, the race is between three boomers. The younger contenders have no traction. Why is this??

If I were American, I'd be a Democrat. But why is there no candidate my age or younger? If I were an American, I'd feel my interests weren't respected or addressed.

If I were a Republican, I'd notice that some younger guys were in the race. But I'd be offended to the point of not voting to realize that both of them are completely detached from the realities of my day to day life.
posted by mumimor at 12:52 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't intend this as a personal criticism, but rather want to suggest it as a wedge into something illuminating (at least from my biased perspective.)

It wasn't about class. It was about the fact that he was an insider.
posted by readery at 12:53 PM on February 22, 2016

Something I'm thinking about: right now, the race is between three boomers. The younger contenders have no traction. Why is this??

I've been wondering this too. O'Malley was younger but he has the personality of a wet sponge and a history of harmful policy. Perhaps on the Democratic side, the looming shadow of Hillary scared off any challengers other than Bernie? Maybe our huge field of candidates election is going to be 2024 (extremely optimistically assuming a two-term Dem president)?
posted by sallybrown at 12:58 PM on February 22, 2016

Something I'm thinking about: right now, the race is between three boomers. The younger contenders have no traction. Why is this??

Huh? Two of the three still-relevant Republican candidates are the youngest a presidential candidate can possibly be under the U.S. Constitution. (Yeah, they're both running for second to Trump at this point, but I don't think you can really say they have no traction.)

On the Democratic side, there were no non-Boomers in the mix even at the very beginning, which probably has a lot to do with the party's abysmal "farm team" of lower-tier officeholders.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:58 PM on February 22, 2016

But why is there no candidate my age or younger?

We don't have any money.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:59 PM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]

And we don't vote enough
posted by ian1977 at 1:00 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Something I'm thinking about: right now, the race is between three boomers. The younger contenders have no traction. Why is this??

Bernie Sanders is pre-boomer, and Cruz and Rubio can't really be said to "have no traction".

As to why, Presidents are typically older than mid-40s -- Cruz or Rubio would be the second-youngest elected President (behind Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was younger when he became President after McKinley's assassination), and that includes a lot of time when the life expectancy of an American man was a lot lower than it is today.
posted by Etrigan at 1:00 PM on February 22, 2016

Two of the three still-relevant Republican candidates are the youngest a presidential candidate can possibly be under the U.S. Constitution.

Marco Rubio is 44. Ted Cruz is 45. Both a decade older than the Constitution requires.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:00 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

but the fracturing of the party into identity politics--at the sacrifice of a more or less unifying agreement with respect to economics--is a large part of why the Democratic party apparatus has become Republican-lite.

It's so easy to slip into some problematic stuff here and start pitting social issues against class issues, which shouldn't be necessary at all, but I think there's an important point there. I didn't really understand this argument and tended to dismiss it as kind of a minimizing thing to say about social issues - until I saw Clinton saying "If we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that cure sexism?", to a rousing "NO!!!!" from the crowd. It's an identity wedge straw man, and as a poor woman I resent the hell out of her using feminism as a wedge between class and gender that way. At best, it demonstrates a poor understanding of intersectionality. I mean, sure, properly regulating the banks wouldn't cure cancer or immediately solve global climate change, either, but it might still be a huge priority for someone concerned about the fundamental stability of our economy, who might have lost a much higher-paying and more stable job last time the banks crashed everything, who might still be underwater on her home, who might have lost half of her retirement.

It wasn't about class. It was about the fact that he was an insider.

Right, and he ran a "class traitor" campaign of exactly the sort I expect to see Trump start running as soon as he pivots to the election, just as Douthat astutely points out in that column. You can already see it in the way he talks about his political donations - "I pay them, and they do what I tell them! And here I am, calling them out in public, becauuse I care about everyday people." That's a big component of his "brave truth teller" routine - it's not just that he's "telling truths," it's that he's betraying all of the other rich people to rally for the Common Man. It's yet another reason that Clinton will be really vulnerable against him - she's precisely one of the elites that he would be betraying, and the Wall Street money just reinforces it.
posted by dialetheia at 1:01 PM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]

Honestly, it doesn't matter how likely Sanders would be able to get some of his more ambitions plans to pass, just as it doesn't matter if Trump really would be able to get his; electing a politician with views on the periphery will help to shift the Overton Window. That's why Sanders matters, even if he loses.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:01 PM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

The Republican National Committee has dredged up old footage of Hillary Clinton's contentious battle against Barack Obama in the 2008 South Carolina primary to push back on Clinton's overwhelming support among the state's black voters heading into Saturday's primary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:04 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

I've been wondering what the nurture strategy is in both parties. I'm sure there is one, but it seems opaque to me. A younger voter is 18-24, a young political rising star is 35-50 or so. I do think the field on both sides is pretty gray, but especially on the Democrat side.

Marco Rubio is 44. Ted Cruz is 45. Both a decade older than the Constitution requires.

That's young for Presidential candidates. I doubt we'll see a 35 year old, I don't think most people would see enough experience there. DeeRay McKesson is running for mayor of Baltimore, maybe if he wins and is very popular he can run in 2020 as a 36 year old but...I don't see that going too far.
posted by zutalors! at 1:04 PM on February 22, 2016

zutalors!, I agree with you. I was just pointing out that they are not the absolute youngest ages possible.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on February 22, 2016

Huh. for some reason I thought the cutoff was 45.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:06 PM on February 22, 2016

That's young for Presidential candidates. I doubt we'll see a 35 year old, I don't think most people would see enough experience there.

I used to think 35 was a suitable minimum cut-off to become president. Until I turned 35, that is, at which point I thought it was way too young.
Now I think a good minimum age cut-off is five years older than however old I am at present.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:08 PM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

DeeRay McKesson is running for mayor of Baltimore, maybe if he wins and is very popular he can run in 2020 as a 36 year old

Just in case anyone feels like throwing some money his way, here's where you can donate (not affiliated with the campaign, just a fan).
posted by sallybrown at 1:09 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

I used to think 35 was a suitable minimum cut-off to become president. Until I turned 35, that is, at which point I thought it was way too young.

Agreed, though it still felt too young in my mid-late 20s. 45 sounds like a fine age to me but ask me again in ten or so years.
posted by zutalors! at 1:12 PM on February 22, 2016

I'm 35, and in no way think I am old enough to be president, although I have friends that i grew up with who I think would make fine presidents right now, with tons of interesting experiences.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:14 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

[] has dredged up old footage of Hillary Clinton's contentious battle against Barack Obama in the 2008 […]

Old footage?

Not even a decade ago.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:15 PM on February 22, 2016

Bernie Sanders and the Depressing Reality of Populism: In American politics, it's far too easy to splinter a populist movement along racial or ethnic lines.
posted by homunculus at 1:16 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

part of the difference with Obama in '08 is that he had been on (my) radar since his keynote in 2004. People in 2004 were talking about Obama for Prez in my social circle. He didn't come out of nowhere, and due respect to Sanders's service as an elected official, we can agree that Sanders's rise came within, what, the last six months?

And then Obama was tested with the Jeremiah Wright (sp?) scandal during the primaries. God, remember the speech he gave in reaction to that? Not only was it an amazing speech, it motherfucking worked.

And then look at the Huerta thing with Sanders in NV. I've read all the shit, and it seems to me that, as others have pointed out, it was a DNC fuck-up and, giving Sanders's people the benefit of the doubt, that's all it was.

But the story still has legs, regardless. You have a civil rights icon accusing the Sanders's camp of heinous things. And where is the impressive quick strike we would expect from say an Obama campaign that would shut this down? Let's say Sanders is being horribly wronged here. Okay. What the fuck is he doing about it? Why am I have to read fucking Snopes to figure out what happened?

Finally: The thing that has me the most gobsmacked in this thread is the idea that, faced with a Sanders's presidency, the waters of congressional obstructionism would magically part. Yes, I know that Sanders has experience negotiating with those in the GOP. Y'all think that would stay the same if he is the candidate from the left? If he has economic proposals that are more leftist than Obama? Why, for all that is good and holy and sane and reasonable, would you make that projection?

And it's awfully convenient to pivot to, 'well even if he loses something something Overton window.'
posted by angrycat at 1:16 PM on February 22, 2016

No, Politico, Bernie Sanders' Views on the C.I.A. Were Not 'Extreme' - Unless J.F.K. was an extremist, too.
posted by homunculus at 1:16 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

I used to think 35 was a suitable minimum cut-off to become president. Until I turned 35, that is, at which point I thought it was way too young.

Interesting, I've actually gone the other way. I'm 31 and given how disconnected I already am from someone graduating high school or college this year, it's no wonder to me that we don't have more young voters and upcoming-star politicians--that's a fantastic gulf to try and reach across.

Well, that and the fact that politically people only seem to care about representing whoever is paying them, and of course the people who are paying their own way in life are likely doing it by working long hours, leaving them without emotional capital, money, or free time to engage politically.
posted by Phyltre at 1:18 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

Why am I have to read fucking Snopes to figure out what happened?

Because the media is relentlessly biased against him. They had that story published everywhere immediately with nary a fact check - despite two separate videos disproving her claim. The other reason is that if they had fought it, you'd be in here railing about how disrespectful they were to a civil rights icon.

The thing that has me the most gobsmacked in this thread is the idea that, faced with a Sanders's presidency, the waters of congressional obstructionism would magically part.

I'm not sure why you're so attached to this extremely snarky straw man, but nobody has said that. They have said that he is the only one building a movement that even has the potential to allow us to shift the political conversation in this country (as he already has). Where's Clinton's 4 million small donors? How is she going to mobilize people against GOP obstructionism to get her nonexistent plans through?
posted by dialetheia at 1:19 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

The way I see it, if Hillary delivers everything she promises, we pretty much stay where we are. If she fails to deliver everything she promises, we pretty much stay where we are.

If Sanders delivers everything he promises, the US undergoes a fundamental shift (in a good direction, I would say). If he fails to deliver everything he promises, we pretty much stay where we are.

So, Hillary succeeding is basically the same as Sanders failing. Why elect Clinton if her campaign is to keep everything where it is? Sanders can do that even when he fails to get legislation through.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:21 PM on February 22, 2016 [26 favorites]

> But the story still has legs, regardless. You have a civil rights icon accusing the Sanders's camp of heinous things. And where is the impressive quick strike we would expect from say an Obama campaign that would shut this down? Let's say Sanders is being horribly wronged here. Okay. What the fuck is he doing about it? Why am I have to read fucking Snopes to figure out what happened?

Story does have legs. Story is that once again an establishment icon is playing dirty politics and lying to get their candidate into the White House. Albright, Steinem, Lewis, now Huerta.

Sure, in the short run it hurts him, in the long run it solidifies the idea that Clinton is a horrible person who won't even denounce crap politics. As to what Sanders does about it? He takes the high ground time and time again.

Finally: The thing that has me the most gobsmacked in this thread is the idea that, faced with a Sanders's presidency, the waters of congressional obstructionism would magically part. Yes, I know that Sanders has experience negotiating with those in the GOP.

No, we're suggesting he'll for sure not be worse off than Clinton, and perhaps much better, since as you point out he has working relationships with members of the GOP while Clinton will only galvanize their resolve.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:24 PM on February 22, 2016

he other reason is that if they had fought it, you'd be in here railing about how disrespectful they were to a civil rights icon.

Um. Unless you come from one of the ancient lines of Future Behavior Predictor Elves, mind dialing it back?
posted by angrycat at 1:27 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

People in 2004 were talking about Obama for Prez in my social circle. He didn't come out of nowhere, and due respect to Sanders's service as an elected official, we can agree that Sanders's rise came within, what, the last six months?

No, I would not agree with that at all. I have heard people talking about Bernie at least as far back as 2004, but never in my wildest dreams did I think a Sanders presidential campaign would actually happen, much less be a real contender. Then again, I said the same about Obama.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:27 PM on February 22, 2016 [5 favorites]

I would think that after 8 years of hatchet jobs on Obama from right-leaning pundits people would've learned to ignore Politico.
posted by vuron at 1:28 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

Um. Unless you come from one of the ancient lines of Future Behavior Predictor Elves, mind dialing it back?

This is exactly what's been happening on Twitter for two days now, so I don't think it's much of a stretch
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 1:29 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh yes, the cabal of civil rights icons who have banded together in a lying anti-Justice League to foist evil Hillzilla on the American people!

I really don't find it difficult to be a little more charitable about actions I disagree with by truly good and decent people who have spent decades fighting the good fight for their country and its people. People make mistakes out of passion, not just sheer malice.
posted by sallybrown at 1:31 PM on February 22, 2016 [3 favorites]

Incidentally, Huerta made similar accusations about Obama supporters in 2008. I don't mean to discredit her work at all, just thought this was interesting:
"And it’s interesting that in Nevada, where she got almost 59 percent of the Latino vote, in spite of the oppression and the voter suppression and huge intimidation on the part of the Obama supporters of the Latino casino workers, they voted for Hillary. And out of the casinos, nine casinos that they had for voting sites, seven of the nine casinos voted for Hillary Clinton over the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union. "

No, I would not agree with that at all. I have heard people talking about Bernie at least as far back as 2004, but never in my wildest dreams did I think a Sanders presidential campaign would actually happen, much less be a real contender.

Same here! I've been wanting him to run for President since 2008 when I saw him speak against the bailouts, then found his old C-SPAN speeches basically predicting the entire damn crash way back in 1998 on youtube. He gave a fantastic 8.5 hour filibuster of the Bush tax cuts back in the Bush era too. For political junkies, though, he's been around forever.
posted by dialetheia at 1:31 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

Um. Unless you come from one of the ancient lines of Future Behavior Predictor Elves, mind dialing it back?

Frankly, you're the one who continues to paraphrase straw men in the snarkiest, most uncharitable terms imaginable. I would be happy to dial it down. It would be great if you could likewise tone down your overt hostility.
posted by dialetheia at 1:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [8 favorites]

I'm not sure why you're so attached to this extremely snarky straw man, but nobody has said that. They have said that he is the only one building a movement that even has the potential to allow us to shift the political conversation in this country (as he already has).

I did snarkify, which I should know much better in this thread, but if it would make a difference to anything I would cut and paste the many, many, many predictions of how much easier Sanders would have it vis-a-vis Congress. You've been reading this thread, so I'm not sure how you missed them.
posted by angrycat at 1:33 PM on February 22, 2016

He gave a fantastic 8.5 hour filibuster of the Bush tax cuts back in the Bush era too.

This is when I first heard of him. Bless him for that. It's crazy to me to think back on just how disappointed I got in Obama around that point in time.
posted by sallybrown at 1:34 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

dialethia, you've been one of the fiercest Sanders supporters and I have praised your thoughtful comments. i'm sorry you have a hate-on for me, but it's not mutual
posted by angrycat at 1:35 PM on February 22, 2016

i'm sorry you have a hate-on for me, but it's not mutual

This is exactly what I mean about putting snarky shitty words in peoples' mouths! I have no "hate-on" for anyone, I just object to your characterizations of Sanders supporters as magical-unicorn-loving-complete-fucking-morons. I'm happy you don't feel that way, apparently, but that's certainly how your comments come off.
posted by dialetheia at 1:38 PM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

He didn't come out of nowhere, and due respect to Sanders's service as an elected official, we can agree that Sanders's rise came within, what, the last six months?

Did you never notice the chair in a diagram of the Senate that was neither red nor blue?

I first came across mention of Sanders in the early 90s looking up a basic description of socialism in a high school library with no internet connection. (Albeit in New Hampshire, but I'm pretty sure this was in a general U.S. source, a crappy encyclopedia I think. I don't think I've ever heard him mentioned in person but most of the people in my social circle who I would talk about politics with are conservatives and raise a crucifix and throw holy water at me if I mention socialism.)
posted by XMLicious at 1:44 PM on February 22, 2016

This is exactly what I mean about putting snarky shitty words in peoples' mouths! I have no "hate-on" for anyone, I just object to your characterizations of Sanders supporters as magical-unicorn-loving-complete-fucking-morons.

Given that I never said this--

Okay, I'm out.
posted by angrycat at 1:45 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

And then Obama was tested with the Jeremiah Wright (sp?) scandal during the primaries. God, remember the speech he gave in reaction to that? Not only was it an amazing speech, it motherfucking worked.

That story ends with Reverend Wright resigning and Obama distancing himself from Trinity UCC. It was a good speech, but I'd consider your version of 'worked' as very subjective.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:45 PM on February 22, 2016

I would cut and paste the many, many, many predictions of how much easier Sanders would have it vis-a-vis Congress.

People have primarily argued that Clinton has equal if not worse chances simply because she is the most hated figure among the entire Republican base short of Obama, and that Sanders has a 25-year record of working with these people so presumably he has some working relationships. At no point did anyone say anything about his legislative agenda being enacted quickly if at all - the argument I keep hearing is that Clinton is equally fucked with respect to the legislature, so we should choose someone who is willing to be aggressive with their Treasury appointments, regulatory influence, climate action, etc. The point about the Overton window is simply that if you don't change public opinion on these issues, you will never be able to get any of it done. If you only propose what is currently possible right here in this narrow moment, we lose the chance to start from a strong negotiating position and persuade people that your big changes are actually worth doing. At no point does that argument assume that it will all magically get done by unicorns - the assumption is simply that we will make progress toward those goals by expanding what is politically possible over time.

Sanders has already done more to sell single-payer and free college and living wages and has moved the party farther to the left than anyone in my lifetime. It's a significant thing, not just a handwavy excuse! I mean, look at the Republicans, look at how Trump has moved the Overton window so thoroughly that "let's just build a huge goddamn wall" is damn near a mainstream position now somehow. Leaders expand what is politically possible, not compromise to it before even putting up a fight.
posted by dialetheia at 1:49 PM on February 22, 2016 [21 favorites]

Re, why no younger candidates: In my experience as a precinct chairperson for the Dems, it's because the party doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone that isn't either connected, or well funded already. When it came time for the selection of who went to the convention, it was all people who were friends of the Party leadership, or who were massive cash bundlers . Not a single person from a rural district in north Texas was chosen. Not one. Nor were many people under 50 in evidence. Plenty of folks from Dallas and Plano and the rich white subdivisions, but us farm belt folks and the younger delegates were just as ignored at the precinct headquarters as we are in policy decisions.

The democratic party stopped caring about the youth vote about the time the young republicans really ramped up. Which is why the republicans have such a strong presence in the 50 and under set. The hippies are grandparents who keep yelling at kids to stay off their grass and demanding fealty without addressing this needs, concerns, or bothering to interact except to ask for donations.

Obama succeeded because he mobilized the youth vote,many of whom got older and disillusioned during his terms. After he won term two, he rolled up the carpets on his political machine and did Fuck all to energize those voters to work for progressive policies or candidates. He, and the part as a whole have been derelict in creating and maintaining a progressive wave. It's one of the many reasons I've been disappointed with him.

Tldr; the Dems have spent 30 years squandering the opportunities and progressives available, but still expect us to line up behind their pre-chosen nominee.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the last yellow dog democrats left in this jihadist joke of a state, but damn, they sure don't make it easy.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 1:51 PM on February 22, 2016 [17 favorites]

Oh, and re the Huera thing, she sure as hell changed her story as soon as video proving that she was lying came out. It never happened. What is Bernie supposed to do, call her out for being a lying liar, and get pummeled for attacking an icon, even when that icon has a long history of these types of lies?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 2:05 PM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]

angrycat: I would cut and paste the many, many, many predictions of how much easier Sanders would have it vis-a-vis Congress.

I'd appreciate it if you'd go ahead and do that for us - heck, even a handful of predictions would be fine.

I've read every comment in this thread, and I've somehow managed to overlook all of these 'many, many, many predictions' you mention.
posted by syzygy at 4:06 PM on February 22, 2016

I mean, look at the Republicans, look at how Trump has moved the Overton window so thoroughly that "let's just build a huge goddamn wall" is damn near a mainstream position now somehow. Leaders expand what is politically possible, not compromise to it before even putting up a fight.

Which is completely scary. This year's fight against the status quo is making it sound like some Pandora's box is being opened or we're spinning some high stakes roulette wheel of political possibilities: Single Payer! 11 million deported! Free college! A big wall in Mexico! Make the big banks pay! Teach China a lesson!
posted by FJT at 4:06 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't think it's scary as much as it was predictable. People have good reasons to feel betrayed by the mainstream wings of their parties, and even if the WH race is between the establishment (Clinton v. Rubio), there are some lessons about the future of both parties to be learned
posted by lmfsilva at 5:35 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

There have been multiple assertions that Sanders would have an easier time than Clinton because of a long history of bipartisanship. There are also assertions that simply by not being Clinton he would have an easier time since he's not as hated. There are also assertions that the bully pulpit would be effective.

All of these assertions ignore the fact that the House is fundamentally ungovernable even by the Republican leadership. Witness the continued violations of the Hastert rule in regards to increasing the debt limit.

6 years of Obama have completely failed to shame Republicans into actually governing so it's unclear who could actually force Republicans into bipartisan compromises.

This is true with marginal incremental reforms why should Democrats believe that Sanders can deliver single payer when it's absolutely antithetical to the conservative world view. Even if it was somehow proven that Sanders plan is fiscally sound (which seems likely despite the Friedman dynamic scoring being suspect) it is a fundamental article of faith that government cannot be the solution only the market among conservatives. These plans either require bipartisanship that is currently unheard of or a next to unassailable supermajority of progressive democrats in the Senate. Neither of which look likely to happen in the next decade much less next 4 years.

Right now progressives are asking for a leap if faith and a sizeable number of democrats are asking why risk what we have?
posted by vuron at 5:56 PM on February 22, 2016

there are some lessons about the future of both parties to be learned

I'm afraid the lesson is going to be "How can we, the establishment, do a better job of clamping down on the insurgent grassroots to ensure something like this can never happen again?"
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:58 PM on February 22, 2016 [18 favorites]

How do you mean risk what we have?
posted by The Gaffer at 6:10 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

There have been multiple assertions that Sanders would have an easier time than Clinton because of a long history of bipartisanship. There are also assertions that simply by not being Clinton he would have an easier time since he's not as hated. There are also assertions that the bully pulpit would be effective.

I read those as not saying that Sanders would be SO much better for facing obstructionism but that he would be in at least the same position as Clinton. There are factors that improve the odds of progress for both candidates or reduce the odds that they'll get anything done. So much also depends on what happens over the next year in the race, with SCOTUS, in the world, with the GOP party after this whole election is over.

That said, I think the bully pulpit is extremely important though, for long term progress, overton window, etc. There's also a component of expected value calculation for me. If I rate the value of Bernie's policies at 100 but the likelihood of achieving that in 4 years at 10%, the expected value is 10. If I rate the value of Clinton's marginal proposed improvements at 30 but the likelihood of success at 20%, the expected value is 6. Bernie's is still higher. all values completely made up obviously, and people do their own calculations based on their own views
posted by melissasaurus at 6:16 PM on February 22, 2016 [11 favorites]

Yeah, to borrow a phrase from the Borscht Belt, "We who, white man?" Seriously, what do we have that is at risk by voting for Bernie instead of Hillary? I'm not being snarky, I really want to know where that line of thinking both begins and terminates.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:17 PM on February 22, 2016

Keeping ACA from getting repealed, the ability to replace Scalia, the ability to most likely replace Ginsburg, ability to affect change in the administration through executive orders and rule changes.

There are a whole lot of people whose lives will be substantively worsened under a Republican administration and they feel like Clinton is the better candidate (they could be wrong, they could be right).

Right now it seems like the party is pretty split on who would be the better candidate. Some people have faith in Sanders some people have faith in Clinton and some people are still on the fence.

Until the spectre of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, etc are removed from the hearts of moderate Democrats (notice how past failures seem to be influencing the older Democratic cohorts) it's unclear whether a solid majority of Democrats will sign on for the Bernie revolution. And that's really the long and short of it. Younger progressives seemingly have less to lose (indeed some have even talked about it possibly being good to have 4 years of Trump to ensure a Liberal Spring) than the older cohorts and that's being reflected in the demographic share of voters with older cohorts favoring Clinton and younger cohorts favoring Bernie.

Is it possible to reconcile those two positions? Certainly but currently time seems to be running out.
posted by vuron at 6:28 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm really hoping replacing Scalia isn't going to be a thing the next president gets to do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Same here but even endangered Republican senators seem to be holding firm to McConnell's rhetoric regarding no confirmation votes.

That being said if you live in a state with a Republican senator that is up for re-election and there is even the remotest shot of getting them to cave then do the standard things because Obama should really have the opportunity to nominate and confirm Scalia's replacement.
posted by vuron at 6:33 PM on February 22, 2016 [1 favorite]

There are a whole lot of people whose lives will be substantively worsened under a Republican administration and they feel like Clinton is the better candidate (they could be wrong, they could be right).

Yes, but this is an electability argument not an effectiveness argument. I happen to think Sanders is both more electable and will be more effective (or of equal effectiveness); others think Clinton is more electable and will be more effective; and others think Clinton is more electable but Sanders would be more effective and vice versa.

But we should be clear about what we're talking about.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:55 PM on February 22, 2016 [6 favorites]

This is true with marginal incremental reforms why should Democrats believe that Sanders can deliver single payer when it's absolutely antithetical to the conservative world view.

I'd rather some try for greatness than settle for what's practical. Maybe then we get vision and progress. If you start from a position of weakness you get little.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:55 PM on February 22, 2016 [9 favorites]

The William C. Velásquez Institute, a Latino public policy think tank, ran their own analysis of those entrance polls and found that nothing was inconsistent with Clinton's margin of victory and that Clinton's margin among Black voters explains her victory. They add:

"We note that some analysts have said that Secretary Clinton's victories in heavily Latino precincts proved that she won the Latino vote. However the methodology of using heavily Latino or "barrio" precincts to represent Latino voting behavior has been considered ineffective and discarded for more than 30 years due to non-barrio residential patterns been common among Latino voters since the 1980's."

Per ABC News, Latinos younger than 45 voted for Sanders by 70-27%.
posted by dialetheia at 7:08 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

I am tired of the electability arguments. When Sanders wasn't polling so well nationally, some Sanders supporters insisted on the prerogative to vote by conscience, not by pragmatism. Now it's about electability in the generals again.

In any case, arguing against either Sanders' or Clinton's electability is depressing and self defeating.

If you cannot bring yourself to believe in the ability the United States to elect either of them, it's hard to see you as an ally on the team (in this case, team-oh-shit-please-keep-these-horrifying-republicans-out-of-office).

I've been donating to local campaigns for now and whichever of the two wins I will go all out with whatever I can with the hope and confidence that we *can* keep the presidency out of republican hands, and I hope that everyone arguing (sincerely or strategically) against either democratic candidate's electability will get on board with the zeal that comes from the belief that victory *is* achievable.

I'm so afraid that people burning with passion for one of the candidates now, if their candidate doesn't make through, will turn away in disappointment, cynicism, and pessimism. I really think that whichever candidate ends up running, we'll need all of us, or at least most of us, not just on board but rowing with all our might.
posted by Salamandrous at 7:12 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

Some truly scary numbers from a poll by AFL-CIO's Working America in key Rust Belt states that could flip the electoral map to Trump:

"Polling data from Cleveland and Pittsburgh conducted by Working America, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO labor federation, should compound those concerns. The union group surveyed working-class households making less than $75,000 a year, 90 percent of which had voted in the 2012 election. Although 53 percent of voters in the December-to-January survey had not decided on a general election candidate, Trump was crushing the competition among those who had. Trump's 38 percent support was stronger than support for both Clinton and Sanders combined. And his backing wasn't simply from hard-line conservatives. One in four Democrats who had settled on a candidate had decided on Trump. ...

Another fact to consider: The Rust Belt is disproportionately white. While there are pockets of color -- in Philadelphia, Flint, Detroit, Milwaukee -- the states are much whiter than the national average. America is 62 percent white, according to census data. Michigan, by contrast, is over 75 percent white, and Pennsylvania's population is more than 77 percent white. More than 80 percent of Ohio is white, as is over 82 percent of Wisconsin."
posted by dialetheia at 7:26 PM on February 22, 2016 [7 favorites]

And some would rather build towards greatness through incremental improvements, locking in and normalizing social change further some feel like incremental evolutionary change rather than short term revolutionary change is the best model for dealing with long term intractable issues such as those present between modern Republicans and modern Democrats.

This middle ground seeks to maintain some degree of unity through a form of negotiation.

Party X knows pushing for position A in it's entirety is a dealbreaker to party Y and might even cause party X to break off negotiations altogether. That isn't to say that progress towards position A is impossible but that attainment of position A requires gradual steps where 1/3 of position A is achieved and then 2/3rds etc with a period of equilibirium between change periods as the public adjusts to the new norm.

This is why that despite decades of conservative drift the bulk of the New Deal and Great Society programs remain intact despite nearly constant Republican attempts to undermine their foundations.

Now it's entirely possible that Sanders can potentially lead the progressives to a similar transition where incremental change can be replaced by rapid shift like the periods of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's great society but many are justifiably skeptical as these brief periods are typically not even generational in frequency.

The other side of this position is that looking for marginal improvements around the edges of existing policy negates the potential desire or even the need for rapid revolutionary change and radical innovations during certain periods. I think a good case can be made for instance that radical innovations are required in regards to Climate Change due to the impending consequences of unchecked global warming.

Personally I like the idea of aiming for the fences but my Gen X pessimism has also taught me the value of locking in change rather than trying to accomplish too much at once and risking failure. Perhaps that's wisdom or perhaps it's cowardice but I think many members of the older cohorts probably have similar issues driving their psychology and personal politics...
posted by vuron at 7:36 PM on February 22, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think the issue is not that revolutionary change is preffered, but that it is necessary. Things like global warming aren't going to wait for the politics to be more convenient.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:54 PM on February 22, 2016 [16 favorites]

Alternative Reality Martin Luther King: "I have a pragmatic objective!"
posted by mikelieman at 8:03 PM on February 22, 2016 [12 favorites]

Reality Reality Martin Luther King: "I have a Dream!"

Dare to fucking dream, people...
posted by mikelieman at 8:03 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Things like global warming aren't going to wait for the politics to be more convenient.

Exactly. e.g. Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise: "“During the past millennia, sea level has never risen nearly as fast as during the last century,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, a physics professor at Potsdam University in Germany, one of 10 authors of the paper."

Incrementalism is fine when things are going OK and people are mostly comfortable. It's not a great answer to existential problems like a crumbling middle class or a rapidly warming planet, though.
posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on February 22, 2016 [14 favorites]

I think the issue is not that revolutionary change is preffered, but that it is necessary.

Well, when the anti-Federalist Jefferson defeated the Federalist Adams, the event was called "The Revolution of 1800".
posted by FJT at 8:31 PM on February 22, 2016

Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News”
posted by homunculus at 8:55 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Newt Gingrich to Fox News: 'Trump Is the Candidate You Invented'. Truth-telling from an interesting source.
posted by homunculus at 11:30 PM on February 22, 2016 [4 favorites]

Dommes for Bernie: Sticking it to the man, one Wall Street broker at a time

For just $27—the average contribution the Sanders campaign received in the last quarter of 2015, from approximately 2.5 million donors—submissives can ask for the "Bernie special," which is 15 minutes of spanking paired with a safe word: "I feel the Bern."
(...)

A big part of their platform, besides whipping Wall Street into submission, is dismantling sexism.

"We believe that even though Bernie Sanders is an old white dude, he’s as sincere as politicians get in his quest to dismantle the corrupt oligarchy that this country has become," Simone said. "He seems to understand intersectional feminism, and the changes that he’s proposing will, by and large, benefit women of color."
(...)

But Dommes for Bernie isn't just stumping—it's also donating all of the proceeds from the "Bernie special" to the Sanders campaign. And not just anyone qualifies for the democratic socialist beatdown.

"We’re only offering the special to clients with six-figure salaries, or more," Simone said. "We think it’s poetic justice to dominate men who benefit from capitalism, and then donate their tributes to a candidate who stands up for those that are most harmed by it."
posted by moody cow at 2:50 AM on February 23, 2016 [12 favorites]

Incrementalism is fine when things are going OK and people are mostly comfortable. It's not a great answer to existential problems like a crumbling middle class or a rapidly warming planet, though.

I'm not sure it's really possible to square those two objectives in a coherent plan for both halting increasing climate change, on the one hand, and addressing income inequality, on the other hand. Part of the problem (and the real elephant in the room of any discussion around climate change and what we as a society can do about it, really) is the fact that the standard model of capitalism and economic growth predicated on resource use and mass consumption of consumer goods is 100% incompatible with moving to a low-carbon economy. Something that's kind of illustrative of the problem is the fact that European countries which have met their targets for CO2 reduction under Kyoto guidelines haven't really met those targets...they've just outsourced a lot of their carbon emissions for industrial production to Eastern Europe, China and India (and the move to diesel vehicles as a means of increasing average fuel economy has had the effect of worsening urban pollution from fine particulates, as well). There isn't really a workable solution to the problem of climate change that involves maintaining current living standards. (Which is why there's political resistance to actually doing anything about it; see for instance Bush I at Kyoto: "The American way of life is not negotiable".)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:09 AM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

there are some lessons about the future of both parties to be learned

I'm afraid the lesson is going to be "How can we, the establishment, do a better job of clamping down on the insurgent grassroots to ensure something like this can never happen again?"

The lessons should be "we should stop with the constant demagogue fear-mongering because it exposes the party to nutjobs" and "we should start controlling big finance again because out-of-control capitalism is harming people" (don't think I need to explain who is who).
However, I won't argue the conclusion both parties will take during the election post-mortem is exactly that - how to prevent independents and people outside the political game from entering.
posted by lmfsilva at 3:54 AM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

DailKos: The Definitive, Encyclopedic Case For Why Hillary Clinton is the Wrong Choice

I haven't read through to the end of this article yet, but it looks like an excellent resource for those who'd like to understand some of the reasoning behind Sanders supporters' decision to back Sanders over Clinton.
posted by syzygy at 5:41 AM on February 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

Bernie picks up an endorsement from Spike Lee.
posted by TwoStride at 5:47 AM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

Having read the Pierce article that homunculus linked, I think it worthwhile to add my two bits. While Pierce makes a good point, that populist reactions often diverge into racial and nativist animosity, and while he cites Tom Watson (who was a significant player in the populist movement of the late 19th century), it's important to note that there were significant contributions to the Populist Movement by black organizations. For starters, I refer folks who are interested to Chapter 4, section 8 (pp 118-123) of a book that should be in every serious American History library: Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment.

The Colored Farmers National Alliance and Cooperative Union was a large organization with over a million members. Given the circumstances of the time, it faced it's own set of challenges.

The suggestion I want to make here is merely this: There are two sides to every coin and while it is sadly true that (then and now) blacks have to fight above and beyond because of institutional, structural, and cultural racism, opposition to racists like Watson (and of course the current racism of Trumpism) can be organizationally effective.

As Pierce points out, Sanders (and his campaign) shouldn't have to fight against this tendency because Sanders has an impressive track record of civil rights issues. But of course, there are always some some political opponents who push a narrative which tries to artificially divide political movements that work from the bottom up. People power is real, yet sadly, so is an element of people stupidity--and it is that which must be overcome.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:07 AM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

GOP wakes up to Trump nightmare
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:11 AM on February 23, 2016

I think the concerns of angrycat and others about just how Bernie's revolution would play out in the real world are valid. What are the sorts of things that have to happen to legislate policies and to enforce new regulatory standards? In short--how to define and implement a pathway that transforms popular political disgruntlement into a "new establishment" with new fundamental premises?

It isn't going to be easy, nor will it be rapid. It'll require thousands of candidates running for everything from dog catcher to Senate. It'll require new think tanks which advocate for and help train folks to operate the bureaucratic machinery of government in a positive manner to bring these goals into actuality. Lawyers, technocratic experts, civil service functionaries, and widening popular support to insist that some of these big ideas are essential to the kind of nation we wish to be.

In the private sector, a new generation of executives and managers will have to build momentum which overturns the fundamental premises by which we have destroyed our economy: financialization, shareholder value over everything else, etc... Most important, corporations will have to be run and guided by policies which not only restore some balance and equity to the tripod of Owner, Employee, and Customer, but also effectively deal with important issues such as equal pay, ensuring that talented individuals are promoted and given responsibility in their respective areas regardless of gender or race, etc... .

There's plenty to do and a whole slew of individual niches for people to find a way to contribute their bit, in ways they feel both capable and comfortable, over time. As our economy begins to prosper, more people will "get on board." As this new generation proves, one step at a time, that structural issues, such as single payer, or the propriety of reining in financial excess, etc... are not only possible, but also in the best interests of all citizens, then a lot of this stuff will sort itself out. Making the sausage will be an elaborate and often grimy slog, but as long a some semblance of virtue underlies the process, then this is all very doable. I will not live long enough to see this fully develop, but I am so happy to know that the tide is turning--provided that folks remain organized and keep their noses to the grindstone and their eyes looking upward to the sky.

Our political system is designed to handle legitimate debate and lots of acrimony during the course of such debates. Everybody has a voice. Just use that voice in the service of good ideas which can be backed up, which are persuasive on the basis of their merits, and which are, in a sense, not merely echoes of the potential greatness of what a republic can be, but actual, instantiated proofs of just how good things can be if we all, more or less, work towards a better nation.

/rant
posted by CincyBlues at 8:43 AM on February 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

NYT: Marco Rubio Bets on Nevada, a State That Shaped His Childhood
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:03 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

As Pierce points out, Sanders (and his campaign) shouldn't have to fight against this tendency because Sanders has an impressive track record of civil rights issues.

I think I find it disconcerting when there are comments like, "Well, I'm voting for Trump, but I respect Sanders too." Based on history, yeah Sanders has a good civil rights record. But hearing that just gives me pause. I'm not a white American, so am I missing certain cues when Sanders is talking about stuff that they're picking up?

And those comparisons also leave me with doubt about the ability of Sanders or Trump to control their followers. Populism is flat by organization, so it's susceptible to takeover or factional breakups by even worse actors.

Finally, if the winds of change blowing, what if Trump/Sanders is a sign that Americans are thinking it's better to both have more robust social services AND clamp down on immigration? It's possible and not incompatible, as it's the norm in some European and East Asian governments for many years. And with a certain cold logic, the case can be made that there are more people without health insurance than there are undocumented immigrants.
posted by FJT at 9:30 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

"We’re only offering the special to clients with six-figure salaries, or more," Simone said.

Damn 1% getting all the benefits.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:32 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Looks like a new Election Megathread's starting over here...
posted by klarck at 9:42 AM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

Based on history, yeah Sanders has a good civil rights record. But hearing that just gives me pause. I'm not a white American, so am I missing certain cues when Sanders is talking about stuff that they're picking up?

Well, Sanders is against free trade deals like NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP. People who aren't necessarily xenophobic may nevertheless be in favor of more protectionist economic policies. Someone can be against the government-encouraged outsourcing of jobs to Mexico or China or India without thinking anything negatively about people from those countries. Tied to that is wanting corporate money out of politics. I think there are a LOT of Americans who want campaign finance reform and economic policies that don't promote a race to the bottom. Whether you identify with a more xenophobic angle to that or a more humanist angle informs whether you'd skew to Sanders or Trump.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:44 AM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

[H]ow to define and implement a pathway that transforms popular political disgruntlement into a "new establishment" with new fundamental premises?

Quite. It may be helpful to remember that etymologically the word "establishment" means that which is, that which has been set up. I think we're having at least three separate arguments here: (1) a question of the proper ends (what kind of governing structure will we have); (2) means (ideally, how would we get there) and (3) tactics (given the current politics and governance structures, what can realistically be done, and how).

Sen. Sanders has been pretty clear on (1) and (3): that we need social democracy along northern European / Canadian lines, and that we can only get there by "political revolution" which I take to mean mass voter mobilization to create progressive majorities in Congress, led by visionary leadership from the White House.

Sec. Clinton has also been clear on (3) -- that incremental work in the legislature is realistic and that she's best suited for that slog. I think some of the hesitation (we) Sanders supporters feel is that (a), we're not convinced that her record of legislative experience is actually as strong as Sen. Sanders, who has served in Congress for much longer; and that (b) we are not sure about what her answer to that first question, what the proper ends of government are. We agree with her on many social concerns but do not trust her to address what we see as critical issues of economic inequality and regulatory capture by the financial institutions.

Even if nothing happens in Congress in the next four years (sadly the most likely scenario), we still need an executive who will use the tools of the regulatory agencies to dismantle, insofar as it it possible, these huge institutions, not just banks but also insurance companies, resource-extraction industries and gun manufacturers, these powerful lobbies which are challenging the democratic effectiveness of our lawmaking bodies.

We feel like the groundhog that saw its shadow. Four more years of winter.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

I think I find it disconcerting when there are comments like, "Well, I'm voting for Trump, but I respect Sanders too." Based on history, yeah Sanders has a good civil rights record. But hearing that just gives me pause. I'm not a white American, so am I missing certain cues when Sanders is talking about stuff that they're picking up?

It's not complicated. There is a huge population that was told that by getting an education, good job and paying their dues, prosperity would come to them. Instead, they have played by the rules and seen all the prosperity go to wealthy bankers. They will only get behind a candidate who promises to take back what has been stolen: their financial future.

I used to live in Pittsburgh and frequently visit rural Ohio. I am confident that Trump would trounce Hillary throughout the white mid-west. Whether Sanders could do much better is an open question - but I don't think either he, or what he represents (even with the socialism label) is nearly as reviled as the 'establishment' from either party.
posted by meinvt at 9:53 AM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

To some extent populism is like one of those irregular verbs: I mobilize people power; you pander; (s)he demagogues. The means of populism is itself neutral-chaotic just as the means of establishment-politics is neutral-lawful. It's not enough to say that a politician is populist and therefore dangerous; you also have to look at what their goals are. Sen. Sanders obviously envisions a social-democratic, multi-racial society. Donald Trump does not and that is what makes him and his supporters dangerous.

Our political structures have been sclerotic, arthritic for my whole life. Change, and the energy and chaos around it, is unsettling by definition but we can't forget that stability, when unjust, is also deadly.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:58 AM on February 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

Hillary Clinton Used to Be Terrible On Marriage Equality
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:59 AM on February 23, 2016

I'm not sure it's really possible to square those two objectives in a coherent plan for both halting increasing climate change, on the one hand, and addressing income inequality, on the other hand.

1) Ramez Naam: Why I'm Starting the First AngelList Cleantech Syndicate

The Transition Will Be Trillions

We will transition to clean energy. The world has no choice. The trajectory of policy is towards ever more downward pressure on fossil fuels. And every unit of renewables deployed brings down their price, making them more competitive.

That transition will involve tens of trillions of dollars of investment.

Today we’re only 1% of the way into that transition. Solar just hit 1% of world electricity. Wind power is a few percent. Energy storage and clean transportation are both closer to one tenth of one percent of the scale they need to be at.

Energy transitions are huge undertakings. That means both a need for investment in R&D and an opportunity for the companies that create the new innovations that power the world, and the investors who back them.

-Solar storage economics
-Solar Power: Buffett vs. Musk
-The Renewables Revolution
-How Far Can Renewables Go? Pretty Darn Far
-From liquid air to supercapacitors, energy storage is finally poised for a breakthrough

2) A Simple Explanation Of the Infrastructure Investment Idea So Simple Even A Stupid Jackass Could Understand It

The US infrastructure is in terrible shape.
The US 10-year bond is STILL really cheap.
For those of you who claim to be business savvy: in order to determine if an investment is worth it, we compare the rate of return to the cost of the project... So, the cost of the project, at current rates, would be a little over 1.2%. And, just to give us a margin of latitude... we get a ~2.2%. That means that, over the life of the project, we need to make more than 2.2% on an annual basis. That is, literally, the lowest financial bar to jump on planet earth.
So: we borrow money to increase government spending on stuff we really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, need. As in BADLY. We hire a large number of blue collar folks who have seen their income stagnate. We invest in something we desperately need.

even larry summers is on board :P
No free lunches but plenty of cheap ones - "By improving incentives or making strategic investments we can achieve conflicting objectives."

3) and how could it all be paid for without raising anyone's taxes? (keystrokes in the ledger ;)
'Helicopter money' on the horizon, says Ray Dalio - "The Bridgewater founder says this third era of monetary policy will range from central banks directly financing government spending through electronic money-printing to what the famous economist Milton Friedman coined 'helicopter money' in 1969, in other words central banks disbursing cash directly to households."

also btw...
more kocherlakota!
Growth Begets Growth: Reflections on Total Factor Productivity - "Raising TFP growth with higher agg. demand: 5-6% annual growth over the next 4 yrs is *plausible*"

it's (close to a) free lunch! (cache should work in a day or so...)
Martin Sandbu: Don't heed economic speed limits - "Capacity will expand if policymakers dare to reach beyond it."

Irresponsible fatalism

There is a lot of worry around that governments have little power to improve their citizens’ economic fortunes. The recent market weakness seems in part to reflect this fatalism. Economic observers wring their hands: The Economist asks whether policymakers are “out of ammo”; many commentators think the spread of negative interest rates means the answer is yes.

Strikingly — or at least it should be striking — the concern is most often expressed in terms of what governments can do if the current economic slowdown accelerates, let alone turns into a new recession. It is a sign of how much we have resigned ourselves to mediocrity that we rarely even ask what ability governments have to fire up our economies to the speeds that not long ago characterised good economic times. Gavyn Davies’s “Galilean dialogue” between two types of Keynesian economists inadvertently illustrates these shrunken horizons. If today’s sluggishness is the best we can do, and our greatest aspiration is not to do worse, we are in a bad shape indeed...

So Narayana Kocherlakota, the economist who has just completed his tenure as Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank governor, is a refreshing contrast. Kocherlakota seems to treat his departure from the Federal Reserve system as a liberation: since the new year, he has been on a roll — a blog roll as it were — with a number of posts lucidly and straightforwardly challenging the pessimism of the reigning macroeconomic policy consensus not just in the US but across rich economies...

Kocherlakota points out that these quantities seem eminently achievable. My colleague Matthew Klein has gone through some of the reasons why... The intriguing possibility we’re invited to consider is that “capacity” is a much softer quantity than we tend to believe. Could capacity itself — the potential growth rate or the economy’s “speed limit” — be something that responds to incentives? Jared Bernstein has previously argued in favour of a full-employment productivity multiplier, and in a new op-ed he echoes Kocherlakota in arguing that the economy’s speed limit is itself a policy variable.

The big idea here is that greater demand stimulus also boosts the supply side by drawing more people into work and more capital off the sidelines and into real investments. The deeper thought here is that if the economy were really put under demand pressure, businesses and individuals would respond by increasing the economy’s capacity for production. Free Lunch has previously emphasised the impressive opportunities for productivity growth within individual companies and in the relation between them.

Could more intensive wage pressure, for example, be something to welcome rather than something to fear, because it may unlock that potential? Nick Bunker surveys the recent US discussion on the possibility that wage growth can be good for productivity — a discussion that, useful as it is, does not go far enough. In particular, it ignores the Scandinavian experience of wage compression shifting resources into high-productivity industries.

What all this means is that the “responsible” attacks on aspirations to lift growth above our current rates are deeply irresponsible, insofar as they encourage us to hold our governments to goals that are far too timid.

after all, what would hamilton do?
posted by kliuless at 10:04 AM on February 23, 2016 [14 favorites]

Another excellent bit, kliuless.

What would Hamilton do now? I think he would do more or less as he did then. He'd bind the powerful to the interest of the nation as a whole, he'd promote labor and technology (hopefully with a little more success than the Society of Useful Manufactures.) He'd also seek and find excellent minds to help him out. (That's a little love for Tenche Coxe!) And he dump fellows like Duer perhaps a little faster than he did then. He'd certainly be opposed to globalization and it's toxic spawn of treaties. He would also work to restore the manufacturing base of the economy. He'd also be a significant voice opposed to racism (and one presumes sexism because of our modern zeitgeist.)

But, alas, he would be ineligible to run for President. CruzLol!
posted by CincyBlues at 10:21 AM on February 23, 2016

People who aren't necessarily xenophobic may nevertheless be in favor of more protectionist economic policies. Someone can be against the government-encouraged outsourcing of jobs to Mexico or China or India without thinking anything negatively about people from those countries.

Why is it Mexico, China, or India always the culprits? There are a lot of European countries that are top 10 US trading partners. I believe the majority of US foreign investment is to other countries in the OECD. And I recognize some non-xenophobic people are protectionist, but these folks are all mixed in with the people who feel resentment towards foreigners for the state of the American economy. And yes, I am totally for tightening labor and environmental regulations, but ultimately I don't believe outsourcing is the main culprit for job losses.

And even when trading partners drive in the lanes, there's still bashing. For example, I don't think Japan is guilty of egregious labor or environmental practices, but 25 years after Japan bashing was trendy, there are still folks going on about how the Japanese are cheating us.

Look, I am totally for stronger, well funded, and widespread social services that would help Americans transition through changes in the economy. And I support campaign finance and breaking up the banks.

But, I'm uneasy about lumping in trade with the aforementioned as one big problem.
posted by FJT at 10:27 AM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

he would be ineligible to run for President.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Anyone who was a citizen on June 21, 1788 didn't need to be a natural born Citizen to be eligible.
posted by fings at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Still rules out Cruz...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:40 AM on February 23, 2016

Why is it Mexico, China, or India always the culprits?

Well, I mentioned those because it's where a lot of previously-union, rust-belt jobs did move to. It's not foreign investment or even foreign trade. It's whether specific trade policies have made it easy and profitable to manufacture goods and/or provide services under poor labor and environmental standards. I am against NAFTA, etc. because it both hurts US workers (who have to compete with workers in countries with bad labor/wage/safety laws) and sets up workers overseas to be exploited. (Many Trump supporters are only worried about the former concern; many Sanders supporters are also worried about the latter)

I don't really have a problem with trade with Germany, for example, because they generally have strong labor and environmental protections. It's not so much about foreign trade as it is facilitating a race to the bottom in order to increase corporate profits (which, conveniently are also sheltered overseas and not taxed).
posted by melissasaurus at 10:41 AM on February 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

Looks like a new Election Megathread's starting over here...

I hope not. That one's about the Republicans. I'm not going to waste my vote on any of them. The Dem race is the only place that vote can provide outcomes I want.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:43 AM on February 23, 2016

Kocherlakota seems to treat his departure from the Federal Reserve system as a liberation: since the new year, he has been on a roll — a blog roll as it were — with a number of posts lucidly and straightforwardly challenging the pessimism of the reigning macroeconomic policy consensus not just in the US but across rich economies...

So what kind of worthless economist keeps his mouth politely shut when he has his hands on the actual levers of power that could do some good, and then speaks the truth when he has no such power.

This is the corrupting influence of the Federal Reserve dominated by Wall Street bankers. There will be no real economic change unless the Federal Reserve is reconstituted as a populist, consumerist institution.
posted by JackFlash at 10:55 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

oh and fwiw...
Lawrence Summers on central bank independence in an age of secular stagnation - "When the primary policy challenge for central banks was establishing credibility that the printing press was under control, it was appropriate for them to jealously guard their independence. When the challenge is to accelerate, rather than brake, economies, more cooperation with domestic fiscal authorities and foreign counterparts is necessary." (via)

Here's Why Bernie Sanders' 5% Growth Plan Isn't Crazy After All - "As I see it, accepting that our capacity to grow is limited when in fact there is considerable room for growth is a much bigger error than attempting to grow and finding that the gap is small." (via)
posted by kliuless at 11:47 AM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

My bad, fings. You're absolutely right. Was taking a shot at Cruz and got carried away.

But, I'm uneasy about lumping in trade with the aforementioned as one big problem.

I may be misunderstanding you, but these folks have an opinion about outsourcing. And consider that this scene has played out thousands of times in the past 40 years. The de-industrialization of the country is one of the great crimes perpetrated upon middle-class America since the Reagan years.

While protectionism was an essential part of developing the United States economy in the 19th century, it may perhaps be more modern and relevant to consider ensuring some protectionist elements within bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Some aspects of our economic composition should be considered off-limits for both political economic and national security reasons.

One of the lesser attended issues of serious concern in our era is that there are many attempts to subvert the nation-state. Until we find something that honestly replaces the premises of the Peace of Westphalia, the nation-state is the linchpin of our international relations. The TPP is pretty explicit about the kind of subversion I suggest. Provisions to bypass national laws to protect multinational corporations is not a good thing.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:50 AM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Greg Sargent: Bernie Sanders will take it all the way to the convention. Here’s why.

“Senator Sanders has been dominating the youth vote in the Democratic primaries so far,” Peter Levine, the Associate Dean for Research at Tufts’ Tisch College, which houses a program designed to promote civic engagement among young people, tells me. “If young people continue to turn out at these rates and continue to prefer Senator Sanders by large margins, they will accumulate into a very substantial pro-Sanders voting bloc that the Democrats will have to take extremely seriously in the general election.”

Clinton knows this. In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow, Clinton made sure to indicate that she is “focused on letting young people who support Senator Sanders know I get it.”

That could give Sanders more leverage later. Clinton will need to get all those young voters to start supporting her in big numbers. Even if turnout is down this year, Sanders — to a far greater degree than Clinton — seems to hold the key to engaging this constituency. He has somehow conveyed to a whole lot of young people that politics can matter in their lives. And remember, Democrats are betting on a new generation of young voters to give them a demographic edge that lasts beyond 2016.

So you could see Sanders playing a role at the convention; in helping shape the agenda for the fall campaign; and in helping engaging young voters, this time in preparation for the general election. As MSNBC’s Seitz-Wald reports, the Sanders camp sees such a role as a crucial part of his “political revolution.” Even if he doesn’t win.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:13 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

There is another Dem town hall tonight.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:26 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton knows this. In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow, Clinton made sure to indicate that she is “focused on letting young people who support Senator Sanders know I get it.”

She does not 'get it,' is the thing, and her continued handwaving about "yeah yeah, of COURSE I agree with all of the same stuff he does" just makes it all worse. If she did, she'd take the Wall Street & corporate donations issues seriously instead of acting like it's some ridiculous personal attack on her. She wouldn't lecture kids about how they want "free stuff" when all they want is to secure and improve the social benefits that Boomers grew up with but started torching once they got into power. She would take Wall Street regulation seriously and promise to appoint a Wall Street outsider as Treasury Secretary, instead of promising to tinker around the margins and continuing to look the other way on their epic regulatory capture of our entire government on both sides. She wouldn't foreclose the possibility of single-payer health care and cede all of that power to private insurers who rip us all off and drive our health care costs to unsustainable heights. She wouldn't continue to advocate for interventions that cost us untold trillions, cause untold unintended consequences, and do almost nothing to improve American security. She thinks she gets it. She does not.

In related epic point-missing news: Democrats look to copy Sanders' success: "Still, the progressive love for Sanders is something of a catch-22 for House Democrats. The majority of Democrats in the House are liberal but the party needs to win support from blue collar and moderate voters to retake seats in swing districts. There is a risk, however, of alienating Sanders’ supporters if Democrats don’t appeal strongly enough to the liberal base. Finding a balance between the two is tough."

This is such a flawed analysis - they continue to be blinded by their ridiculous assumptions about how the flat right-left axis explains all voting behavior. Sanders has extremely strong support from blue collar voters - he wins huge support among voters who make <$50k.

The thing that people love about him above all else is that he is not bought by special and corporate interests and he is trustworthy! Democrats who fail to see that this is his #1 source of appeal for independents, blue collar voters, moderates, and all sorts of other groups (even Republicans) are missing the forest for the trees because they can't let go of the idea that all political behavior sorts perfectly from liberal to conservative. There are some issues that transcend that axis. Honesty, campaign finance, and corruption are those kinds of issues.
posted by dialetheia at 12:38 PM on February 23, 2016 [36 favorites]

Dialetheia, I need several thousand more favorites to give you there. A "super-favorite" perhaps.

I can't say that I look forward to further attempts from establishment candidates to pander to the left. It's been utterly transparent and painful to see them try to pander to the right, and I'm not sure if this is any more sincere or familiar territory for them.

And yes, the left-right views are a giant part of the problem. We'll never have anything other than a two party system if we continue to look at the political spectrum as being on a single axis.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:51 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Here's another preview of the kind of corruption attacks we can expect to see from the right against the Clinton Foundation in the general (some of which, frankly, seem deserved - obviously the NY Post isn't exactly a neutral publication, but the data is from their tax returns):

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends. ...

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations. “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director. ...

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

posted by dialetheia at 1:03 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

David Brock, founder of the Correct the Record super PAC, released a letter to Mr. Sanders Tuesday warning him that he could damage Mrs. Clinton’s chances against Republicans if he attacks her character and motivations.

Yo, that's her own fault.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on February 23, 2016 [18 favorites]

I find it really interesting that much of the views towards any of the "dirt" on Clinton are more anger that it's being talked about or exposed as opposed to what she actually may or may not have done.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:08 PM on February 23, 2016 [17 favorites]

It has very much the feel of "Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain".
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:17 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is an interesting set of polling data about 18-26 year olds [pdf] (it's from Frank Luntz's outfit so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it's absolutely devastating for Republicans so I can't figure out what bias he'd have on it exactly). His implicit spin is very much "lol, look how dumb these idealistic idiot kids are" but the results are totally fascinating:

When asked to describe the country's problem in just one word, the top responses were "corruption" (38%), "greed" (29%), and "inequality" (26%). 13% said "capitalism" and only 8% said "partisanship."
66% believe that "corporate America" embodies everything that is wrong about America.
"Barack Obama is no longer No. 1 in the hearts and minds of young Americans. Nearly one in three (31%) chose Bernie Sanders as the political figure they like and respect most, followed by President Obama (18%) and Hillary Clinton (11%). The Republicans don’t just lag behind, they limp, with Donald Trump in at 9%, Ted Cruz at 5%, and Marco Rubio at 3%."
44% identify as Democrats, 42% identify as independents, and only 15% identify as Republicans.
35% of independents identify Bernie Sanders as the "most trusted and respected political leader" - more than Obama and Clinton combined, and more than all of the Republican Presidential candidates combined.
87% are likely to vote in the 2016 election, with 65% extremely likely to vote.

posted by dialetheia at 1:23 PM on February 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

My strategic message to the party power structure and to Democratic voters, if I had a pulpit, would be:

The harder everyone looks at and considers Clinton, the worse and more vulnerable she looks as a candidate. The harder everyone looks at and considers Sanders, the better and stronger he looks as a candidate. There is still time to act on this, but not much more.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:26 PM on February 23, 2016 [13 favorites]

David Brock, founder of the Correct the Record super PAC, released a letter to Mr. Sanders Tuesday warning him that he could damage Mrs. Clinton’s chances against Republicans if he attacks her character and motivations.

Amazing how Trump happens to function. Apparently, our duty as Democrats in order to avoid Trump is to (a) support Hillary, and/or (b) vote for Rubio. I think people underestimate just how much he really is a tool of the establishment.
posted by chortly at 1:28 PM on February 23, 2016

> […] he could damage Mrs. Clinton’s chances against Republicans if he attacks her character and motivations.

Bernie's negative campaigning? That's rich. I can't think of one time he's gone negative, unless you count the issues as negative. While Hillary on the other hand is incapable of not attacking or of denouncing those who do.

Watch Bernie Sanders Refuse to Attack Hillary Clinton for Over 10 Minutes
posted by cjorgensen at 1:29 PM on February 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

It has very much the feel of "Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain".

Wherever you go, there you are's comment. Great minds think alike?
posted by cjorgensen at 1:32 PM on February 23, 2016

-Millennials have a higher opinion of socialism than of capitalism!
-Millennials Outnumber Baby Boomers and Are Far More Diverse, Census Bureau Reports :P
posted by kliuless at 1:32 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Millennials, if you get Bernie Sanders elected, I will take back every awful thing I've ever said about you. I'll even forgive you for Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:34 PM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders' electability relative to Clinton is kind of a self-proving thing, innit? If he drives enough voter turnout to win the nomination, he's probably got a youth bloc vote that can win him the general. If they don't show up in sufficient numbers to beat Clinton, can we really say he would have been a safer choice in the general?
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:46 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is an interesting set of polling data about 18-26 year olds [pdf] (it's from Frank Luntz's outfit so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it's absolutely devastating for Republicans so I can't figure out what bias he'd have on it exactly)
...
87% are likely to vote in the 2016 election, with 65% extremely likely to vote.

There's where it isn't all that devastating. I'd love those answers to reflect reality but they don't reflect traditional turnout in that demographic. I wish they'd asked those respondents whether they were already registered, but the reality is that 87% is almost twice what we really see show up. It's more than any age group.

I guess it's trouble for the Rs when they get older but I think the Luntzes of the world believe that youthful democratic affiliation is something most grow out of.
posted by phearlez at 1:49 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

A very aggressive electability argument for Sanders vs. Trump in Current Affairs magazine today: Unless the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders, a Donald Trump nomination means a Trump presidency:

But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump. ...

If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit. This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent.

posted by dialetheia at 1:51 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

Among the media and people who cover politics, it's been two decades of 'surely THIS is the scandal that will sink Clinton!' And maybe it will this time! Certainly, a lot of people already think that the long history of accusations is sufficient to sink her candidacy and should be enough to disqualify her as a candidate, simply on a public perceptions basis.

I have friends that truly believe the Clinton's are going to be indicted any day now. They have somehow sustained this belief for 20 years.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:52 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton 2016: A Vote for me is a vote for Trump!
posted by cjorgensen at 1:53 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

We would rather speak than be heard

Henry David Thoreau
posted by y2karl at 1:58 PM on February 23, 2016

To me, the only "dirt" on Clinton that matters is that she refuses to acknowledge that she is indistinguishable from a Moderate Republican Candidate*.

*Of course, this is a theoretical creature at this point in 2016.
posted by Phyltre at 2:04 PM on February 23, 2016

How soon we forget her murder of Vince Foster.

In my attempt at getting a better feel for which way the wind is blowing for the right wing, I have been reading the comments. On everything. Twice in Scalia article comments I saw a reference to Hillary's propensity for murder.
I remember back when Dukakis lost, a friend was utterly shocked because he knew of no one that would even think of voting for Reagan although his work was in fine arts and oeuvre heavily gay. I saw it coming because I was in my first accounting job, the other young accountants thought Reagan was just peachy. Now I am working, volunteering and living in a nice progressive urban bubble.
posted by readery at 2:08 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

The dirt itself isn't even what matters, unfortunately - it's that the dirt is what we're inevitably going to end up focusing on and having to argue against if Trump is the nominee against her, at the expense of making the argument for liberal policy. That's the gist of that electability article I posted just upthread. The factual basis of the smears doesn't really matter, it's that if we end up talking about them at all, he's able to shift the conversation away from how truly terrible he would be at governing. There's just enough there there to many of those scandals to keep people bickering about the details for quite some time - the email server thing is practically tailor-made for that kind of endless technical distraction.
posted by dialetheia at 2:31 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

From the WSJ reporting on Brock:

Mr. Brock’s super PAC coordinates with the Clinton campaign. He declined comment on whether the campaign asked him put out his letter.

Someone more knowledgeable than me might know whether this is legal or not.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:43 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Mr. Brock’s super PAC coordinates with the Clinton campaign. He declined comment on whether the campaign asked him put out his letter.

Someone more knowledgeable than me might know whether this is legal or not.

Actual coordination between a Super PAC and a campaign is definitely illegal. Surely this is a misprint by the WSJ. They would never admit this! I mean, it obviously happens, and we'd be fools to think it didn't happen, but everyone chooses to ignore it.

In any case, the FEC is toothless, and entirely incapable of enforcing the law, so I guess maybe they decided to give up the charade?
posted by dis_integration at 2:56 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Here's an article about Correct The Record's coordination w/ Clinton:

But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation.

Update: Correct the Record officials say they are not relying on the individual Internet exemption, but rather a related exemption in the definition of coordinated communications.

I haven't been able to find any more details about this "related exemption" so far.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:57 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Why do you all imagine there would be less smearing and dirt if Sanders is the candidate? This is not an argument against Sanders, more of a reality check.

Right now, it seems like the Republicans are certain Clinton will be the candidate. So they focus their early hating on her. But when/if Sanders becomes the candidate, they will find things to smear him with. Socialism is obvious, anti-semitism will be a thing, anti-intellectualism is another obvious road. And then they will dig out stuff we had no idea about. Maybe he was impolite once in 1957. Maybe he has investments in something stupid. Maybe he was insensitive to the cleaning lady's issues last year because he was on the phone with someone else. His private life is not very controversial, but in the hands of the hate-machine it could become the anti-semitic dog-whistle issue.

In my view, this is not an important factor, but it does go both ways: he is not more electable than Clinton because he is a grumpy old white guy. If he is the candidate, he will get the full treatment. Just wait and see. Don't let that stop you, though.
posted by mumimor at 3:11 PM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

Here's some more info on the various Clinton PACs from the Sunlight Foundation: Behind the Clinton campaign: Dark money allies

The FEC has stated that it only regulates Internet activity when it is “communication placed on another person’s website for a fee.” So, Correct the Record says it actually can communicate with the campaign because all of its activity is on its own website. [...]

In theory, Correct the Record could coordinate with the campaign, then coordinate with the other super PACs. We don’t know if that is true, and even if it was, it’s doubtful the FEC would do anything about it. But Campaign Legal Center’s Paul Ryan* has described the group’s activity as “creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.”

*not that Paul Ryan
posted by melissasaurus at 3:12 PM on February 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

Wow, melissasaurus, that's wild. So not only is Sec. Clinton happy to play in the post-Citizens United sandbox, but she is being supported by people/entities who are actively trying to figure out how to subvert and erode what meager firewalls still exist between a campaign and groups that are officially not coordinating with a campaign and get to raise unlimited, undisclosed money to spend on political action.

That is exactly the kind of sleazy, yeah-but-they-do-it-too kind of shit that... ugh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:03 PM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

"As his lawyers drafted memos with his options for how to keep his activities legal"

It's so Nixonian, Dubya-ian. Not in keeping with the values of progressivism, or with a party that calls itself Democratic.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:06 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

The de-industrialization of the country is one of the great crimes perpetrated upon middle-class America since the Reagan years.

Yes, it was a crime, but I don't think it's really the fault of other countries who were reindustrialising/catching up after the devastation of World War II and the end of colonialism/imperialism. The 35% of the labor force in manufacturing after WWII was due to a particular set of circumstances and not going to last forever.

But, as I said before, de-industrialization was handled terribly and policymakers should have done a way better job expanding social services and retraining/reeducating workers starting decades ago.

But at this point, it may be too late for a compromise and a major protectionist shift may end up transferring the burden from American to foreign workers.
posted by FJT at 4:20 PM on February 23, 2016

Frank Luntz

Maybe this is my extreme dislike of him coloring my feelings, but he's been putting out phony, skewed "findings" all year about the Republican side in an attempt to sink The Donald. (His polls always seemed to have Rubio or JEB! magically "winning" the debate.) I wouldn't trust a word that scumbag says. He's panicking about declining influence in his party and trying to get whatever results he thinks are beneficial to him (not that I think he even knows what he's doing there).

I remember back when Dukakis lost, a friend was utterly shocked because he knew of no one that would even think of voting for Reagan although his work was in fine arts and oeuvre heavily gay. I saw it coming because I was in my first accounting job, the other young accountants thought Reagan was just peachy. Now I am working, volunteering and living in a nice progressive urban bubble.

This was me on election night 2004. I Karl Rove'd before Karl Roving was a thing. "BUT THIS CAN'T BE RIGHT, NO ONE WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH AGAIN!"
posted by sallybrown at 4:26 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

I remember back when Dukakis lost, a friend was utterly shocked because he knew of no one that would even think of voting for Reagan.

Maybe because they all voted for GHW Bush.
posted by JackFlash at 5:23 PM on February 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

David Brock, founder of the Correct the Record super PAC, released a letter to Mr. Sanders Tuesday warning him that he could damage Mrs. Clinton’s chances against Republicans if he attacks her character and motivations.

Considering that the primaries aren't over and Hillary's victory is not, at this point, assured, one could just as easily say that her negative campaigning against Sanders could damage HIS chances against Republicans in November. (Don't dish it out if you can't take it, in other words.)

This was a problem in 2008, too, with Clinton surrogates constantly suggesting Obama supporters sober up and support her before they hurt her chances in the General. It's where the whole "entitlement" argument comes from. It is an awful, awful campaign strategy.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:54 PM on February 23, 2016 [20 favorites]

Maybe because they all voted for GHW Bush.

Ha!
posted by readery at 7:39 PM on February 23, 2016

At the town hall today, Hillary said that all the Republican candidates need to release speech transcripts to banks before she does. She then indignantly asked why she of all candidates was being unfairly targeted with this question.

Just in case anyone was holding their breath for her to release them...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:35 PM on February 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

Bunch of people voting for Jeb! in the caucus. Guess those guys didn't get the memo.
posted by Justinian at 8:53 PM on February 23, 2016

Trump wins Nevada according to the TVs.
posted by Justinian at 9:02 PM on February 23, 2016

FFS, white people are really mad huh.
posted by zutalors! at 9:02 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

...
I am officially in abject horror at this point.

I am just glad that it's not my side of the fence.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:04 PM on February 23, 2016

Dear Bernie: I Like You, But These Red Flags Are Too Frequent to Ignore.
posted by bardophile at 9:17 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

tl:dr - the banks are fine, LOL.
posted by Artw at 9:23 PM on February 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

That's a bold strategy bardophile, let's see if it pays off for you!
posted by Justinian at 9:29 PM on February 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

He isn't arguing at all that the banks are fine. He's arguing that the wrong law is being blamed. I'm really curious to hear the responses from Mefites more literate in economics than myself, because he makes several claims that I lack the competence to evaluate, but that go against what I thought to be true.
posted by bardophile at 9:40 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

The thing is, even if Sanders is wrong or less-than-ideal on specifics of solutions (a point that's quite debatable), at least he's right about what the problems are and what form the solutions should take.

Clinton doesn't even acknowledge the problems. To wit, from bardophile's link:

Senator, you're not going to pay for universal free public college with a Tobin tax.

Maybe, maybe not. But at least Sanders recognizes that soaring college costs are a massive problem, and promises to pursue a fair, sustainable solution that will benefit many, many people--with a solution several other countries have, in fact, figured out. Clinton? "It's not about the free stuff we'll give you."

I am merely pointing out that Glass-Steagall is an especially ridiculous boogeyman.

Maybe, maybe not. But this glosses over the important point that Sanders is the only candidate who even seems to remember that the financial sector cratered our economy and has not been held to account, and that no substantial safeguards have been put in place to ensure it never happens again. Clinton, on the other hand, has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment from the same people who caused the financial collapse, to tell them (as far as we know) that she will support business-as-usual if she is elected (and if she told them something different, she would have released those transcripts by now).

This article is weak sauce. "Senator Sanders, you're right about the problems but I don't think your proposed solutions will work as you say" is really weak criticism when he's the only candidate in either primary identifying and talking about our biggest problems. Those problems have solutions, but the necessary first step to identifying and implementing them is to elect someone who recognizes that they are, in fact, problems that need to be solved, and who will work to do so.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:00 PM on February 23, 2016 [19 favorites]

Clinton 2016: Sure, if the Republicans do it first
posted by an animate objects at 10:08 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

Bernie's answer when asked about religion and faith at tonight's town hall.
posted by futz at 10:30 PM on February 23, 2016 [14 favorites]

That's a great answer.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:42 PM on February 23, 2016

It seemed really heartfelt and genuine in a way that these answers never are.

(although i loved his answer, i wish these questions were off the table considering that one of our main founding principles is the separation of church and state)
posted by futz at 11:45 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh, me too. But, well, yeah.

sigh
posted by LooseFilter at 12:46 AM on February 24, 2016

Another example of Bernie's forensic excellence. I believe he managed to express in remarkably non-dogmatic terms the principles of Tikkun olam, ( "healing the world" ) that I feel are core principles of modern Judaism, while highlighting the principle of Inclusiveness.
posted by mikelieman at 12:46 AM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

While avoiding advocating for any policies of a particular Church ( i.e.: the extremist Christian beliefs about abortion ) or the State he admitted that yes, there are Churches, and you know, "We're all in this together.".
posted by mikelieman at 12:48 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's the *opposite* of the identity politics the others are playing...
posted by mikelieman at 12:49 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

That article is more than weak sauce, it is downright pernicious. Let me ramble on for a bit to try to explain why. This is all off the top of my head, except that I just reread a few more or less pertinent op-ed pieces I wrote for the newspaper at which I worked in the late 80s/early 90s.

Disclaimer: My primary role at the paper was as a production supervisor, but as the paper had a smallish circulation (50,000 daily) I got taken under the wings of both the managing editor and the editorial page editor--both of whom let me write and offered me assignments that aligned with my academic studies and personal interests.

Let's start with a kind of silly analogy. Imagine that you want to remodel your house. Many dos and don'ts are part of the process and a major one is that if you want to tear down a load-bearing wall, you risk weakening the structure as a whole. If it's a serious enough gaffe, the entire structure can come down. Just mull on that notion for a bit.

It's easy enough to look up the Glass-Steagall Act and get an idea of why it was enacted in the first place. The tl;dr answer is this: rampant speculation in the markets during the 20s, as well as other speculative bubbles such as the Florida real estate boom during that period. One result was that thousands of banks failed. Now, many banks back then were local affairs, dedicated to investment in the communities in which they resided. Even so, a kind of mania took over in which many bad investments were made, often of a speculative nature. Sound familiar? Naturally, one criticism of the G/S Act at the time was that it was unnecessary regulation. This should sound familiar, too. You can probably guess at the general mentality of those who put forth that criticism.

Okay. Now, time shift to the 80s/90s.

Remember the Savings and Loan crisis? When was that, 87 or so? That crisis was, in part, the result of bad loans in real estate, but also was partly due to a concerted set of attacks by the banking industry to weaken the idea of having a separate set of institutions which were primarily designed to make mortgages more widely available and with less expensive overhead costs to the middle class. There was a lot of capital tied up in the S&L system and some banks wanted access to that pile o' money. Generally big-fancy pants banks like Citi-whatever-it-was-called-then-before-all-the-damn-mergers.

Another important component of the financial environment at the time was that there were many state banking laws which, to one degree or another depending on the individual state, had regulations in place to check both interstate banking and also to prevent other institutions with lots of capital--especially insurance companies-- from combining up and using piles o' money for speculative endeavors.

Now, let's you and I do a quick pretend time-travel back to this period. And keep in mind that the economy is already unraveling a lot by the early 90s when compared to the 50s and 60s, prior to the 1971-75 crises and the resulting Paul Volcker monetary hammering of the economy during the Carter administration. (Why that guy gets cred is beyond me, but that's another story.) You and I, common everyday white collar or blue collar workers, actually could conceive of opening an account at an S&L to save for the down payment on a house. We could conceive of a pathway to tucking away a bit for the kid's college education. We could even take a modest vacation or two a year. It might be tight money-wise, but with a little prudence and some down-to-earth frugality, we could work it out. It helped knowing that the solid job you had at the solid company, which, indeed, even had a pension plan to help you prepare for your retirement, gave you a foundation to plan on. Hey, it's nice to be loyal to the company because the company is gonna be loyal to you.

I hope I'm not painting a too "Leave It to Beaver-ish" picture here. There were plenty of problems and other rumblings of problems to come. Still, I don't think I'm too far off for a wide swath of the populace at the time. It truly was a different time. For example, I have distinct memories from the mid 60s as a kid of hearing my father (a typical low level white collar worker) sweating out a rent increase for our pretty nice 3 bedroom townhouse with a basement and garage, too. The problem? Where the budget was going to have to be adjusted to accommodate an increase from $85 to $95 bucks a month.

Why was middle America like that then? I think, and I could be wrong, that a lot of it had to do with a kind of singularity of purpose for many institutions then. And the laws which underlay that notion of singular purpose. Want a house? Savings and Loan. Want to start a business and need some seed capital? Visit the local bank. You know, the one managed by the guy whose kid played on your kid's baseball team. Want to move up in the world? Try to get a promotion at your company because the idea of moving to another one was a really big decision. You lived in a community, did business (for the most part) in your community, and golly-gee-whiz, the businesses in your community actually (again, more or less) cared about your community. Were the banking and financial laws onerous then? Well, they were regulatory in nature, as all laws are, but those regulations tended to do good service. You had to comply, but compliance was not so bad because most folks (and I freely admit, not all) got a pretty fair shake.

Let's move on.

The Rise of the Snidely Whiplash Syndrome: Okay, so the economy has been under a lot of stress coming out of the 70s and the bonds which held many communities together began to weaken. Some merchant banks, and I'm thinking of Drexel Burnham Lambert in particular but there were many, began to push mergers and acquisitions. Bigger is better and hey, those merchant banks could charge a hell of a fee for putting Peter and Paul together. Just load 'em up with debt and figure out a way to slash operating costs to make it possible to service that debt and run the company. Except those parts that were deemed "wasteful" or "too costly." But why stop with the limited number of sound companies that could logically be merged into a bigger conglomerate? Let's target companies which might be in a little trouble. Maybe we can convince them that merging with other companies could be the ticket to more efficient and streamlined operations. And hey, it really doesn't matter that friggin' cookies and tobacco aren't that compatible...let's mash 'em together anyhow. Greed. Barbarians At the Gate. Michael Milken and a slew of other junk bond aficionados rose to prominence at the time. Remember the movie "Wall Street." Gordon Gecko. Greed is good. Cracks in the system. They didn't call the bonds junk for no reason.

But where is all the capital for this activity going to come from? Hell, the S&L system has already been tapped out. That money, which had previously been mostly dedicated to housing loans, yet had been bloated into some pretty dodgy real estate schemes resulting in massive losses of the funds laboriously saved up by working stiffs like you and me, was tapped out. Thank you Charles Keating, fellow Cincinnati-an! My buddies really loved standing in line hoping to get their money back.

Who has capital? Commercial banks have capital. Lots of lovely little deposits from working folks and small businesses. How can we get access to that? Those pesky regulations which kept banks from crossing state lines? Let's do away with that. Those silly load-bearing walls which kept folks from combining the living and dining rooms? Whaddaya mean distinct communal spaces? Let's see if we can rig things to make one really big room! We'll take a chance on the roof falling in. A collapse here and there is no big deal, a part of doing business. There's no way that a lot of them will, is there? Besides, A lot of the common folks who live in those rooms have lost their jobs anyhow. Let 'em eat cake--in the wreckage. What little money they have left is of more use to the "Kings of the Universe" who know better what to do with the bucks. Let the little folks deal with the bonfires.

When the state of Connecticut floated the idea of a state bank in 1989/90 it did so because it was an attempt to keep some vestige of community investment and banking. You can imagine the opposition to that notion seeing how Hartford was the home base for a lot of large insurance companies. I wrote about that, then. Took some flack for writing (more concise!) criticisms along the lines I've laid out here. When I was critical of the Bank of New England and suggested that they would not be long for this business world, I got phone calls at my home that blistered my ears. being a youngish pup at the time, I was a little shaken. When I explained this to my managing editor--an old salt, to be sure--he laughed. "You must be doing something right to make them call."

When I wrote some commentary on the trial and conviction of Michael Milken, I emphasized the disconnect between productive economic activity (you know, making things) and the shuffling of paper values that were becoming less and less tied to actual materials goods production or important service goods provision. That generated a few responses from "respected" business people who derided my naivete. Silly boy!

At the end of that decade, when the whipsawing of the economy had undergone much more turmoil; when industrialized America was a mere shell of itself; when thousands of communities and millions of working stiffs had been devasted; when Glass-Steagall--the last load-bearing wall between a country which prided itself on producing quality tangible goods and a country which more and more dedicated itself to corporate raids and looting--was surpassed, I wanted to howl like a wolf in the wilderness.

And while I know I was not alone and that there were many more astute, more competent people than I who were also howling, the question remained: If wolves howl in the wilderness, and there isn't anyone around to hear them, do they really make any noise?

25 years later, a quarter of a century, the answer seems to be yes, at least among Sanders supporters. Those who ought to know better, who still downplay the significance of taking down Glass-Steagall, ought to be ashamed of themselves. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

I mean, look. There are lots of ways to explain things. If I hit you in the head with a rock and the explanation for your busted head goes along the lines of some literal description--the rock was propelled at such and such a speed and impacted with such and such a force, causing the need for this many band-aids--then what is missing? Intent. There's no accounting for the fact that I wanted to bash you for some external reason.

And those intentions might be pretty revealing. So revealing that no number of silly, literal, point A to point B, will even come close to the truth.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:34 AM on February 24, 2016 [23 favorites]

Yeah, this.

My mom raised two kids on a decent nurse's salary (educational requirements: two years of low-cost community college to get an RN license) in the late '80s and early '90s. We lived in a townhouse on the edge of town when I was little and then bought a three-bedroom house in a reasonably safe working-class neighborhood. I remember the house cost $50,000. This is all in a medium-sized Midwestern city.

It's not like we were taking international holidays or whatever, in fact we never flew anywhere. But we went camping in the summer, did road-trip vacations to like Mammoth Caves and Cedar Point and Chicago. It was important to our family's values to sacrifice a bit so we could attend private (Protestant) school but the public schools would've been fine too. Between a bit of saving that Mom did, some help from family friends, summer jobs, scholarships, etc. my brother and I were basically able to get through college without big loans. (And I went to university in Canada, where I paid less than half what I would've for an equivalent private university education here in the States.)

I don't think that story would go nearly as well ten years later. I was privileged enough to grow up right at the end of the period of time when a family could achieve a decent middle-class lifestyle on one full-time salary.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:51 AM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hey! I thought that no one would read my previous post seeing as how it's pretty much the dead end of a older and super-long thread. Thanks, ya'll.

Stopped by to post a link that I just saw on Yves Smith's site but that I read at the original site. I've followed this story for a couple of years now because...music business. After reading, I though this might be a nice, more recent, compliment to part of my earlier post.

It's part of a series which can be found at the linked site:

The 7 Things I Learned About Business From Guitar Center

And a brief one from his professional site:

Secondary Markets Lose Faith in Junk Bonds
posted by CincyBlues at 10:39 AM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

From that Guitar Center piece:

It turns out that it has been a long-standing tradition for executives to arrive in the musical instrument industry and claim that knowledge of advance MBA techniques are equal to or greater than knowledge of the specific business vertical.

I propose just replacing "musical instrument industry" with "any industry." I really don't think it's different if it's FedEx or Cigna. The nation's businesses are now rife with MBA thinking and little specialization. At what point do we start questioning the idea that maybe, just maybe, the MBA-maximize-shareholder-profits-push-constant-growth-and-play-with-complex-financial-instruments model doesn't work? In fact, that it's a terrific failure across the board, that customer service is worse and products lousier than they have ever been, thanks to the reigning philosophies in business theory? At some point it oughta start being obvious that our problems emanate from the same source, and it's this toxic notion that abstractly rationalizing business models produces, divorcing them from all human context, meaning, and evaluation, generates value.
posted by Miko at 11:08 AM on February 24, 2016 [22 favorites]

More bad email server news: a (Clinton-appointed) federal judge has ruled that Huma Abedin will likely need to testify, and he signaled that he may subpoena all of Clinton's private emails in addition to the ones that have already been released. This piece from WaPo has a really good rundown. Apparently there are over fifty FOIA lawsuits about Clinton's email server, each of which may be heard separately and require separate testimony (!).

"A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

[U.S. District Judge Emmet G.] Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin to return all emails related to Clinton’s private account, not just records their camps previously deemed work-related and returned. ...

For six months in 2012, Abedin was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office and a private consulting firm connected to the Clintons. ...

Because of the number of judges hearing the FOIA cases, there is likewise a chance that the fight over Hillary Clinton’s emails could “take on a life of their own,” not ending “until there are endless depositions of top [agency] aides and officials, and just a parade of horribles,” said Anne L. Weismann, executive director of the Campaign for Accountability. Weismann also is a former Justice Department FOIA litigation supervisor who oversaw dozens of such fights from 1991 to 2002."
posted by dialetheia at 12:39 PM on February 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

And just like that... former Secretary Hillary Clinton has become an unelectable liability to the party.

It doesn't matter if anything sticks... It is the mere possibility of wrongdoing in regards to the whole process that undermines the whole campaign.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 1:04 PM on February 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

I honestly don't think the e-mail thing is going to matter at all, and I'm not even remotely a Clinton supporter. People are tired of hearing about it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:10 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, people are going to get even more tired of hearing about it all election season as we get an endless drip-drip-drip of new email releases, new hearings, new testimonies, etc etc.:

"Sullivan set an April 12 deadline for parties to litigate a detailed investigative plan--subject to court approval--that would reach well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server that department and Clinton officials have given. ... Sullivan’s decision will almost certainly extend through Election Day an inquiry that has dogged Clinton’s campaign, frustrating allies and providing fodder to Republican opponents."
posted by dialetheia at 1:16 PM on February 24, 2016

I think she can survive the drip just fine. It will become an issue if they charge her with something. Can they even charge her after she is sworn in?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:21 PM on February 24, 2016

Not sure about charges. I don't think the charges matter nearly as much as the likely weekly reminders to voters who think she is untrustworthy, though (which was 56% as of mid-February, and even only 48% of Democrats considered her "trustworthy"). I could easily be wrong though - maybe the people who don't think that aren't likely to change their minds at this point, and I guess not everyone really cares about that in a candidate.

I do think it would be a huge deal if the judge also subpoenaed her private emails, though. And he probably will - her defense rests on people taking her at her word that she turned over all the 'public' emails. I don't know how they could adjudicate that without knowing what was in the supposedly 'private' emails, too.

I'm honestly really surprised that liberals aren't more concerned about the blatant conflict of interest of increasing arms deals with countries lobbying State that had just donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, though, which is part of what they seem to be investigating given the Huma testimony and the fact that she was working for both State and the Clinton Foundation for a time - if a Republican SecState had done that, I think we might feel differently about how copacetic it is. Maybe I'm wrong though? Is it just Clinton scandal fatigue?
posted by dialetheia at 1:35 PM on February 24, 2016

Can they even charge her after she is sworn in?

Sure, and then she can pardon herself and then the House can send a bill of impeachment to the Senate.
posted by Justinian at 1:57 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ahh, I thought impeachment was only for crimes while in office.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:59 PM on February 24, 2016

It is, technically, but since when did that stop a Republican congress.
posted by Justinian at 2:02 PM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hey, no Republican House has impeached a Clinton on trumped-up charges in at least 15 years.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:09 PM on February 24, 2016 [10 favorites]

I think she can survive the drip just fine.

At this point, looking at a likely Trump nomination, I think the Democratic party would be most strategically smart to nominate the candidate who can only be attacked on issues and policy proposals, rather than all this other stuff, no matter how substantial or insubstantial it may end up being.

The Lewinsky scandal, the practical end result of which was mainly a lot of wasted money, personal devastation, and national embarrassment, basically swallowed up Bill Clinton's second term, and kept him from being nearly as effective as he wanted to be. Do Democratic voters really want to head into the national election with all this potentially devastating stuff swirling around the nominee? Especially if the opponent is Donald Trump?

If electability is a real concern (and hell yes it is), the smart strategy to me is clear: go with the candidate with no ethical scandals or accusations piling up around him.
posted by LooseFilter at 3:47 PM on February 24, 2016 [11 favorites]

That would be true if all other things were equal, but all other things are not equal. Clinton has the party behind her, the experience in running campaigns, the experience in multiple branches of government, and so on. Sanders is still mostly an unknown. I'd be much happier taking a flyer on him if he were running against, say, Romney where if Sanders lost it'd be not super great but not an utter disaster for the ages.
posted by Justinian at 3:56 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

But it's no longer just the Dems versus the Republicans.

Independents are now a large enough voting bloc to influence even the primaries, as we've all witnessed. Only 2 candidates have shown that they can draw broad support from both the establishment parties and Independents.

In the face of this new calculation, do you think Hilary can generate the right numbers in the general election?
posted by kyp at 4:29 PM on February 24, 2016 [5 favorites]

In the face of this new calculation, do you think Hilary can generate the right numbers in the general election?

Against Donald Trump?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:32 PM on February 24, 2016

remind me again how many delegates the long tail of a MetaFilter thread gets to send to the convention? we better come to a consensus on this Sanders/Clinton thing soon
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:36 PM on February 24, 2016 [7 favorites]

How many divisions has the Pope?
posted by Justinian at 4:38 PM on February 24, 2016

Against Donald Trump?

Yes. Or are we underestimating him again?

In which case, what does it matter which candidate the Dems field?
posted by kyp at 4:41 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

20 delegates, SAIT
posted by localhuman at 4:41 PM on February 24, 2016 [7 favorites]

remind me again how many delegates the long tail of a MetaFilter thread gets to send to the convention? we better come to a consensus on this Sanders/Clinton thing soon

Why the snark?
posted by kyp at 4:44 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

forgive me, it seems at times we end up in these old threads with small groups of fairly entrenched people (myself included) arguing somewhat circularly in favor of our preferred candidates. my remark was not intended to squelch discussion, but was snark for snark's sake. carry on
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:57 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

You are... forgiven!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 PM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

prize bull octorok, I spent an embarrassing amount of time on this site before I learned how good these senescent threads are. There's a certain greater amount of understanding, that's for sure.
posted by The Gaffer at 5:16 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]

prize bull octorok, I spent an embarrassing amount of time on this site before I learned how good these senescent threads are. There's a certain greater amount of understanding, that's for sure.

I had no idea what I was missing.
posted by an animate objects at 5:21 PM on February 24, 2016

Only a few days after media outlets erroneously reported that Bernie Sanders supporters chanted “English only” during the Democratic Nevada caucus, TIME Magazine went a step further and erroneously claimed that Sanders himself yelled “English only.”

TIME‘s preface to an interview of Clinton supporter David Brock contains the following paragraph:

All the pushback on misleading news reports that Bernie Sanders won the Latino vote (he didn’t) in Nevada, trackers following Sanders catching his every gaffe like when he yelled “English, only!” into a mic at a Nevada event or pushing polling showing Clinton winning amongst African Americans in South Carolina—those all come from from Brock.

Simply put, the bolded section is 100% wrong. At no point did anyone accuse Sanders of personally yelling into a microphone “English only,” a fact a simple Google search would have verified.

Sanders supporters were accused of chanting “English only,” but that accusation was soon cast into doubt. The two celebrities who levied that charge were both outspoken Clinton supporters, and video taken of the caucus seemed to show that Sanders supporters didn’t chant anything. The urban legend-busting website Snopes rated the Clinton supporters’ claim false.

TIME has had some major fuckups lately. And this article was published today! Days after it had been debunked but now with the new totally false but juicy tidbit that Bernie himself chanted "English Only". How did this get past an editor?
posted by futz at 5:44 PM on February 24, 2016 [14 favorites]

"“We’ve heard this kind of alarmism before,” a senior Republican senator told Slate, responding to warnings that a Trump nomination would doom the Republican Party. “Remember global warming? Gases, temperatures, the sky is falling? It’s all speculation. I’ll believe this Trump wave when I see it.”"
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:16 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]

Not sure about charges.

Charges? What the hell are you talking about? The Washington Post article you cited is civil litigation related to the FOIA. There are no "charges". Try to keep your conspiracies straight.

This is a typical frivolous litigation harassment by Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch. He sues for fun. He has literally sued his own mother. Larry has deposed hundreds of people who have ever been connected to the Clintons. His tactic is to find a friendly judge that will give him subpoena power and then question them about everything in their personal lives. For example he questioned George Stepanopolis about his traffic tickets. He questioned James Carville about what TV shows he watches for entertainment. He questioned Paul Begula about the name of his priest. He has deposed janitors at the White House and asked them about their knowledge of murders.

This whole FOIA thing is a big joke. Not one person in history has ever had to turn over their entire career email to the public -- not the President, not the vice-President, not a cabinet secretary, not a Senator, not a Congressman nor any of their staff. Yet Hillary Clinton has turned over everything and people are still complaining. It's ridiculous.
posted by JackFlash at 6:41 PM on February 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

TIME has had some major fuckups lately.

For values of lately equivalent to at least the last 50 years. It has been, and remains the reliable Voice of the Establishment, and will say anything to protect its client.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:46 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

remind me again how many delegates the long tail of a MetaFilter thread gets to send to the convention?

Well, I'm friends with an alternate delegate from Nevada... He's aware of this thread though not a member.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:52 PM on February 24, 2016

“Remember global warming? Gases, temperatures, the sky is falling? It’s all speculation. I’ll believe this Trump wave when I see it.”

Oh...
posted by Artw at 6:52 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

I know Kirth but I wanted to keep my comment relatively short.
posted by futz at 7:31 PM on February 24, 2016

How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable

We are so fucked.
posted by Artw at 7:44 PM on February 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

> "“We’ve heard this kind of alarmism before,” a senior Republican senator told Slate, responding to warnings that a Trump nomination would doom the Republican Party. “Remember global warming? Gases, temperatures, the sky is falling? It’s all speculation. I’ll believe this Trump wave when I see it.”"

FFS. We're living in an Onion article.
posted by homunculus at 8:08 PM on February 24, 2016 [15 favorites]

Depraved Candidate Struggling To Support $100,000-A-Day Advertising Habit
posted by homunculus at 8:10 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

Opinion from The Guardian:

Trump's victories aren't mysterious if you understand why people are angry:

And as long as people can enjoy the elbow-throwing wish-fulfillment of watching him in action, most of the rest doesn’t matter to them – not the bombast, not the war-mongering, not the unfeasibility of even his signature promises and certainly not the consequences if he keeps them. If the system is already so broken that it abandoned you, its preservation is not your concern. Hell, burning it down might be what you want most.

posted by LooseFilter at 8:38 PM on February 24, 2016 [9 favorites]

soooooo fucked.
posted by Artw at 8:41 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

Looks like I picked the wrong year to stop sniffing glue.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:37 PM on February 24, 2016 [5 favorites]

Looks like I picked the wrong year.
posted by maxwelton at 10:12 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jeb Lund: “Hell, burning it down might be what you want most.”

TRUMP: C'mon, Pookie! Let's Burn This Motherfucker Down!
posted by ob1quixote at 11:26 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

“How the US went Fascist: Mass media Makes excuses for Trump Voters,” Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 24 February 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 11:28 PM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

Black Lives Matter Activists Interrupt Hillary Clinton At Private Event In South Carolina

"Williams and her colleague, whom she did not identify, contributed $500 to attend the Clinton event, which was held at a private residence with around 100 people, she estimated."

As Clinton spoke to the crowd, Williams stood to her side and held a sign quoting controversial statements Clinton made in 1996 in reference to at-risk youth, when she said "we have to bring them to heel."
Williams said when Clinton paused and looked at her sign, she asked the former secretary of state to apologize to black people for mass incarceration. The mostly white audience yelled at Williams and told her she was being rude, she said.
Williams told The Huffington Post that the Secret Service threw her out out of the event.

“Hillary Clinton has a pattern of throwing the Black community under the bus when it serves her politically," Williams said in a statement before the event. "She called our boys ‘super-predators’ in ’96, then she race-baited when running against Obama in ‘08, now she’s a lifelong civil rights activist. I just want to know which Hillary is running for President, the one from ’96, ’08, or the new Hillary?”
posted by futz at 11:49 PM on February 24, 2016 [20 favorites]

Charges? What the hell are you talking about?

Oh come on, I was clearly responding to Drinky Die mentioning charges it in the comment right above. Besides, the wingnuts are on about "indictment" not charges anyway. I understand that this lawsuit was brought by a right-wing organization and that they have political reasons for pursuing it, that isn't in question. The question is whether we want to have a yearlong series of investigations about it concurrent with the general election, is all, because the judge ruled yesterday that it's going to happen.

This whole FOIA thing is a big joke.

Well, the judge ruled otherwise yesterday, unfortunately. "[Federal judge and Clinton appointee] Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy created “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined. ...

Sullivan said the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account."

For the millionth time, I am not even saying that she broke any laws, only that I still don't understand her motives for even having the server in the first place. But that doesn't even matter. The issue is how it impacts the general election, and I think it's actually pretty big news that a judge is going to have Huma Abedin and other top aides testify, that the inquiry will likely be drawn out throughout the general election, and that the judge signaled he might ask for her private emails as well so that they can be sure that all public emails were turned over. Whether there's merit to the investigation or not, that's a serious issue for the general election, isn't it? At best, it will be a very irritating distraction.

Stephen Colbert on Clinton's denial that she lies: "How can you be this bad?"
posted by dialetheia at 12:01 AM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

Video: Hillary Clinton in Black History
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:36 AM on February 25, 2016

I have to admit that I don't understand how Huma Abedin could be working for both State and the Clinton Foundation at the same time. I know that the rules are sometimes different for high-level executive branch employees, but I routinely have to turn down consulting opportunities because my ethics advisor rules that the proposed work is substantially similar to what I'm doing for my agency.

I'm NOT accusing Secretary Clinton or her staff of doing anything illegal, just commenting on this because the apparent difference in rules about outside employment surprised me.
posted by wintermind at 3:39 AM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]

Black Lives Matter Activists Interrupt Hillary Clinton At Private Event In South Carolina

The amount of guts it takes to go to one of these private home events with a bunch of well-heeled people and tinkling glasses and stand up and confront someone with so much power, and push through the fear and the awkwardness and being called "rude," just...boggles my mind. Kudos to her.
posted by sallybrown at 5:07 AM on February 25, 2016 [25 favorites]

It's really unfortunate that Secretary Clinton didn't stop the people from ushering that young woman out, since she seemed willing to engage with her on the subject. Also, the activists were not trespassers. They paid to be there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:17 AM on February 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

Charges? What the hell are you talking about?

Oh come on, I was clearly responding to Drinky Die mentioning charges it in the comment right above.

Yeah, that's on me. I didn't read close enough or click through the link to see it was about the civil side. But I do stand by the idea that charges are the only thing that has the potential to bring her down, not any potential slow drip of emails.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:21 AM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

Think the NSA is scary now? Wait till Donald Trump controls it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:38 AM on February 25, 2016

Stephen Colbert on Clinton's denial that she lies: "How can you be this bad?"

For context, it seems pretty clear that he was talking about her communication style and messaging, not her entire character.
posted by Miko at 6:38 AM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Number one hashtag on Twitter this morning is #WhichHillary
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:40 AM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]

How Black Women Like Me Reckon With America's Political Process
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:27 AM on February 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, that's on me. I didn't read close enough or click through the link to see it was about the civil side.

You should get a notebook so that you can keep track of your conspiracies and don't embarrass yourself by getting get confused.

Meanwhile you need to work fast to keep up. Huma Abedin, mentioned above, who is Indian, was accused of having family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood -- her dead father, her mother, and her brother -- in a demand letter to the Inspector General by five Republican Congressmen. They have also harassed her concerning maternity leave, a nice Republican touch.

She probably deserves harassment just for being a longtime friend and assistant to Clinton. One of Clinton's previous friends Republicans literally hounded to death, and then tried to pin the death on Clinton by shooting watermelons.

Republicans are all talking about it so here must be something there. So you are probably going to need a bigger notebook.
posted by JackFlash at 8:39 AM on February 25, 2016 [6 favorites]

JackFlash is in the pocket of Big Moleskine. They have him right where they want him: snugly tucked under an elastic strap
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:24 AM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]

Clinton Emails on Libya Expose The Lie of 'Humanitarian Intervention

Even more concerning, it became known during the course of the NATO invasion that the claims of foreign mercenaries fighting for Qaddafi were false; that, in fact, the alleged foreign mercenaries were really African guest workers. What was really happening was that the rebels were summarily arresting and murdering people who happened to be black, and doing so in very large numbers. In other words, it was the U.S.'s rebel friends who were actually carrying out genocide in Libya, and NATO, which had a UN mandate to protect civilians in Libya, was aiding and abetting them in doing it.

...the Clinton emails reveal one other important fact - that before and during the NATO conflict, Clinton and her team knew very well, and actually feared, that the conflict in Libya might very well have been resolved through negotiations; that indeed, Muammar Qaddafi's son Saif was actually trying to find ways to do just that. However, Clinton shunned such efforts, instead preferring a war, despite its quite predictably horrible consequences, which would give the U.S. and its allies the hand they wanted in the future of Libyan and African affairs. In the end, the welfare of the Libyan people, and of the people of Northern Africa, were sacrificed, not protected, by such a choice.
posted by futz at 11:57 AM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

Kissinger must be proud.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:20 PM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today," Clinton said in the statement to the Post.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:01 PM on February 25, 2016

"Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today," Clinton said in the statement to the Post.

That response seems very unsatisfying. She's not saying she disagrees with the ideas behind her words, that urban black youth are dangerous, even as children, and we have to throw them in prison. She's just saying that she would not use such an obvious dogwhistle phrase today.
posted by zug at 2:05 PM on February 25, 2016 [17 favorites]

If I knew I would be running for President in 20 years I would have said it differently!
posted by Justinian at 2:05 PM on February 25, 2016 [5 favorites]

"Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today."
"I try not to lie"
"I've always tried to. Always. Always. ... I'm gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."
and also Bill's
"...it depends what your definition of is is..."

This is the language of competent lawyers. This is also the reason good lawyers never, never, never represent themselves.
posted by klarck at 2:18 PM on February 25, 2016 [7 favorites]

NYT Editorial board: Mrs. Clinton, show voters the transcripts: "Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House."
posted by dialetheia at 2:24 PM on February 25, 2016 [15 favorites]

You know who else was going to run a transparent White House, don't you?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:56 PM on February 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

Wonder Woman? (Or is it only the plane?)
posted by maxwelton at 4:16 PM on February 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

I just hope it's not a nudist.
posted by lmfsilva at 5:25 PM on February 25, 2016

Debate thread.
posted by homunculus at 5:36 PM on February 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sanders was live on Chris Matthews tonight and Matthews pretty much hammered him over the realism (or lack thereof) of his proposals.
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on February 25, 2016

And Maddow was a jerk. She truncated a video comment by Bernie and twisted it. Lame.
posted by futz at 6:30 PM on February 25, 2016

I missed that, is there a link? I thought Maddow was usually pretty good.
posted by Justinian at 6:40 PM on February 25, 2016

I believe it was at the beginning of their spin session right after the Bernie interview. I was flipping channels.
posted by futz at 6:49 PM on February 25, 2016

We're on a ton of survey contact lists, after my wife or I were patient enough to participate in one when we first moved here, so now we get a ton of annoying surveys for all sorts of things. So far, the worst question has been: "are you in favor or not in favor of immigrant children?" Really, those are my options on the topic? After opening by asking me on my views of Trump's immigration "policies"? (Which one, the Deport all Muslims, or Build a Giant F**king Wall Between US and Mexico? Or does he have some new bullshit to rake in news coverage?)

I hate political surveys that flatten complex question to nonsensical yes/no answers, but I feel bad for the people who are just trying to make some money, so I answer as best as I can and I'm as polite to the caller as I can be, unless the calls are totally leading you to take a prescribed view, like one my wife got after Hillary's email server "scandal" was the biggest thing in the news cycle. "Are you sure you aren't really upset that Hillary used private servers to host sensitive emails?" *click*
/venting
posted by filthy light thief at 7:08 PM on February 25, 2016

Those sound like not exactly surveys but push polls, filthy light thief.
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on February 25, 2016

Tonight's GOP debate in a nutshell.
posted by homunculus at 9:31 PM on February 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

More backlash against the CEA/NYT wonks: Bernie Sanders and the case for a new economic stimulus package: "My aim here isn’t to suggest that Friedman’s cost estimates, some of which have been questioned, are accurate. (I don’t know if they are.) Nor would I bank on the various multipliers and elasticities that he uses to figure out how changes in policy would influence spending and growth (though Friedman’s parameters are mostly drawn from Congressional Budget Office studies and the like). The main point—and this is something that James K. Galbraith has also pointed out—is that in a standard Keynesian analysis like Friedman’s, major changes in government spending and tax policy can have significant effects on the economy. Given the slow growth that we’ve been saddled with for the past decade, the onus is on the skeptics to demonstrate why such models are wrong. We need a debate about the limits to stimulus policies—not the need for them, which should be self-evident."
posted by dialetheia at 10:27 PM on February 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

If Sanders Loses, Bernie Believers Will Take the DNC Down
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:12 AM on February 26, 2016

roomthreeseventeen:

"If Sanders Loses, Bernie Believers Will Take the DNC Down"
"Many Sanders supporters who feel slighted by the Democratic Party for not providing their candidate with a fair and balanced shot at the presidential nomination will either vote for Mr. Trump, write-in Bernie Sanders or not show up to the polls."

If there is anything that makes me fucking rage at an election it's petulant bullshit like the last part. Are you pissed and disillusioned about how the presidential race turned out? Fine, leave those entries blank. But go fucking vote for the local elections. Mayors, governors, state congress, judges, sheriffs, school board. All these positions arguably have more direct impact on you than the federal fucking election. If those options depress you then consider that it's a level of politics where you can actually have a personal effect and start from there.

Annual election rant over, though I made it kind of early this year. May come up again.
posted by charred husk at 7:45 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.
posted by goHermGO at 7:48 AM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]

But go fucking vote for the local elections. Mayors, governors, state congress, judges, sheriffs, school board. All these positions arguably have more direct impact on you than the federal fucking election.

Young people with no property, marriage, or kids whose job could fire them and force them to move at any moment have pretty much zero stake in local elections. If Democrats want those voters to start showing up, they have to start giving them a reason instead of living to do the will of Wall St.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 AM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]

Like every other thinkpiece I've seen on the hordes of Progressive foot-shooters, that article is all hat, no cowboy. Can we see actual polls instead of anecdotes and/or grumpy twitter threats? Maybe comparisons to how many of those Party Unity My Ass people were running around 8 years ago, and how many of them actually followed through in November?

Look, if Sen. Sanders gets the Democratic nod I will vote for a Democrat for President for the first time in my life. Otherwise I'm voting for Jill Stein again. If I lived in a swing state I would unhesitatingly vote for Sec. Clinton as the lesser of two evils and not feel bad about it. That doesn't make me a bad person.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:02 AM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]

instead of living to do the will of Wall St

I worry about this kind of hyperbole. There is no way the party is living to do the will of Wall St. If anything I think Wall Street and the financial markets are considered a necessary evil. We need to educate ourselves and talk about how we live within the framework of giant complex international markets. They are not going away and they will always have that money to throw around. I know Bernie is behind getting rid of 'Too Big to Fail'. That's a start, hell even rogue republicans are talking about this.
posted by readery at 8:10 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

I worry about this kind of hyperbole. There is no way the party is living to do the will of Wall St.

no?

The 1 Percent Have Gotten All The Income Gains From The Recovery
posted by Drinky Die at 8:15 AM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]

roomthreeseventeen: "If Sanders Loses, Bernie Believers Will Take the DNC Down"

'Cause there's nothing like yelling petulant threats to get people to vote for your candidate. "Vote for our guy or we'll burn down the world"
posted by octothorpe at 8:32 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

More like "Hi, the world is on fire, can we use something bigger than a garden hose please?"
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:36 AM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]

These charts from a 2011 piece by Robert Reich make a very convincing case that our economic policy has been outrageously biased toward the wealthy since Reagan. Government has not been working for the people since at least 1980, and that includes the Clinton years and their massive deregulation, unfortunately.

roomthreeseventeen: "If Sanders Loses, Bernie Believers Will Take the DNC Down"

The DNC as a specific organization probably does need a great deal of revitalization, at the very least. The superdelegate rules need to be changed to not be explicitly antagonistic to grassroots candidates before they end up subverting democracy and causing massive disruption at the convention, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to step down ASAP. The losses to the party have been catastrophic under her "leadership" - we've lost the Senate, the House, and over 900 state legislature seats since she took over in 2011. The DNC also plays a role in the way that Obama's grassroots engagement fell off the map immediately after his election, but especially for the 2014 midterms. Wasserman Schultz had barely spoken to Obama by 2015, which may help to explain some of the 2014 midterm catastrophes. Even now, she's more focused on getting Hillary Clinton the nomination than running the party. Even half of the DNC thinks the DNC needs to be taken down right now - there have been mutinous rumours against DWS since this fall and even before.
posted by dialetheia at 8:42 AM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]

'Cause there's nothing like yelling petulant threats to get people to vote for your candidate. "Vote for our guy or we'll burn down the world"

I feel like that comes from both sides, too. "Vote for Hillary or Trump will burn down the world" is a thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:43 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

"Please join forces with us to avoid [undesirable outcome]" is not at all equivalent to "if I don't get my way, I will passively contribute to the causality of [undesirable outcome]."
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:27 AM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]

If anything I think Wall Street and the financial markets are considered a necessary evil. We need to educate ourselves and talk about how we live within the framework of giant complex international markets. They are not going away and they will always have that money to throw around.

I agree with everything but the last part. They should not be granted even rhetorical control over our economy. They need to be regulated, they need to be separated from depository institutions and the attendant FDIC guarantees, and they need to be subjected to enough oversight that they stop posing systemic risk to our entire economy. The issue we have right now is that financial interests have essentially captured the majority of our government through campaign donations, which mean that they have achieved full regulatory capture of the institutions that are supposed to hold them in check. It is not a fact of nature, it's a fact of corruption, and it causes a ton of negative externalities (like the obscene income distribution shown in those charts I linked) that could be avoided if our government did its job and properly regulated them.
posted by dialetheia at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]

William K. Black, a lawyer and regulator who helped expose congressional corruption and the Keating Five during the S&L crisis and is now an expert on white-collar crime in his role as a professor of law and economics at University of Missouri-Kansas City, is a great source for learning more about regulatory capture in our economic systems and the dysfunctional incentive structures that maintain it. His appearances on Bill Moyers are really educational, e.g. this appearance from 2014 talking about "too big to jail" executives and their influence in government.
posted by dialetheia at 10:25 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump.

btw the odds of the GOP ticket being Trump/Christie were 5,000 to 1 last summer.
posted by Wordshore at 10:42 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is pure fantasy: "Clinton talks of possibly decades-long occupations and orderly regime changes, yet somehow Sanders is the fantasist."

“This doesn’t happen overnight, and yes, it’s been a couple of years,” she said, returning to the five years since Libya’s overthrow of Qaddafi in 2011. “I think it’s worth European support, Arab support, American support, to try to help the Libyan people realize the dream that they had when they went after Qaddafi.”

In response to a question about what she meant about time and space (and a question about whether regime change that has led to chaos was a mistake), Clinton responded by raising deployments that have lasted upwards of 60 years.

Meanwhile, while Bernie Sanders may be recommending the U.S. adopt domestic policies that match those of our Canadian and European counterparts, thus far he has mentioned nothing about 60-year military deployments. Moreover, unlike Sanders, Clinton has not even called for taxes to pay for what would be a costly endeavor — unless her reference in this exchange to Libya’s oil means she hopes to be more successful billing Libya for defense than the U.S. has been with Iraq.

Such is the nature of our politics that Sanders can be attacked as a fantasist for daring to aspire to live as well as Europeans, while 60-year military deployments get treated as magic ponies that cost nothing.

Perhaps it is considered bad economics to make this suggestion. But it seems like a smart way to pay for universal health care for all Americans is to stop getting into 60-year military deployments around the world?"

posted by dialetheia at 10:50 AM on February 26, 2016 [15 favorites]

Responding generally to a few comments about "$Candidate Supporters Gone Wild", I observe that it's Meta-To-The-Actual-Issues.

I think a critical flaw in the system is people who are not voting for $Candidate because they best represent their interests, but rather these peripheral distractions.
posted by mikelieman at 11:15 AM on February 26, 2016

Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump.

btw the odds of the GOP ticket being Trump/Christie were 5,000 to 1 last summer.

Can you imagine them spending the whole campaign just bullying each other! It would be mythic.
posted by MikeKD at 11:22 AM on February 26, 2016

I think a critical flaw in the system is people who are not voting for $Candidate because they best represent their interests, but rather these peripheral distractions.

That's a rational response to a winner-take-all system, though. What we actually need is a serious conversation about democratic reform and what that would look like. Sen. Sanders is on to a part of that -- moving (back) to public financing of elections or at least very tightly regulated rules about money and transparency in elections. And there has been some conversation about gerrymandering and so on in recent years, particularly on the left.

But we can't even get to those actual conversations that need to happen, because our politics is all about either how do we fight off genuinely regressive policies (in the Democratic Party) or, well, how do we implement regressive policies (Republicans, when they aren't squabbling over nonsense).
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:28 AM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]

Not as mythic as Trump picking Jeb for his VP/official whipping boy. It'd be like Hannity & Colmes in the White House.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:28 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]

We asked over 100 of these Bernie loyalists to describe the other Democrat running for President in one word.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:39 PM on February 26, 2016

We asked over 100 of these Bernie loyalists to describe the other Democrat running for President in one word.

I'm disappointed that no-one said "Nixonian".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:41 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]

I mean, a lot of those comments were rude and sexist, but Dolores Umbridge, lol.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:42 PM on February 26, 2016

I'm so tired of the "whose supporters are better" arguments. I've heard some hair-raisingly anti-semitic things about Sanders from Clinton supporters too - none of it is OK but neither does it reflect poorly on the campaigns themselves.
posted by dialetheia at 12:50 PM on February 26, 2016 [13 favorites]

Honestly, that survey is pretty encouraging.

It implies that only 2% of Bernie supporters' first thoughts of Hillary are sexist thoughts (bitch x1, whore x1). Most of the critique of her is pretty much along the lines of what Bernie and BLM have been saying.
posted by zug at 12:52 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

State Department says to complete release of Clinton emails by Monday
posted by futz at 1:13 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

Lee Fang: TV Pundits Praise Hillary Clinton On Air, Fail to Disclose Financial Ties to Her Campaign
posted by futz at 1:19 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm disappointed that no-one said "Nixonian".

We are teh olds...
posted by mikelieman at 1:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

Maybe my expectations are totally off here. But even 2% jumping immediately to a sexist summary is unacceptably high, and the exact opposite of encouraging.

I guess I feel like the background rate is WAY over 2%. If only 2% of men catcalled, if only 2% of men were abusive, if only 2% of men thought women deserved less pay than men, this would be a different world.
posted by zug at 1:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]

yeah, that's just the percentage comfortable to let their sexism fly on camera.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:28 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

Widespread sexism is one of the main reasons I've been skeptical of her electability, honestly. If it's this big of an issue even in the primary, it could be really tough in the general. The crosstabs on the general election hypothetical matchups show her losing the male vote badly to all of the Republican opponents and not necessarily making up enough ground with women voters to make up the difference. I wish it wasn't so, but it worries me.
posted by dialetheia at 1:46 PM on February 26, 2016

How Wal-Mart Explains the Difference Between Clinton and Sanders
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:54 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

Maybe my expectations are totally off here. But even 2% jumping immediately to a sexist summary is unacceptably high, and the exact opposite of encouraging.

Yeah, I'm going to agree with your first statement, your expectations are off.

It would be great if it was really simple to exclude anyone who "thinks wrong" from everything, but the world and reality is a lot messier and more complex than that. Look, I completely understand that we all really only want to associate with like-minded and correct-thinking people, and to have anyone criticize us based upon the actions of other people that get grouped with us feels really bad, and the first instinct is to try and defend your own reputation and stance.

But the reality is that you can't, and never will achieve this goal. There are too many moving parts, and too many players with way too wide of a variety of life experience, education, and understanding about the world.

Here's the best example I have been able to come up with, and I've been thinking about this since this thread started (actually, before this, but that's not the point):

Most 5 year olds have a pretty reasonable sense of fairness. If they see someone else getting something that they are not, they feel and express that this is unfair. Most 5 year olds also have no concept of earning something versus having something given to them. For the most part, everything is given to them (with the exception of our current problem with children in poverty, but please don't argue the generality fallacy, at least not yet). You probably have a good sense of fairness as well. Both you and the 5 year old believe in fairness. You have a broader view and understand earned versus given. You both are still on the same side about fairness. Do you fault the 5 year old because they have not yet reached your understanding of fairness? This is just one axiom in which to illustrate this point. Here is the opposite. 5 year old do not (again, generally), like to eat the healthy foods. They want what tastes good and will whine and complain about having to eat asparagus or brussel sprouts (again, go with the generality. I myself loved both of those a a child and still do today). You, as an adult, probably know that you should eat the healthy foods, and probably go out of your way to do so. Your view has matured and grown, and you will probably understand that the 5 year old is going to eventually learn and appreciate those healthy food choices as they grow up and mature. However, even though you are placing faith that in the future the 5 year old will mature, some people never do. some people never learn to eat healthy, and you (maybe, I can't speak for you personally, but I am speaking from a general term here, so meh) probably judge those people who do not eat healthy as immature or some negative judgement. They are still on your team because they share the same view of fairness as you do, but they are different from you because of this second criteria. Now multiply those criteria by several thousand intersecting, and differently weighted factors. IF they still agree with you on enough factors, you will (or should) remain allies. But you should be critical of which factors you weigh more heavily, and which factors THEY weigh more heavily.

This is the crux of a lot of social issues. No one is living the same life. No one has the same level of experience, nor do they have the same exposure to information. Hopefully they will be exposed to that information and learn and grow and become more like you hope. Mostly, they probably won't. But that is ok. That is fine. As long as they don't actively reject the things that helped you to understand the world the way you do, they are still on your side, and will be part of your team.

Yes, BernieBros are fucking disgusting and annoying, and the way we are trained to interpret media is to force association between the actions of a candidates supporters with the candidate themselves. The problem is that the logic of that is extremely flawed (but extremely useful to those who wish to manipulate public opinion). So, I really must ask you (both Clinton and Bernie supporters): please, judge the candidates on their merits, not the merits of their followers.

Allegory time:
Do you think Jesus was a bad person because of Paul (the zealot), or Judas (the betrayer), or Thomas (the doubter)? Was the bad behavior of Jesus's inner circle of followers a reflection on Jesus himself? Ask yourself that, anytime you see someone supporting some icon. Are you judging the icon by itself own merits, or by the merits of those who espouse support for that icon?

Sorry if this seems like I am picking on the person I quoted. I am not, it is just that the sentiment expressed finally triggered me to dump this out of my brain and see how it looks when written out. Please bear in mind that this is still a work in progress (and probably will be for me until I die), but a lot of the disagreement I have observed between the two factions in this thread seem to be a mix of talking past each other, and misallocation of intent.

My next comment will probably be a dissertation on identity politics and the limitations of viewing the polity through only that lens versus a wider cultural understanding of demographic with a sprinkling of chaos theory and statistical variability in the mix.
posted by daq at 1:57 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm disappointed that no-one said "Nixonian".

I'm actually sort of warming up to that. Only Nixon could go to China, right? Well, what would Hillary Nixon be able to do that Bernie can't? That would be a good thing for this country.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:58 PM on February 26, 2016

I don't think Sanders is responsible for Bernie Bros being Bernie Bros. And there are a lot of smart, savvy, great people enthusiastically supporting him. But I do see a lot of shitty sexism and racism coming from his fans in the places they congregate and comment online (not talking about anyone on MetaFilter here).

If one of the major arguments for a candidate is that the supporters they're drawing in are going to be the vanguard of a political revolution, it's worth considering who those revolutionaries are and what values they actually hold.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:09 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

or Thomas (the doubter)

Don't you perpetuate libel against the only person with any sense in that tomb.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [7 favorites]

If one of the major arguments for a candidate is that the supporters they're drawing in are going to be the vanguard of a political revolution, it's worth considering who those revolutionaries are and what values they actually hold.

So that applies equally to all the disgusting pockets of anti-semitism and red-baiting from Clinton supporters, then, right?
posted by dialetheia at 2:27 PM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]

But I do see a lot of shitty sexism and racism coming from his fans in the places they congregate and comment online

Well, one of Clinton's main voting blocs thus far (those over 65) is less likely to be participating in online forums than millennials. You'd probably hear just as many racist and sexist comments at a country club Clinton fundraiser, they just aren't memorialized in text online for the world to see.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:28 PM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]

it's worth considering who those revolutionaries are and what values they actually hold.

More seriously, the problem with this is it's very difficult to know if you're at all receiving an accurate portrayal of anyone's supporters or their values. Our media and public discourse is so broken and dysfunctional that I simply have no idea what percentage of Sanders' supporters may be 'Bernie Bros' or whatever. Some are, clearly, but are they 30%? 10%? A very vocal 2%?

What I have not seen is story after story after story, from multiple reporters in all kinds of media, telling of similar experiences at Sanders rallies, like I have for Trump rallies. I feel like the sample size of evidence and experience is large and diverse enough to make categorical statements about the kinds of people at Trump rallies. Not so much for Sanders.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:29 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]

> Black Lives Matter Activists Interrupt Hillary Clinton At Private Event In South Carolina

Ashley Williams was on Democracy Now today: #WhichHillary? #BlackLivesMatter Activist Demands Apology from Clinton for "Superpredator" Comments
posted by homunculus at 2:38 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hillary will just claim the superpredator thing was just to prevent them being called superalien by republicans and she has moved on from that position.

Xenomorph/Yautja 2020
posted by lmfsilva at 2:44 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

A Few Notes For Native People About The Presidential Elections: Neither Democrat Deserves Our Vote (Yet)

"Trump is a Mercenary": Native Writer Gyasi Ross on GOP Debate & Why He's Not Endorsed Anyone (Yet)
posted by homunculus at 2:50 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

Tara Houska, Ojibwe, Named Native American Advisor to Bernie Sanders
posted by homunculus at 2:50 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sanders has a new ad about climate change, highlighting his opposition to fracking and Keystone XL (Clinton's climate plan includes increasing commitments to natural gas and continuing support for fracking, which she promoted worldwide as Secretary of State).
posted by dialetheia at 3:02 PM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]

So that applies equally to all the disgusting pockets of anti-semitism and red-baiting from Clinton supporters, then, right?

If they're prevalent in a large demographic of new voters that Clinton is saying are going to be newly active and engaged in politics as a result of her running, then yeah, that's a concern.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:44 PM on February 26, 2016

To LooseFilter's point, most of the troubling stuff I'm seeing isn't at rallies, it's online (which is not where, shall we say, people are always their best selves?), and I don't think they're really comparable to Trump voters (except for the ones who say Trump is their second choice; a tiny minority, let's hope!). But if a big common denominator among such Sanders voters as don't overlap with regular Democratic primary voters is an ethos of anti-establishment economic progressivism that doesn't place a high value on identity-politics/social-justice stuff, it seems worth thinking about the implications of that, at least, especially as it pertains to the downticket races and "Sanders revolution" that are part and parcel of his sales pitch, rather than just dismissing it as inconsequential or saying "but both sides etc."
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:52 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think the election is pretty obviously going to be Clinton-Trump. Does anybody still think differently?
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on February 26, 2016

Yes, I still think a 3-way race is quite possible. (And that Sanders still has an outside shot at the D nomination.)
posted by LooseFilter at 4:13 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

We asked over 100 of these Bernie loyalists to describe the other Democrat running for President in one word.

Mine would be "trimmer."

Oh, and if she tries to make me eat brussel sprouts, well, all I can say is that you'll have to pry that Snickers bar out of my cold, dead hands.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:14 PM on February 26, 2016

I'm counting on a five-way hellrace, with an option on the ballot to abandon democracy, dismantle the American experiment, and surrender to the Crown.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:15 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm counting on a five-way hellrace, with an option on the ballot to abandon democracy, dismantle the American experiment, and surrender to the Crown.

Hehe, that would piss off Lyndon LaRouche.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:17 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

The losses to the party have been catastrophic under her "leadership" - we've lost the Senate, the House, and over 900 state legislature seats since she took over in 2011.

I'm curious what plans the Party leadership has for reversing the down-ballot trends in recent years. I poked around democrats.org and, between pages asking me to sign-up for various email lists, I found the Voting Rights Institute which includes a page claiming that the Party is still pursuing the 50 state strategy:

Under Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz today, Democrats continue an aggressive and forward-looking effort based on the belief that if we invest in people and invest in our party, we can continue to turn once-red districts and states blue in elections to come.

This seems at odds with reports of what the Party has actually been doing. Has anyone seen more substantive plans from Party leaders for winning races at all levels?
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:23 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm counting on a five-way hellrace, with an option on the ballot to abandon democracy, dismantle the American experiment, and surrender to the Crown.

Screw it, I amend the War of the Five POTUS to include another faction: Ted Cruz loyalist remnants of the Tea Party embrace the eschaton. So Dems are split in two, GOP is in three, Bloomberg runs, and the Gary Johnson-John McAfee joint unity Libertarian ticket proves to be surprisingly popular in some states and segments.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:20 PM on February 26, 2016

and then the vote ends up in Congress and we get whatever maniac the House Republicans get behind.
posted by indubitable at 5:36 PM on February 26, 2016

Paul Ryan, presumably.
posted by nicepersonality at 5:38 PM on February 26, 2016

srsly, if you thought Trump was scary, imagine someone hand-picked for their ability to cooperate with the House Republicans to pass legislation.
posted by indubitable at 5:42 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's gonna be someone whose spirit is so broken and image so mocked that he cannot be anything other than a puppet of Congress. A shadow of his former hale and hearty self, the former princeling who gambled to gain all and lost it all to a merciless torturer and humiliator. One's whose former joy is now naught but grey, snowed upon by bolts of pain:

JEB.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:48 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

On the less grimdark hand, Speaker Ryan could always pick his old campaign buddy Romney to be president, and for maximum irony.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:53 PM on February 26, 2016

Just to note that even in that nightmare scenario, the House can only pick from the top 3 electoral-vote-winners. They can't just decide to make Terry Crews President even if he agrees to govern entirely in character.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:59 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

Hate to burst your bubble here, but I think that the Constitution provides that if there is not an Electoral College majority, the House of Representatives decides from the top three presidential candidates by electoral vote, and votes per state delegation. So depending on how some of the small conservative states' delegations stand, Paul Ryan might not be able to whip a majority... in which case, the Vice President (elected by the Senate in this scenario) stands in as President until the HoR can get to a majority of state delegations....
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:03 PM on February 26, 2016

The newly elected Senate, yes? So it could be a Democratic Senate.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on February 26, 2016

I think actually that it would be the outgoing legislators, since the new Congress doesn't come in until January 20 as well, right (and all of these machinations would be taking place between when the Electoral College formally votes in December, and the normal Inauguration Day -- I assume, I'm not like a lawyer or anything, much less a constitutional lawyer. (Good thing we'll have one of those firmly at the helm during this whole process... particularly as the ordinary arbiter of constitutional disputes may be in the midst of its own constitutional crisis at this point....)
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:44 PM on February 26, 2016

The new Congress convenes on 3 January.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:47 PM on February 26, 2016

Oh. Nix that last comment, then.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 26, 2016

Hunh. So if there's a three-way race leading to no majority in the Electoral College, it's quite likely that the GOP is just totally in shambles and the Democrats are easily taking back the Senate. So if the House also deadlocks, you end up with a Senate-elected VP (from among the top three VP candidates, I think?) -- who takes the Presidency... and then the House GOP has to figure out how to get a plurality of state delegations to get behind either the GOP nom or the insurgent third-party candidate... of course, the GOP candidate is probably Trump, so the establishment is not necessarily backing their own party's candidate....
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:55 PM on February 26, 2016

Your friendly neighborhood David Brooks wellness update. He seems not to have had a heart attack yet. Not happy about anti-establishment politicians.

Spoiler alert: here be false equivalency.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:17 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

Not sure if this has been posted already. DWS gives another unsatisfying answer to the "reason for super delegates question". This is not the grassroots interview. I feel like Maddow failed to press DWS. I have been very disappointed with Maddow lately and my reaction to this video may be tainted by that. What think you guys?

Rachel Maddow confronts Deborah Wasserman-Schultz on the Super Delegates
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on February 26, 2016

I thought it was pretty reasonable. It sounds like she was basically saying that the media shouldn't be folding in superdelegates-pledged numbers into the count at all as they are really not bound to one candidate or the other. Which makes sense to me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:01 PM on February 26, 2016

another unsatisfying answer to the "reason for super delegates question"

There's no mystery or conspiracy. The Democratic Party has superdelegates so that if something weird or horrible happens, or if the nomination process produces a candidate who seems truly McGovern-level unelectable, they can maybe put their finger on the scale.

I guess I don't see why it would be surprising that the actual members of the Democratic Party, which emphatically does not include people like me and probably you who maybe register and vote, want some nontrivial say in who their organization nominates for office instead of leaving it entirely up to anyone and everyone who feels like offering a vote, including many people who don't even pretend to even be supporters of the party. But then I think the whole idea of primaries is wrong and bad.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

I think I failed to add another video link where DWS says that the SD's exist to maximize and the ability of real people to participate in the convention. And something about how diverse the SD's are. (end paraphrase)

Rachel's response to this was to say that the above answer was the best that she has ever heard as to why SD's exist.

It irked me. DWS also said that she wasn't supporting either candidate at this time which made me guffaw.
posted by futz at 9:07 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

Robert Reich endorses Bernie Sanders
posted by futz at 9:49 PM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]

Screw it, I amend the War of the Five POTUS to include another faction: Ted Cruz loyalist remnants of the Tea Party embrace the eschaton. So Dems are split in two, GOP is in three, Bloomberg runs, and the Gary Johnson-John McAfee joint unity Libertarian ticket proves to be surprisingly popular in some states and segments.

Two words: Jesse Ventura.
posted by mikelieman at 11:31 PM on February 26, 2016

Support grows for Sanders in Indian Country.
posted by Rumple at 8:38 AM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

Bernie Sanders is right: Bill Clinton’s welfare law doubled extreme poverty
posted by futz at 12:39 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

Anthropologist Says Trump and Alpha Male Chimp Play the Same Political Game
posted by futz at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2016

So what's the over under on Clinton's win in SC today? I'd say... 25 points?
posted by Justinian at 2:44 PM on February 27, 2016

The current RCP polling average puts Clinton at +27.5.
posted by octothorpe at 2:50 PM on February 27, 2016

NBC is projecting what they classify as an overwhelming victory for Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton won older black voters 96-3. Uh.
posted by Justinian at 4:29 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

How Hillary Clinton Found Religion in South Carolina

Introducing the former first lady at a crowded black church in Florence on Thursday, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker mentioned "faith" 16 times in the final 90 seconds of his speech. Clinton picked up right where he left off. "I couldn't help but think about the many, many hours of my life that I have spent in a church like this one," she said.

"Somebody once asked me a long time ago when my husband was president if I was a praying person," she added, drawing a murmur from the crowd. "I said, 'Well, I am, but if you've ever lived in the White House you know you have to be—there's just no alternative to it.'" That got some laughs.

"And I think our country right now needs faithfulness, doesn't it?" said Clinton.

"Yes it does!" shouted an audience member.

posted by audi alteram partem at 4:30 PM on February 27, 2016

Well I guess the election will be two people who plainly don't give a shit about religion but pretend to competing against each other.
posted by Artw at 4:32 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

Apparently Obama only took 73% of that demo (black voters over 65) in the 2008 primary, per MSNBC.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:36 PM on February 27, 2016

It looks to me like the Democratic primary will effectively be over on Tuesday. Sanders can and will (and probably should) continue past that but it will be in a push to keep Clinton from tacking too far towards the center.
posted by Justinian at 4:37 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

For better or worse, sort of feels like that, yes.
posted by Artw at 4:41 PM on February 27, 2016

Hopefully (and I say this as a deeply committed Christian) that means both candidates don't have to come down with an acute case of religion, it's cringeworthy, kind of offensive and not healthy for a secular republic.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:44 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton has said some pretty sincere things about her faith in the past.
posted by stoneandstar at 4:51 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]

She's generally pretty quiet about it, but that's how I'd prefer my religious political candidates to be.
posted by stoneandstar at 4:52 PM on February 27, 2016 [7 favorites]

candidates don't have to come down with an acute case of religion

If a candidate want to talk about their religion, fine. I mean, we know it's only one kind of religion where that's really going to be welcome, but I'm not going to waste my breath complaining about that particular hypocrisy. I will object to the idea that the "nation" needs religion. We are, e pluribus unum, a people of many religions and of no religion. If Democrats want broad-based support, supporting secular government and pluralistic culture would help.
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:53 PM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]

secular republic

That one is sort of like the Supreme Court not being political.
posted by Artw at 4:59 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well we may have a rather odious informal requirement for personal religiosity in our candidates for high office, but we do a pretty good job at building firewalls between public funds and sectarian purposes, even compared to lots of other Western countries.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:03 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Artw, I can understand if you hate organized religion or politicians who let their religious beliefs be justification for hating people, but when you accuse a woman who grew up in the Methodist Church where her mother taught Sunday School, has attended Glide Memorial Methodist Church in S.F.a couple times when she and Bill C. lived here, as well as when they visited, went to church during her years in Arkansas and Washington, went to congressional prayer meetings, and basically has been there for her church at all kinds of events of not giving a shit about religion, you're being a real jerk.

It may not be the most obvious aspect of her life or her influences, but she is certainly is far more influenced by her religious upbringing than Donald Trump.
posted by markkraft at 5:10 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

With a third of the vote in Clinton is up by over 50 points. That's massive.
posted by Justinian at 5:10 PM on February 27, 2016

From the exit polls, Clinton is just crushing it in virtually every category -- men, women, black, white, low income, high income, low education, high education, married, single, religious, non-religious. The only sub-categories that Sanders has an edge are white men and age 18 to 24. Clinton wins age 25 and up. It seems like Bernie Bros really is a thing, at least in South Carolina.
posted by JackFlash at 5:14 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976, unfortunately. None of those matter to a general election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:16 PM on February 27, 2016

"I will object to the idea that the "nation" needs religion."

Maybe if you dealt with the kind of systematic oppression that blacks have had to deal with in South Carolina for centuries, you would be in a much better position to lecture them on whether they need *some* faith and some hope in their life in order to deal with or avoid the kind of traps, addictions, and psychological scarring so prevalent in their lives, and actually get through their lives with kindness, dignity, and honorable intent.

Socialism doesn't fix everything.
posted by markkraft at 5:16 PM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]

Maybe if you dealt with the kind of systematic oppression that blacks have had to deal with in South Carolina for centuries, you would be in a much better position to lecture them

I'm not lecturing them. I objected to Clinton's claim: "I think our country right now needs faithfulness."
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]

That's a bit different to having an informal religious test for office but... yeah, I agree with you markkraft.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2016

"From the exit polls, Clinton is just crushing it in virtually every category -- men, women, black, white, low income, high income, low education, high education, married, single, religious, non-religious."

... and millennials.
posted by markkraft at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2016

Again, since South Carolina isn't going to give her electoral votes, and the turnout was massively low, I don't think there's any reason to analyze this result. Wait until Tuesday.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:22 PM on February 27, 2016

Also, I welcome an America where different groups address the issues facing them drawing on their various traditions and strengths. This is what I mean when I refer to "pluralism." Though no community is homogeneous. Black Americans have fought racism from a Christian perspective just as they have fought it from a Humanist perspective.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:22 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

Speaking of Hillary and religion. This is something that MotherJones wrote about her years ago in 2007:
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."
posted by yertledaturtle at 5:23 PM on February 27, 2016

"I will object to the idea that the "nation" needs religion."

I don't think this is what she was saying-- she was referring to prayer in trying times, and the tradition of faith (liberation theology and social gospel, at least where they overlap) relevant here is different from the mainstream "American NEEDS Jesus!" stuff.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:25 PM on February 27, 2016

Also, regardless of the likelihood of South Carolina going Democrat and the reality of electoral votes, it's a needed corrective to the idea that the country is essentially Iowa and New Hampshire and millenials on Twitter.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:27 PM on February 27, 2016

Black Americans have fought racism from a Christian perspective just as they have fought it from a Humanist perspective.

Yes, and the erasure that happens hurts people from every perspective. The sort of desectarianized protestantism that passes for civil religion is just deadening to a genuine, respectful conversation about moral issues in a diverse society.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:30 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976, unfortunately. None of those matter to a general election.

Again, since South Carolina isn't going to give her electoral votes, and the turnout was massively low, I don't think there's any reason to analyze this result. Wait until Tuesday.

Repeated for emphasis, and not because I support one candidate over another in this primary; it's because how SC votes really is pretty inconsequential for a Democrat. The state will go red in November.

she is certainly is far more influenced by her religious upbringing than Donald Trump.

Which is one of the reasons I do not like her as a candidate for president. As yertledaturtle pointed out above, Clinton is actually deeply religious.

it's a needed corrective to the idea that the country is essentially Iowa and New Hampshire and millenials on Twitter.

Of course, but how people in southern states vote has been inconsequential for a Democrat for a long, long time. (Florida excepted, but Florida isn't really 'the South'.)
posted by LooseFilter at 5:30 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]

Of course, but how people in southern states vote has been inconsequential for a Democrat for a long, long time.

Except this is exactly the path Bill Clinton took. Lose Iowa, lose New Hampshire, clean up through the south.
posted by Justinian at 5:32 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Again, since South Carolina isn't going to give her electoral votes, and the turnout was massively low..."

Wrong.

"exit poll numbers suggest the black share of the electorate could hit a new record — about 6 in 10 voters in Saturday's primary. That would exceed even the percentage in 2008, when the eventual first black president was on the ballot. That record turnout comes after a South Carolina campaign that was focused intently on wooing black voters — even more so than in 2008. The combination of those two things mean black voters just asserted themselves as a real force in 2016."

" Turnout among young voters appears to be about the same as it was in the state in 2008"
... which was a recordsetting year for South Carolina Democrats.

In truth, this is *really* good news for Democratic turnout, in a contest where the outcome was already pretty obvious. After months of GOP chatter about how the Democrats would be incapable of getting black voters to turn out, post-Obama, this pretty clearly shows how wrong they were. If anything, all the overt efforts they have made nationwide to make voting more difficult has helped galvanize the GOTV efforts.
posted by markkraft at 5:34 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

If that holds, it's great news. Democrats win when people vote.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:36 PM on February 27, 2016 [5 favorites]

Whelp, hope you guys like president Trump.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:37 PM on February 27, 2016

she was referring to prayer in trying times, and the tradition of faith (liberation theology and social gospel, at least where they overlap) relevant here is different from the mainstream "American NEEDS Jesus!" stuff.

Yes, there's a difference in those faith traditions.

I disagree that Clinton was only referring to her personal religious practice when she said, "I think our country right now needs faithfulness," and even if that's what she meant, the phrasing is unfortunate given the treatment of religious and nonreligious minorities in the US. But I'm going to end my part in this line at argument at this point.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:38 PM on February 27, 2016

Except this is exactly the path Bill Clinton took.

Bill Clinton also needed a third party candidate to pull lots of votes in both elections to win--remember, he won both times with less than 50% of the popular vote. Tuesday will tell us where things are in the Democratic primary in a substantial way (and I expect it to go Hillary Clinton's way, by and large). The only salient information coming out of SC currently is very encouraging turnout numbers.

Whelp, hope you guys like president Trump.

I, like our president, have more faith in the American people than this. If not, I will have a very difficult emotional reckoning about the country I actually live in, as opposed to the country I think I live in. But fatalism like this is foolish at this point, and not supported by the evidence.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:41 PM on February 27, 2016 [6 favorites]

I would not like President Trump, but thank you for your well wishes.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on February 27, 2016 [6 favorites]

Following up on my point above, if Hillary is following Bill's strategy from 1992, I hope she's praying for a third-party candidate: Bill won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:45 PM on February 27, 2016

Clinton is religious but has also been associated with a social gospel tradition, not exactly the Bible thumping type.

I'm not saying I'm going to be waiting with bated breath for South Carolina to flip blue, but all I've heard so far is about the "enthusiasm" factor for Bernie, when actually millennials aren't mobilizing (voting-wise) any more than they did for Obama (slightly less so), and it seems that in South Carolina black voters are actually more mobilized than in 2008. The nebulous enthusiasm factor has favored Hillary.

I disagree that Clinton was only referring to her personal religious practice

I'm not saying she was referring only to her personal religious practice, just that the concept of "faithfulness" (vs. religious faith, which are different concepts) is not a particularly "Christian" language choice, and I think it was meant to have a more generic reference. Perseverance, linked linguistically (for a Christian) to faith, and the concept of a God who will help you through, but since it comes out of a tradition of Christians faced with real social adversity (not imaginary spiritual adversity), it means something about a solidarity and perseverance in the face of difficulty (which is, of course, a political message). I highly doubt Clinton would say anything like "America needs more Christian faith," not just because it's a bad message but because I don't think she thinks in those terms... but maybe.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:46 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I think our country right now needs faithfulness" -- yeah, that's not an appropriate comment for a politician to make.

It's the Kim Davis thing again. You're free to associate with whomever (or not) in your personal life, but when you're on the clock as a civil servant you need to apply the law without personal favor or antipathy.

There is some level of distinction in that at the level of policy-making, you're dealing with value judgments -- do we invest in schools or prisons; how should immigration policy be handled; etc. but I think an elected official can bring their moral perspective to the policy table while at the same time recognizing that there needs to be a consensus on difficult issues.

The issue is trickier than we usually assume. The benefit of having a state ideology or theology is that there are legally established moral principles to guide decision making. We don't have that here (nor, to be clear, do I think we should). But it creates an ambiguity, a grey area that if unexamined will inevitably lead to the unspoken dominance of the moral values of the majority sect (in the cause of the US, Protestant Christianity).
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:48 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sorry to sidetrack about the faithfulness thing, it's just interesting to me to see how Clinton relates to Christian voters when she does talk about religion, because it feels so personal and genuine to me in a way that really conflicts with the idea of Clinton being impersonal and soulless. (I mean, when it comes to optics.) It's also interesting to see a light shone on the kind of social gospel and liberation Christianity that is usually ignored in recent American political contests.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:48 PM on February 27, 2016 [4 favorites]

Less than a third of Republicans voted for Trump in S.C.

Compare this to 2008, when Mitt Romney won 20% more of the GOP vote in the Republican primaries there.

In both 2008 and 2012, the margin of victory in South Carolina for the Republicans was about 10%. This indicates that the demographics are actually moving to the left by a point or two, as turnout was down in 2012 for the Democrats. Presumably, there has been additional shifting to the left since then.

So, if Trump goes against Clinton and gets nailed in the debates, or traditional Republicans decide that they are better off with Clinton than turning the Party over to Trump, or a white male third-party candidate gets in the race... South Carolina will be in play.
posted by markkraft at 5:49 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Looks like the final tally will be Clinton by between 45 and 50.
posted by Justinian at 5:51 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sorry to sidetrack about the faithfulness thing

No, I think it's actually a telling thing. Because yeah, the bare meaning of the sentence is nonsectarian in nature. But of course, knowing the US context, we naturally assume that she's not talking about submitting to the authority of the Pope, or sharia law, or whatever. Which means that she doesn't actually get asked about her specific faith, and how her beliefs inform her public values and policy priorities. Which is important to understand!
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:57 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

"the concept of "faithfulness" (vs. religious faith, which are different concepts) is not a particularly "Christian" language choice, and I think it was meant to have a more generic reference."

That was how I read it. This is a very cynical, fearful era, and cynicism and fear generally helps the GOP, not the Democrats. Clinton is quite skilled at speaking to faith in its own terms, but also reaches out to the average voter, who sometimes needs to be reminded that not all is hopeless.

The truth of S.C. is that quite a few people came out to vote, not out of cynicism, but out of tempered hope and optimism. They can see that despite being in a traditionally conservative state, change for the better has occurred, and that when they vote, they win.
posted by markkraft at 6:00 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

markkraft, the thing is that I don't think we can directly correlate primary victory margins with total party turnout like that. We'd also need to know what percentage of non-Hillary and non-Trump voters in their respective primaries end up turning out for the party's nominee, and what less-strongly-attached voters (who didn't turn out for the primary but will for the general) think; their proportions won't necessarily be the same as the base primary voters.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

That's true; I remember a question about her faith during one of the Dem town halls (it didn't get terribly specific, but it was quite personal). I do kind of feel, though, that her faith is simply not very interesting to people because it's not one of the juicy ones. Her public values and policy priorities may be shaped by her Christianity, but if so, it's not a Christianity that most people would recognize (i.e., the cynical, white supremacist GOP kind). If it has, it's a Christianity that believes in social progress.

Also, I don't need to know the details of someone's personal faith to know whether their public opinions and statements are fucked or not, so the personal details of their faith can remain quiet and personal, for all I care.

Clinton is quite skilled at speaking to faith in its own terms, but also reaches out to the average voter, who sometimes needs to be reminded that not all is hopeless

This, very much-- when she talks about faith it's in terms of social overcoming and progress. A belief that the political is personal and part of a struggle, for freedom and equality.
posted by stoneandstar at 6:03 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

But I agree with you that if there are three major candidates, SC is in play. In fact I would bet that Southern states are going to be more likely to go Democratic than some of the relatively more liberal Midwestern states in that scenario, for the simple reason that the Democratic Party in those states is highly African-American and those voters are going to stay solidly Democratic.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:04 PM on February 27, 2016

" I don't think we can directly correlate primary victory margins with total party turnout like that"

Admittedly, a lot of Republicans will rally behind Trump... but Romney clearly had some serious advantages over Trump at this point, as far as organization and enthusiasm in that state.

This is a particularly divisive year for Republicans. And the thing is, I am not the one directly seeing this and saying it... Republicans are. They are the ones writing practically every day about how they *MUST* find ways to stop Trump, or how they might have to sit out this election, unite behind a candidate like Bloomberg, etc.

Obviously, we don't know how this will play out, but it is precisely because of that fact that we can safely say that South Carolina could be in play this year.
posted by markkraft at 6:07 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sorry about being so glib earlier. My best guess as to the outcome of the race remains the same: President Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying it's time to go all ashes and sackcloth quite yet. Trump v. Clinton was the general election matchup I thought most likely since the first GOP debate in August. But I also warned that I thought that Trump was electable in the general. As a Torontonian, he really does remind me of Rob Ford. People dismissed him as a joke right up until the point where he won. He won a majority of the non-white vote despite being unable to go a week without saying something horribly racist on camera. He won because he was able to effectively harness populist anger while running against the anointed successor of the outgoing mayor. He won because lots of poorer people felt that the political establishment was disconnected from them and was ignoring their concerns.

I see the same dynamic happening here. I still think, despite his weak showing here, that Bernie Sanders is the better candidate to defeat Trump, and the polling bears this out. The polling also suggests that Hillary will win against him, but the margin is much tighter and it makes me worry that this narrative will play out. I really hope I am wrong.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:04 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, this race is effectively over. Between this crushing win tonight and likely crushing wins on Super Tuesday and it's basically over for Sanders.
posted by vuron at 7:08 PM on February 27, 2016

Sanders, unfortunately, might be done, but was the best chance of defeating Trump. The ire for Clinton is enormous in both parties.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

I remain unconvinced of that. There is mountains of opposition research waiting to come out against Trump.

Combined with his awful performance with Latino voters and it's hard not to see Clinton being a very successful candidate.
posted by vuron at 7:14 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm starting to feel like while there may be a lot of people who hate Clinton, they really tend to overestimate how much everybody else hates Clinton.

She got 30,000 more votes than Trump in SC.
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:24 PM on February 27, 2016 [10 favorites]

With 99% reporting:
Hillary Clinton 270,081 73.6%
Bernie Sanders 95,371 25.8%

About a 47.8% victory.

That comes out to 39 delegates for Clinton in South Carolina, and 14 to Sanders.
Total delegate numbers according to AP are 544 Clinton to 85 Sanders, with 2,383 needed for nomination.

South Carolina also puts Clinton ahead in the raw vote margin, for those interested, giving her a popular vote lead of about 120,000. This excludes the results in Iowa and Nevada, which are caucus states where only state delegates, not the popular vote, are tallied.

"I still think, despite his weak showing here, that Bernie Sanders is the better candidate to defeat Trump, and the polling bears this out."

"Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign."

- Nate Silver
posted by markkraft at 7:26 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

Obviously, we don't know how this will play out, but it is precisely because of that fact that we can safely say that South Carolina could be in play this year.

You must be joking. Democratic turnout was down 30% in SC this year. 360k people voted for Democrats in SC vs 740k for Republicans.
posted by dialetheia at 7:28 PM on February 27, 2016 [10 favorites]

"Democratic turnout was down 30% in SC this year."

The GOP contest was closer and more divisive, whereas a lot of Democrats in S.C. were probably less aware and less motivated to vote, because from their perspective, it wasn't close. Over 2/3rds in exit polling also reported not being actually contacted by any of the candidates to go out and vote, so it's quite possible that having only two candidates helped reduce that as well.

Despite that, Clinton appears to be only about 3% off of Obama's vote total in 2008.
posted by markkraft at 7:37 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

You must be joking. Democratic turnout was down 30% in SC this year. 360k people voted for Democrats in SC vs 740k for Republicans.

That's pretty concerning.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:37 PM on February 27, 2016

Furthermore, white turnout was down almost 50% in SC from 2008 (which is where I'd expect to see that anti-HRC vote) - we went from 239k white voters in 2008 to 125k white voters in 2016, that's why the Black share of the electorate looks so much higher even though Black turnout was also down by ~70k.

I am very concerned about how many of those 2008 Democratic voters might have switched to vote for Trump.
posted by dialetheia at 7:39 PM on February 27, 2016 [9 favorites]

SC is safely red in November but Democrats should advertise in NC some as it's becoming more and more like Virginia and could quite easily be the new battleground state over the next few elections.

Primary turnout numbers especially when the Republican and Democratic primaries are different days of the week seems like they would have absolutely no predictive value whatsoever.

I think this is going to put a major break on Sanders fundraising moving forward as people are willing to give money when they think that the payoff is possible (albeit a bit of a long shot) but each loss by Sanders increases the burden on him significantly and he simply can't maintain the burnrate that he's been averaging.

He spent a huge sum of money to put NV in play and it didn't work out and then he was basically forced to pull out of SC allowing Hillary to run up the score. I figure he'll win a couple of state on Super Tuesday but the polling is looking horrific for him and it really doesn't get better until after March 15th and by that point in time Hillary could effectively have an insurmountable lead in regards to delegates.
posted by vuron at 7:59 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]

You must be joking. Democratic turnout was down 30% in SC this year. 360k people voted for Democrats in SC vs 740k for Republicans.

That's pretty concerning.

I agree, it's very worrisome. Overall, far more voters are turning out for Republican primaries/caucuses than Democratic ones, and that makes me worried for the general election, no matter what match-ups occur. I do think that the R primary being so contested, with so many candidates, has increased turnout regardless of other factors; it just seems like the degree of difference between the R and D turnout is large enough to give any reasonable person pause.

I stand by my earlier assertions in this thread, that--despite that I think Clinton will win the nomination--Sanders is the stronger candidate in the general, with far more ability to entice voters who don't normally vote D to do so. I don't think that Clinton has ever run a strong campaign, and has demonstrated little acumen or skill in GOTV efforts thus far, now or in 2008. I don't think Trump will win, but I also don't think that's a given.
posted by LooseFilter at 8:03 PM on February 27, 2016 [7 favorites]

secular republic

"In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office..."
posted by homunculus at 8:10 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

None of those would stand up to challenge were they ever actually enforced.
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

"In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office..."

Not a one of which would hold up in court, and all adopted before 1900 except NC's (and the NC AG's office has had a standing opinion since 1972 that the provision is unconstitutional and can't be enforced).

Not that they shouldn't fix them, just that nobody should get the impression that it's remotely enforceable.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:19 PM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

I can't imagine how this derail is salient to the thread. (And the religious litmus test is so clearly still in effect, formally or otherwise, that Donald Effing Trump is waving a bible around.)
posted by LooseFilter at 8:23 PM on February 27, 2016

Sanders is the stronger candidate in the general, with far more ability to entice voters who don't normally vote D to do so.

But even with Sanders as a candidate in the Democratic primary, where the most enthusiastic voters would participate in, turnout is down.

But at the same time, I'm not entirely unconvinced that low primary turnout automatically spells less turnout in the general. There's at least one article saying low turnout is not predictive of Democratic turnout in the general election.
posted by FJT at 8:33 PM on February 27, 2016

(An additional thing to consider about D turnout thus far, is that caucuses are difficult for a lot of people--especially young adults, many of whom have shift work--to make time for. For me, no patterns will emerge with any definitiveness until Tuesday.)
posted by LooseFilter at 9:27 PM on February 27, 2016 [2 favorites]

MeFi's own owillis shows you how not to take a loss.
posted by markkraft at 12:45 AM on February 28, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think this is going to put a major break on Sanders fundraising moving forward as people are willing to give money when they think that the payoff is possible (albeit a bit of a long shot) but each loss by Sanders increases the burden on him significantly and he simply can't maintain the burnrate that he's been averaging.

Feel the burn!
posted by sour cream at 4:06 AM on February 28, 2016

Total delegate numbers according to AP are 544 Clinton to 85 Sanders, with 2,383 needed for nomination.

More like 80 to 60. Including unpledged superdelegates at this point only serves one purpose: to deceitfully suggest that the Sanders campaign is hopeless. Shame on folks who do this.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:20 AM on February 28, 2016 [21 favorites]

I don't think that Clinton has ever run a strong campaign, and has demonstrated little acumen or skill in GOTV efforts thus far, now or in 2008

Well, I think that GOTV = Sanders Votes, so the Clinton Campaign and her tacit supporters in the establishment aren't focused on that. So the DNC isn't going to step up their game right now.

I also think the Sanders campaign is taking a hit because while GOVT is important, it's not perceived as *the* priority.

I stick by my original predictions. None of this matters at all because the untrustworthy tabulators will still emit the pre-planned results.

Just in case it does, though I'm still voting for the most-left candidate who represents my interest. Like Pascal's Wager, but with with 4 years of purgatory on the table -- Max....
posted by mikelieman at 6:43 AM on February 28, 2016

Sorta looks like BLM targeted the wrong Dem candidate way back when. Why waste the effort on the loser, the one with no support from the community, which support is decisive, when the other is counting on it, and can do something with it after?

I hope you realize how condescending that sounds as well as a misguided search for blame as to election outcome.

Or as "MeFi's own owillis shows you how not to take a loss."
posted by JackFlash at 7:39 AM on February 28, 2016 [7 favorites]

Yeah, it would have been better all the way around not to have written that. Clearly BLM's efforts have been effective, and have had a positive influence on the Dem side of the race, with both candidates making BLM issues and language central to their own messaging.

My comment was more about me marveling at the depth of the support from POC voters for HRC relative to Sanders in the SC results and wondering what that might mean tactically or whatever.

Nonetheless, it was a dumb thing to have written.
posted by notyou at 8:01 AM on February 28, 2016

DNC vice-chair Tulsi Gabbard resigns to endorse Bernie Sanders.

Huh, not sure what to make of that. It seems to me that to resign one's position to endorse like this would be a strategic move (at this point in the primary), so what does she coming that leads her to think her resignation and support of Sanders could matter? Or has she just had enough of DWS and wants to draw attention to the dysfunction of the DNC while people might still pay attention? Or is it genuinely motivated only by conscience?

Also, Tulsi Gabbard is a rather impressive person:

Tulsi Gabbard is one of the first two female combat veterans to serve as a member of the US Congress. An advocate for environmental policy, Gabbard first ran for the Hawaii state legislature in 2002, where at 21 she became the youngest person ever to serve in that body.

In 2003, she joined the Hawaii National Guard, and a year later, she voluntarily deployed to Iraq, eventually serving two tours of combat duty in the Middle East. She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and she continues to serve as a Captain in the Hawaii National Guard's 29th Brigade Combat Team.
Between her two tours of duty, Gabbard worked in the US Senate as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel Akaka, where she advised on energy independence, homeland security, the environment, and veterans’ affairs. In 2010, she was elected to the Honolulu City Council, where she served as Chair of the Safety, Economic Development, and Government Affairs committee and Vice Chair of the Budget committee.

In 2012, Gabbard was elected to the US Congress, where she has emerged as a leader on veterans’ issues and a voice for a younger generation of solutions-oriented political leaders. The first piece of legislation she introduced in the House, the Helping Heroes Fly Act, which streamlines airport security screenings for injured and disabled veterans, was enacted with bipartisan support.

posted by LooseFilter at 8:37 AM on February 28, 2016 [14 favorites]

Gabbard is my rep and she just earned my vote today.

She and DWS have been at odds for a while - she argued for more debates back in October and then was disinvited from the first debate as a result.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:03 AM on February 28, 2016 [8 favorites]

Now if only Debbie Wasserman Shultz would resign and endorse Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:05 AM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]

[…] what does she coming that leads her to think her resignation and support of Sanders could matter? Or has she just had enough of DWS and wants to draw attention to the dysfunction of the DNC while people might still pay attention? Or is it genuinely motivated only by conscience?

If you want to view it as a cynic she's young, attractive, and ambitious, and she sees the writing on the wall as to the future of the party. The demographics are no longer in favor of another white establishment democrat.

Personally, I think she was just done with the DNC.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:08 AM on February 28, 2016

The Curious Islamophobic Politics of Dem Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard. She has some pretty unpleasant political bedfellows.
posted by bardophile at 11:17 AM on February 28, 2016 [7 favorites]

She seems nice.
posted by maudlin at 11:26 AM on February 28, 2016

She seems nice.

Very Vice-Presidential, I would add..
posted by mikelieman at 11:46 AM on February 28, 2016

Oh, Tulsi Gabbard seems nice, in a somewhat nepotistic, homophobic, cult-y, neocon-friendly, American exceptionalist, so what if young LGBT kids are being bullied kinda way.
posted by markkraft at 1:33 PM on February 28, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, she and Clinton do have a lot in common.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:53 PM on February 28, 2016 [16 favorites]

Oh, you.
posted by Justinian at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, it would have been better all the way around not to have written that.

Fair enough. Things get particularly heated in a primary contest because the disagreements tend to be more intense within your own family and party allies because they are so close and mean so much to you. Nothing out of the ordinary.
posted by JackFlash at 3:42 PM on February 28, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders Campaign Says It Raised $36 Million in February
posted by futz at 12:36 PM on February 29, 2016

Cornel West lashes out at Civil Rights icons after Bernie Sanders suffers resounding South Carolina defeat: "There's no doubt that the great John Lewis of 50 years ago is different than the John Lewis today"

Cornel West told Vice News last week that he feared many of Clinton’s most prominent African-American supporters had lost their way. The vocal Sanders supporter singled out Congressmen John Lewis and Jim Clyburn repeatedly.

“There’s no doubt that the great John Lewis of 50 years ago is different than the John Lewis today,” West asserted. “He’s my brother. I love him, I respect his personhood, but there’s no doubt he’s gone from a high moment of Martin Luther King-like struggle to now [a] neoliberal politician in a system that is characterized more and more by legalized bribery and normalized corruption. That’s what big money does to politics. And the Clinton machine is an example of that.”
posted by futz at 12:49 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

That strikes me as a pretty personal and shitty thing to say, even if right. That Cornel West is saying it is pretty rich.

(I also thought it was shitty of Lewis to make his remarks questioning Sanders' civil rights bona fides.)
posted by OmieWise at 1:03 PM on February 29, 2016

Sanders Campaign Says It Raised $36 Million in February

And it looks like they're on track to hit $40 million by the end of today.
posted by dialetheia at 1:30 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

That's insane. They were at 36.2 or something this morning.
posted by localhuman at 1:40 PM on February 29, 2016

Yeah, the pace is amazing. They've hit $39 million in February as of right now, should easily hit $40m by the end of the day (just for comparison, they stunned everyone by raising just $20 million in January).
posted by dialetheia at 2:28 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Jesse Ventura: I’ll Run for President If Bernie Loses

No matter what the outcome is on Super Tuesday and beyond, Ventura seemed excited to get back into politics, hoping to run alongside former New Mexico governor and libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a personal friend.
posted by futz at 3:39 PM on February 29, 2016

Jesse Ventura is going to help Trump, and thinks that Bernie and Trump are ripping him off? What an egotistical, weak-minded ass. He'd be like President Camacho, only without the leadership and sense of higher purpose. What he wouldn't do is meet the fairly high requirements for the debates, though... or even get on the ballot in all 50 states, unless he got in with a third party.

FiveThirtyEight released their Super Tuesday preview. It looks pretty brutal for Sanders, with "must win" states that are currently trending to Clinton. Sanders could raise $100M for February, for all the good it would do him, if the polls are even remotely accurate.
posted by markkraft at 4:02 PM on February 29, 2016

FiveThirtyEight released their Super Tuesday preview. It looks pretty brutal for Sanders, with "must win" states that are currently trending to Clinton. Sanders could raise $100M for February, for all the good it would do him, if the polls are even remotely accurate.

Do you see the big picture at all? Raising that kind of money represents something significant.

Also, with all due respect and with the knowledge that I might be misinterpreting you. Your style of argumentation seems a bit condescending.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:16 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Sanders could raise $100M for February, for all the good it would do him

Looks like the campaign is going to pull $40 million from small donors for February but I guess even when people put their money where their mouths are it's still just a noisy clamor at the base of the crystal tower.

All these people are going to find something else to care about if Clinton takes the reigns; it sure as shit won't be the Democratic party. We know the party doesn't need a dime from us commoners anyway, except to depress their average donation for propaganda.

I wonder what the establishment is going to take away from this. That grassroots might be a threat? Will they double down on mechanisms of defense like super delegates? Will they make any noxious plays at the money? "Hello Fellow Kids"

I don't expect they'll even remotely comprehend why so many people spent so much of their hard earned money on Sanders. Seems it's going to get a lot uglier before things turn in the direction of Bernie's campaign again.

(Or....?)
posted by an animate objects at 4:22 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders is in it until the convention no matter what happens tomorrow, and those funds will give him the capacity to keep fighting and try to beat her in future states (most after March 15 favor him) while continuing to build a real grassroots wing within the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, for her funding, Clinton is counting on huge lobbyist free-for-all fundraisers now that the DNC changed Obama's rules to allow lobbyist contributions so that she could take money from any big-money lobbyist donor. She's even getting $2700 from Rupert Murdoch! Let's see, who else's money is she taking instead of the grassroots: she raised a bunch of money from fracking advocates, she has the lead with lobbyist bundlers among all candidates, she had to cancel some of her financial services fundraisers because she was already under fire for those mysterious transcripts... and here are some of the lovely people who gather up all that corporate money for her. The significance of Sanders' grassroots fundraising is that he doesn't have to go plead with wealthy patrons for money when he's running low.

But I'm sure none of that has anything to do with the way she went back on her word to her union supporters about trade deals, lobbying behind the scenes in favor of trade deals she pledged to oppose, which I'm sure isn't a preview of her "opposition" to TPP, or how a significant number of her "superdelegates" are corporate lobbyists for causes that Democratic voters oppose (Keystone XL, big pharma, health insurers who undermined Obamacare, for-profit colleges, companies that cause and profit from the overprescription of opioids, companies that weaken food regulations). I guess at least she gave back all that private prison cash, even if she's still taking money from their top lobbyist bundlers!

Go ahead and make fun of Sanders' grassroots support. I would prefer to give my money to someone who will represent me instead of someone who represents her wealthy donors.
posted by dialetheia at 4:39 PM on February 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

"Raising that kind of money represents something significant."

How many electoral votes does it earn him? I say this, because Ron Paul's supporters made the same argument once.

As David Plouffe said the other day...
"For those not named Trump or Clinton, symbolic wins or strong seconds are worthless from here on out. You must win more states AND delegates."

Your "represents something significant" is all symbolism at this point, precisely because you aren't paying attention to the big picture. This is a contest for delegates.

I am all in favor of a progressive, Democratic future... but I am *so* looking forward to pasty white states like Vermont no longer being considered the place to find ideologically pure, "independent minded" litmus-test passing white candidates, who have no real ties or investment in assisting minority communities. I really liked Dean, but had he not "yaargh"'ed, he probably would've stumbled among minority voters. (Arguably, Kerry did too.)

Probably the best analysis of the current political situation is Steve Phillips' "Brown is the New White", which basically argues that there already is a progressive majority... but you can't expect to have it led by a white guy from New England who, despite saying many of the right things, not only hasn't done anything for minorities, but has, in fact, voted against their interests repeatedly, on matters of immigration and attempts to keep guns out of their neighborhoods.

Most black and latino voters are pragmatic, because the cost of losing for them is invariably a lot higher than the cost of losing for white voters. And if you want to know why Sanders lost in Nevada and South Carolina, and is on the verge of huge losses throughout much of the South, and in states like Michigan, Barack Obama nicely summarized those reasons in the past.

Seriously, want a progressive? Wonderful. Make them a Democrat, with a record of helping people of color, and, ideally, have them either be a minority or a leader from a state with *lots* of diversity. Don't think you can walk into minority communities with little more than an ideology and a PR team, because minority voters can't be taken for granted anymore.
posted by markkraft at 4:48 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am all in favor of a progressive, Democratic future... but I am *so* looking forward to pasty white states like Vermont no longer being considered the place to find ideologically pure, "independent minded" litmus-test passing white candidates, who have no real ties or investment in assisting minority communities.

. but you can't expect to have it led by a white guy from New England who, despite saying many of the right things, not only hasn't done anything for minorities, but has, in fact, voted against their interests repeatedly, on matters of immigration and attempts to keep guns out of their neighborhoods.

Literally a man who was arrested for fighting segregation you are talking about. Your hyperaggressive partisanship for Hillary is showing again.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:57 PM on February 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

It looks pretty brutal for Sanders, with "must win" states that are currently trending to Clinton.

Doesn't look so brutal to me- the only 'must win' state the forecast says he'll lose is MA, other than that he'll be taking CO,MN,OK, and obviously Vermont.

Dialetheia has expressed my views pretty much 100%, the only thing I would add is that I hope the speech transcripts get leaked sooner rather than in the general, where they'll take HRC down the same way similar things brought down Romney.
posted by localhuman at 4:58 PM on February 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

- Greg Palast: when Congress held emergency meetings about voter suppression in the 2004 election, "Bernie Sanders was the only white guy to show up"
- 20 examples of Bernie Sanders' powerful record on civil rights and racial justice
- Watch Bernie Sanders endorse Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition campaign
- Destroying the myth that Bernie Sanders doesn't address race or racism
- Watch Sanders' 1994 address agsinst the racism and classism involved in "punishment and vengeance" legislation pushed by the Clinton administration
posted by dialetheia at 5:08 PM on February 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

How Hillary Clinton won the battle for the black vote in South Carolina

But Sanders’ past activism wasn’t enough to win voters in South Carolina, said Sellers, whose father, Cleveland Sellers, helped lead the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

“Your talking point to the black community can’t be, you know, ‘I marched with Dr. King.’ … That’s cool. My dad made cheese sandwiches at the March on Washington. What else? Tell me more,” Sellers said. “Like, you have a picture of getting arrested. I thank you so much for your efforts in Chicago, but I mean, all I’ve got to do is go down the street to find a civil rights hero in South Carolina.”

posted by prize bull octorok at 5:17 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Sanders hit $41.5 million already - new goal for midnight is $45m.

Sanders says he's running until all 50 states vote, knocks Clinton for corporate money
Vice News reporter who sued Clinton's State dept for FOIA evasion: 1,800 reasons why the controversy over Clinton's emails is far from over
Sanders on Clinton's Goldman Sachs transcripts in Oklahoma: "This is what I think, if you're going to get paid $200,000 for a speech, it must be a pretty damn good speech,” Sanders said. "And if it’s such a good speech, you gotta release the transcripts. Let everybody see ‘em."
posted by dialetheia at 5:17 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Seems to me like Sanders has plenty of money to get his message out. Which means people are getting a good chance to hear from both sides, and so far have slightly favored Clinton. Money doesn't buy votes, a big differential in money can make it hard for one side to be heard but that doesn't seem to be happening here.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:27 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Literally a man who was arrested for fighting segregation you are talking about. "

Lots of people protested either for civil rights or against the war. Many did both.

Congrats... this puts Sanders into the same category as John Kerry, albeit at a far less senior level, with far less actual connection with the black community during his years in office. And, as I said, one of the failings of Kerry was with his inability to mobilize the black vote.

He couldn't even be bothered to hire a single person of color for his Washinton, D.C. staff, until a local political journalist caught his oversight.
posted by markkraft at 5:29 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Your hyperaggressive partisanship for Hillary is showing again.

You've got to be kidding. In every thread that has Sanders' supporters they are condescending, combative, and nearly immune to the reality based community of delegate math. It's a complete drag. I actually like Sanders' policies and proposals, but the relentless cult-like stumping for Sanders in all of these threads has turned me off so freaking hard I can barely express it.
posted by OmieWise at 5:42 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

From open government nonprofit advocate The Sunlight Foundation: Behind the Clinton campaign: dark money allies
posted by dialetheia at 5:49 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sanders is in it until the convention no matter what happens tomorrow

Is this true? Is this what Sanders has said?
posted by OmieWise at 5:56 PM on February 29, 2016

How Hillary Clinton's State department sold fracking around the world: "Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves."

This new two-part NYT piece about our failed intervention in Libya is great - I'm sure we'll hear a lot about Libya in the general election.
Part 1: 'Smart power': "The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven."
Part 2: A new Libya with very little time left: "The fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to vindicate Hillary Clinton. Then militias refused to disarm, neighbors fanned a civil war, and the Islamic State found refuge."
posted by dialetheia at 5:58 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Is this true? Is this what Sanders has said?

Yes, I linked it just upthread: Sanders says he's running until all 50 states vote, knocks Clinton for corporate money. He's said that since the beginning.
posted by dialetheia at 5:59 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Running until all 50 states vote is not the same as taking it to the convention. The last primary is June 14th in DC is not until July 25th.
posted by octothorpe at 6:02 PM on February 29, 2016

His campaign says the same thing in this story: "He and his team have a plan. They say they’re in this all the way to the Democratic National Convention. Whether for the sake of revolution or actually winning the presidency, here’s how he and his team think they can get there. Despite the Nevada loss, Sanders still has some huge assets: A seemingly infinite supply of small-dollar donations, the Democratic Party’s proportional allocation system of delegates, and a message that is clearly resonating with Democratic primary voters."
posted by dialetheia at 6:02 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Speaking of that supply of small-dollar donations, he just raised $640,000 in ten minutes.
posted by dialetheia at 6:05 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

holy shit.
posted by futz at 6:06 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes, I linked it just upthread: Sanders says he's running until all 50 states vote, knocks Clinton for corporate money. He's said that since the beginning.

Oh, wow, that makes me feel even worse about him and his supporters. He's tearing down the eventual nominee, and he plans to keep doing it. He doesn't care about helping the country.

Sorry, looking back markkraft is actually reporting everything in a totally fair and balanced manner. Which candidate is he supporting again? O'Malley? :P

I didn't say he wasn't partisan, I said the accusation that he's the net partisan one in these threads is ridiculous.
posted by OmieWise at 6:09 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

he just raised $640,000 in ten minutes

That's like 2 Hillary speeches level $$$!
posted by futz at 6:13 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Notwithstanding that I'm a Bernie supporter, I think it could actually be good for him to take it to the convention even if Clinton wins enough delegates, counter to the conventional wisdom (pun intended). It lends legitimacy to the process, gives his supporters a reason to watch the convention, stay involved, see how their votes could potentially shape the party platform. Then, the delegates vote, Clinton wins, Bernie says it's been a great, fair, open process and now we need to come together to beat Trump and win downticket races. The people who would normally check out or consider defecting to a third party might actually stay in the party and vote for Clinton.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:13 PM on February 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

Oh, wow, that makes me feel even worse about him and his supporters. He's tearing down the eventual nominee, and he plans to keep doing it. He doesn't care about helping the country.

I honestly don't understand this line of thinking. Why is he responsible for pointing out how disgusting the current campaign finance system is? Why is the truth so noxious?

If anything, he is helping the country, instead of covering up. Or do you prefer that the influence of big money continue to corrupt the system and produce more and more inequality?
posted by kyp at 6:14 PM on February 29, 2016 [13 favorites]

I agree with kyp; if anything, I find it loathsome that after Super Tuesday candidates are expected to drop out because hey, who cares about the voting preferences of the populace in the remaining 30+ states, amirite? Ugh.
posted by TwoStride at 6:17 PM on February 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

One comment deleted. Folks, let's keep the conversation focused on the candidates, the race, etc -- not on other people in the thread.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:22 PM on February 29, 2016

I'm a Clinton supporter and donor and I support Bernie staying in to the convention. I agree, no need for him to drop out, its worth recognizing all the people who support him and his ideas even if he doesn't win. Then I hope both candidates come together to defeat Trump or whoever, like Clinton and Obama did in 2008.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:25 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yes, I linked it just upthread: Sanders says he's running until all 50 states vote, knocks Clinton for corporate money. He's said that since the beginning.

Oh, wow, that makes me feel even worse about him and his supporters. He's tearing down the eventual nominee, and he plans to keep doing it. He doesn't care about helping the country.

Clinton Vows To Stay in Race To Convention
Sunday, March 30, 2008
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on February 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

That's like 2 Hillary speeches level $$$!

Yeah - nearly 2x the $353,400 donation to the Clinton victory fund from Alice Walton (Walmart heiress) from earlier this week!
posted by dialetheia at 6:29 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

I would feel just as badly about Clinton staying in when she didn't have a path to the nomination.

Look, I get that Sanders' supporters are True Believers, and that nothing less than death or nomination will do for them. But my real concern here is that, contrary to the rhetoric, there are stakes other than whether or not the rhetoric of the campaign challenges the status quo. If Sanders doesn't have a path, and spends his time basically convincing people not to vote for Hillary, then he is not helping the country. Unless, that is, you think a Republican is better for the country.

I'm all for Sanders challenging the status quo, I'm all for him displacing Hillary. I don't think the latter will happen. Not being realistic about the stakes of the alternative is not helpful.
posted by OmieWise at 6:33 PM on February 29, 2016

OmieWise, what a "True Believer" hears when that rhetoric is used is "Hillary Clinton's presidency matters more than the integrity of our democratic process"
posted by an animate objects at 6:37 PM on February 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Clinton Vows To Stay in Race To Convention
Sunday, March 30, 2008

But on June 7th she sent the following email to her supporters: "The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States. Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him."
posted by octothorpe at 6:38 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would feel just as badly about Clinton staying in when she didn't have a path to the nomination.

She stayed in well past when she lost in 2008.

But on June 7th she sent the following email to her supporters: "The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States. Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him."

And Sanders will do the exact same thing. Saying you are in it until the convention is about keeping your supporters motivated while you are still mathematically alive.

Every candidate ever says this stuff. But when Sanders does it his supporters are fanatical true believers who don't care about America I guess?
posted by Drinky Die at 6:43 PM on February 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Obama didn't have an email or corporate speeches (potential) bombshell lurking out in the ether. Sanders would be foolish to exit the race so soon.
posted by futz at 6:44 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

When I actually saw what the Democratic electorate in South Carolina looked like, it wasn't really a huge surprise to me that Hillary was able to run up the score so much. Even ignoring race entirely, compared to Democrats nationwide they skew very moderate (even conservative), very religious, and disproportionately consist of older women. But putting demographics aside, the story that made the most sense to me is that Hillary could speak the language of the Black churches that are by all accounts vital to that contest. Is it really surprising that a committed Methodist adoptive Southerner and moderate would walk all over a Yankee socialist atheist Jew? She could speak their language, and inspire religious leaders in a way Bernie simply cannot and will never be able to. He would probably have done a lot better if he was practising and could use at least the shared experience of organized worship. Instead, you have someone who days before a critical election before one of the most religiously motivated electorates, when pressed to say if he believed in god, refused to say yes.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:45 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Instead, you have someone who days before a critical election before one of the most religiously motivated electorates, when pressed to say if he believed in god, refused to say yes.

Honesty is always a loser trait in politics.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on February 29, 2016 [6 favorites]

Another couple of comments deleted. You've been around here long enough and know how to comment without insulting people in the thread. If you're super annoyed and have a hard time reining it in, take a walk for a little while. We've got a long election season to get through; people need to not be going after each other in here, no matter how much you feel the other guy deserves it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:48 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

"A seemingly infinite supply of small-dollar donations, the Democratic Party’s proportional allocation system of delegates, and a message that is clearly resonating with Democratic primary voters."

Well, I'll grant them the first, though it won't matter any more than it did with Nevada or South Carolina. Proportional allocation of delegates will play decisively against Sanders after big losses on Super Tuesday...

But as for a message clearly resonating with Democratic primary voters, based on the results so far, the projected results, and the fact that the latest Rassmussen national poll taken just before South Carolina but after Nevada, showed a gain for Clinton of five points from their poll a month ago, while the latest CNN national poll, also taken after Nevada but before South Carolina, showed a gain of three points for Clinton from their poll a month prior, with Sanders in the low-to-mid thirty percent range, well.. the evidence suggests Sanders support is weakening.

Lots of prior polls showed that Sanders supporters were less certain in their choice of candidate and more likely to change their mind. This also shows up in the latest CNN poll, which asked Democrats whether they were certain about which candidate they are going to support. The average for Democrats as a whole is that 2/3rds are now certain about their candidate... but when you look at those who are 50+, that percentage goes up to nearly 80%. That translates into a whole lot of people under 50 who are far more uncertain about their vote.

Well, suffice it to say, Sanders did slip after Nevada. He is almost certainly slipping further after South Carolina. He will continue to slip after Super Tuesday. If you actually look at how this is playing out, well... it looks very similar to how Clinton vs. Brown in 1992 might've played out, without any of the other candidates in the race. By the time the race got to the West Coast, even Brown couldn't win over California, or whiter states in the Pacific NW.

All the money in the world won't do a candidate much good if the party they are running for the nomination of doesn't find them to be a credible candidate... and that loud, resonating message is beginning to sound an awful lot like **RON PAUL!**!
posted by markkraft at 6:50 PM on February 29, 2016

futz: "Obama didn't have an email or corporate speeches (potential) bombshell lurking out in the ether. Sanders would be foolish to exit the race so soon."

Did you live through a different 2008 election than I did? Every week there was some new alleged bombshell about Obama that would change everything when it came out. Doesn't anyone remember the Whitey Tape?
posted by octothorpe at 6:51 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

He wasn't dealing with 4 federal investigations.
posted by futz at 6:54 PM on February 29, 2016

Or is it only 3 investigations? I forget.
posted by futz at 6:57 PM on February 29, 2016

"He wasn't dealing with 4 federal investigations."

It sure is a shame when Democrats use misleading GOP talking points, isn't it?!
posted by markkraft at 6:57 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

It sure is a shame that you are trying to equate Sanders with Ron Paul.
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:03 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation.

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server
posted by Drinky Die at 7:03 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

(That link doesn't even confirm that Clinton herself is under investigation, Drinkie.)
posted by markkraft at 7:08 PM on February 29, 2016

This INDICTMENT ANY DAY NOW shit is straight outta /pol/

Come on people
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:15 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

"It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server."

I mean, maybe it's looking into allegations that Bernie Sanders snuck into Hillary Clinton's house and nefariously installed a private email server?
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:18 PM on February 29, 2016

But yes, agreed, the email server thing is not interesting to anyone except for Fox News bots.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:19 PM on February 29, 2016

This INDICTMENT ANY DAY NOW shit is straight outta /pol/

*checks link* No, nope looks like MSNBC. Clintonite language torturing suggesting the investigation about the computer she kept in her home could be about someone or something else is not compelling enough to erase this as a concern when all we are talking about is Sanders maybe staying in just in case.

The possibility he may be the nominee in a just in case scenario is a good reason not to go too hard on the attacks on him too. That doesn't serve any pragmatic purpose.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 PM on February 29, 2016

I don't know what /pol/ is. :/
posted by futz at 7:23 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

For the millionth time, it's not about indictment. I mean, I would just love to hear what y'all would be saying if Sanders or his email server and closest aides had any open FBI investigations whatsoever - it's about trust and electability. The bottom line is that there will be a new story about the email situation every damn week until the general election given Judge Sullivan's recent rulings to require testimony from her aides, who are under investigation, and his signal that he may subpoena her personal emails as well so that they can be sure all public emails have been returned. I don't care who says it's a "right wing smear" - it's going to be an endless distraction in the election. Further, I don't think it's right to evade FOIA laws, as the judge ruled she had when he decided there was due cause to require testimony from Abedin and other aides. Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter with Vice News who uses FOIA a lot in his work, is the one who filed the lawsuit that led to these emails being released. I believe in open government so that the press can do its job, and I personally don't think it's appropriate to sacrifice those principles just because it's somebody on our team.
posted by dialetheia at 7:26 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

So... which Secretaries of State won't they indict?!

A confidential leak from the FBI says that the investigation is now focusing on a few specific individuals.
posted by markkraft at 7:28 PM on February 29, 2016

Alright, people. Grumpy old man talking here. So take this for whatever it's worth (which might not be much.)

There are two dynamics at play in this election cycle; for shorthand, just call them idealist and pragmatist. The ongoing fight within the Democratic party resembles the 1968 campaign in many respects (without the head-knocking.) It's about getting delegates; it's also about how one views the establishment.

There are advocates for both approaches here and instead of bashing each other all the time, perhaps it would be better if we tried to walk a mile in the other person's shoes. So, if some of you are put off by markkraft, who is a strong Clinton advocate, remember this: this is the same guy who helped expose the use of "willy peter" in Iraq. That gets my respect. Period.

The way I see it, this hard fought primary season will ultimately be beneficial to the Democratic party as a whole. So long as the idealists realize that the "revolution" means engaging in process and becoming a force within the party. So long as the pragmatists remember that it's more than simply winning the horse race.

It's all about the ideas and in order for the good ideas to be recognized as such, there must be scrutiny and criticism. You don't have to like everyone in your party but it is definitely in everyone's interest to be able to work together professionally. Look at the Republican party, for crying out loud. Who wants to end up resembling that shitshow?
posted by CincyBlues at 7:28 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

So... which Secretaries of State won't they indict?!

Ahh, the rallying cry for Hillary. "I'm only just as bad as the people who got us into Iraq, no worse!"
posted by Drinky Die at 8:08 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Clinton supporters' derision towards Sanders supporters ("Sanders supporters are not part of the reality based community," "Sanders supporters are like Ron Paul supporters") is precisely what is going to convince many Sanders voters not to turn out in the general. Please stop it.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:46 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

The derision looks pretty evenly shared from my perspective. As we all know, the only thing us liberals oppose more bitterly than a conservative is somebody who only agrees with us 97%.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:51 PM on February 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't know what /pol/ is. :/

Nazis.
posted by Artw at 9:03 PM on February 29, 2016

Okay, only mostly nazis.
posted by Artw at 9:03 PM on February 29, 2016

They don't agree about 97% of things, though. They have very serious differences in record and policy. I could re-post the ten million links I've put up about their differing views on intervention and regime change, climate change, campaign finance, Wall Street regulation, death penalty, etc etc. but I'll spare everyone. It is simply not true that they agree about 97% of things. The fracking and Libya links I posted just upthread are good examples.

I don't know what /pol/ is. :/
Nazis.

Oh. That's a really nice thing to say then, good to know what we're being called at least. The derision is definitely being "evenly shared."
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on February 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

I just googled it. It is a 4chan thing. Didn't click through. Never been to any of the Chans and from what little I know I don't want to go there. I will remain an innocent until I can be persuaded otherwise. Or not
posted by futz at 9:24 PM on February 29, 2016

What, we're defending /pol/ now?
posted by figurant at 9:31 PM on February 29, 2016

Yeah, I was using it as shorthand for "lulzy reactionaries," not "Nazis," thanks.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:32 PM on February 29, 2016

The derision looks pretty evenly shared from my perspective

So that's a good reason to reduce turnout for Clinton?
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:38 PM on February 29, 2016

The thing that gets me is, there's nowhere for this destroy-Hillary-to-make-way-for-Bernie strategy to go if he doesn't win the nomination. Nowhere. It nets out to making the Republican argument against Clinton for them. It's a totally counterproductive tactic unless a) your one longshot ideal outcome pans out, or b) you're not super concerned about a Trump presidency. There are potentially so many downticket races where taking an all-or-nothing longshot approach for your perfect candidate is worth the risk and can pay off in a substantive way. The binary presidential race we're about to get saddled with is not that.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:43 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

The system of politics in which it is inappropriate to criticize a candidate for the presidency while they are being competitively considered for nomination is not a system I have any interest whatsoever in accommodating.

If presenting Hillary Clinton's record is really so mean a thing that it shouldn't be done because it endangers her candidacy, she is not a viable candidate.
posted by an animate objects at 9:52 PM on February 29, 2016 [18 favorites]

But by destroying Hillary during the primaries, isn't it making it so she can be reborn for the general election?
posted by Apocryphon at 9:52 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Who is trying to destroy Sec. Clinton? Hint, it's not supporters of Sen. Sanders. We overwhelmingly recognize that she is the frontrunner, and that she is a million times better than any of the Republicans (let alone their putative frontrunner, who is a fascist).

We don't want her to fail, we want her to be better. We want her to stand up to corporatism, to unmask Trump and the Republicans for the hard-right, government-dismantling, power-worshiping, racist fascists they have become.

Sec. Clinton should absolutely be running away with this race. All of the party machinery is on her side; she's been running for president for ten years; she's smart, politically savvy and has tons of legislative and executive experience. She should have been able to pull it out in '08 but she choked. I don't know what it is that makes her come off as so smarmy and condescending -- but she does. I can't trust her to seal the deal in November, although I absolutely hope that she pulls it off. But she is not the best candidate, not in general and particularly not in this anti-establishment year.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:02 PM on February 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

I'm just wondering, if you're doing everything you can to paint Clinton as a warmonger and an amoral tool of Wall Street to anyone who'll listen, what the endgame is if Sanders loses the primary. There's gonna be two people at the end of this and one of them is gonna be president. I mean yeah you can reduce the resolution on that sentiment until it sorta looks like "don't criticize Clinton," I guess, but I'm not sure how that advances the discussion anywhere.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:04 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Um, because it's true? No one held a gun to her head and made her vote for the Iraq War, no one made her push for intervention in Libya or Syria, no one made her cozy up to Wall Street. She chose to do these things and now she's sad that they're coming back to bite her.

Look, I'll pull for the centrist over the fascist any day of the week. If Sec. Clinton gets the nomination I sincerely hope she wins. But as long as there's an alternative whom I think actually could articulate the pain and suffering that Americans are going through right now, and propose some kind of a different path forward, I'll support that person.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:11 PM on February 29, 2016 [10 favorites]

Yeah, I was using it as shorthand for "lulzy reactionaries," not "Nazis," thanks.

As to nazis as Kylo Ren is to Darth Vader, except for the surprising amount of straight up nazis?
posted by Artw at 10:13 PM on February 29, 2016

if you're doing everything you can to paint Clinton as a warmonger

We don't have to paint her as a warmonger.

Hillary Clinton: We came, we saw, he died.

Then left the nation of Libya a disaster.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:16 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

I'll substitute /r/politics for /pol/ next time I do this bit, even though it doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly. Thanks for the workshopping.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:17 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

How do you get from the only other Secretaries of States *ever* to have used email, all the way to Iraq? Quite an off-topic stretch there.

Basically, the problem appears to be a previously unaddressed security issue specific to the government's rather recently implemented, antiquated IT system. We are a nation of laws and requirements... lots of them. But those all get screwed when they hit the technological age. From the reports I have read, most of the problems with the email have more to do with people from work emailing Clinton and people using her server things they shouldn't... but that also happened in an environment where the State Department's own network kept crashing, with people using her personal email as an emergency email, essentially.

As for why I came to back Clinton, well... I criticized her campaign pretty severely in '08, but the truth is, every aspect of her campaign and her policies has improved greatly since then... in many cases, well before Bernie got in the race. This includes her fundraising, which is less ethically questionable now, with better sources, than Obama's fundraising was in '08.

I am also a poltical realist. The public didn't elect Obama on a strong mandate of campaign finance reform, and he likely could only have passed it his first two years, if then, and only at the expense of something else.

Do I support campaign finance reform, and overturning Citizen's United? Sure. So does my current choice of candidate. That said, I don't believe in going into a gunfight with a multi-billionaire with just a pocket knife.

I am a wonk and researcher who *really* delves into polls, and breaks down how they are designed and what relevance they have. I have been tracking the current race vs. the 2008 race for months and months, and pretty consistently saw Sanders trailing '08 Obama considerably, not only nationwide, but especially in states where it would really count, as far as creating the narrative of the race. In case after case where a Sanders supporter cited comparisons vs. Obama's numbers, they just didn't add up, short of extreme acts of cherry picking. In every key respect, with the exception of fundraising, his campaign has significantly trailed Obama, who, incidentally, failed to win the popular vote vs. Clinton. Obama was in a position to win over the super delegates because of party influence, lots of big caucus wins, and the general trend of the race.

I read polls, in detail. All my analysis into what the polls were saying made it pretty clear... Sanders could do well at the start, but there was a highly entrenched core of the Democratic Party who would rack up insurmountable leads, both in votes and delegates, during Super Tuesday... and even a moderate win in South Carolina before Super Tuesday would help reinforce this narrative. Sanders would face the worst negatives of going up against both the legacies of Clinton *and* that of Obama.

Given the most likely outcomes, and the extreme risk of the GOP taking over, I determined that the best case scenario was a rapid Clinton win, where the progressive wing of the party would find themselves an obvious minority, and unite for the good of the party, whereas the worst-case scenario was that Sanders could fight a brutal battle after Super Tuesday, where momentum might shift slightly more towards him in later, whiter states, but still lose, based on lots of large previous losses, as well as the superdelegates. This would create a false argument that he deserved the nomination.

Right now, Sanders has actually done fairly well, but we are still much closer to the best case scenario than the worst case one. The problem being... Sanders has no loyalty to the Democratic Party, and his ego may preclude him from losing graciously. This is actually a serious risk, as he has shown signs in the past of being rather ungracious, divisive, and not a particularly good loser, blaming others and taking credit for support -- and supporters -- he didn't earn, using his concession speech as an opportunity to once more attack his opponents. It is my fear he will do this again, rather than acknowledging his loss to a candidate who was, in fact, a strong feminist, and who was the candidate that people overwhelmingly chose and trusted to address many of the issues that Sanders -- and his opponent -- raised. This risk is further heightened, because even as he runs for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is still an independent in Vermont, with no apparent plan to change party affiliation. This makes it easy for him to lose, and still flog the dead horse, for political gain.

In my opinion, the closest that Sanders could've ever hoped for, short of a Clinton death or indictment, was a narrow loss on electoral votes, a HUGE loss on superdelegates, and a very, very divisive loss at the national convention, with most of those on each side claiming legitimacy, followed by a Clinton nomination and a much more likely chance of losing to the GOP.

Even if the superdelegates switched their support in a game of chicken -- which they wouldn't -- there would still be a huge division in the party, not only with Clinton supporters, but also with the leaders of the party itself. Many would be less than united with Sanders, arguing that it would be better to accept a loss and come back next election, than to back him. (We are already seeing this dynamic with Trump.) But again, this is virtually impossible to occur, at this point.

In practical terms, there really isn't that much difference between Sanders and Clinton as compared to either of the two and the GOP candidates. This isn't just something that I'm saying. It's something that people like Noam Chomsky has said as well, when he recently said he would vote for Clinton in a battleground state.

Money in politics is disconcerting and potentially corrupting, but, in truth, the nature of politics with or without money is still corrupting -- moreso than money alone -- because it invariably means powerful people in close proximity to those in power. We need to find inclusive ways to improve the system, without playing divisive politics with the matter. There are -- or at least, there were, and could be again -- many Republicans who would support campaign finance reform, if it was approached in a bipartisan manner, where it looks good for them too.

The whole progressive purity litmus testing of campaign finance is increasingly insulting to practically every well-intentioned candidate from a reasonably large state who basically cannot win against GOP corporate-backed candidates without LOTS of fundraising from whoever is willing to pay some of the bills.

Sanders saying that his method of financing works for him is about as hollow as a world-famous rock star saying that if you are a musician, you just need to ask for people to crowdfund your work. What they are failing to say is that it helps to already be a successful rock star with a huge media presence and a successful career behind you. Your local congressman from a state that's larger and more expensive to run in than Vermont is probably not as lucky.
posted by markkraft at 10:18 PM on February 29, 2016

But by destroying Hillary during the primaries, isn't it making it so she can be reborn for the general election?

The DNC should have vetted their candidates better before going all-in on them...

Again, I'll remind everyone that her failure to perform due diligence in assessing the Bush Administrations claims, lead directly to the death and destruction in Iraq, and arguably the creation of ISIS.

We simply cannot take the risk of Hillary Clinton again failing in her basic duties, and causing so much more death and destruction.

N.B.: Bernie Sanders warned you about all that. He was correct then. He's correct now.

Bern: He fights for the People.
posted by mikelieman at 10:23 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Y'all are just kind of doubling down on the "but she really is awful [link]" and I recognize that you may genuinely feel that way but it's kind of orthogonal to the point I was trying to make.

The delegate math looks bad for Sanders right now. What's plan B?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 PM on February 29, 2016

Plan B: Vote Left.
posted by mikelieman at 10:30 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

( And hope that Hillary Clinton doesn't cause Armageddon when she fucks up next )
posted by mikelieman at 10:32 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Plan B is hoping that Sec. Clinton beats Trump in November, and then grows a backbone and stands up to the corporate interests as President.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:34 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

And yeah, as mikelieman alludes to, hoping that she doesn't drag us into another Mideast quagmire.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:36 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Plan B is hoping that Sec. Clinton beats Trump in November, and then grows a backbone and stands up to the corporate interests as President.

Well, while the former is, I think, probable, the latter is laughable. Only Bernie Sanders would appoint someone who doesn't work for a bank to regulate banks. ( My hope would be Elizabeth Warren at Treasury for 4 years... )

( BTW, Warren at Treasury and Grayson at Defense is the reason the Establishment is having an allergic reaction to Sanders' candidacy.... Day one, the F-35 project is cut, freeing up 29 grand A MINUTE for better things... I didn't check but I wouldn't be surprised fi Lock-Mart give Hillary some of the moneys )
posted by mikelieman at 10:38 PM on February 29, 2016

VOTE IN ALL THE OTHER RACES AND IN THE MIDTERMS.
posted by Artw at 10:38 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]

And yeah, as mikelieman alludes to, hoping that she doesn't drag us into another Mideast quagmire.

I want to be clear here. I wasn't being hyperbolic. When I said Armageddon, I mean it.

I don't want to get into a wall of text, so let me say that as a Progressive New York Jew, her connections with the "Establishment Israeli Government Players" scares the shit out of me.
posted by mikelieman at 10:41 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Shit, can I not literal, and not hyperbolic in that description? Ok, let me qualify myself...

"Nuclear armageddon" ( meaning I'm not advocating the Book of Revelations...)
posted by mikelieman at 10:46 PM on February 29, 2016

Hang on, what? Do you think she's going to, like, bomb the Dome of the Rock?
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:48 PM on February 29, 2016

"If presenting Hillary Clinton's record is really so mean a thing that it shouldn't be done because it endangers her candidacy, she is not a viable candidate."

Clearly, Bernie can use this talking point in Florida. And Clinton supporters should rightly point out that Sanders repeatedly idolized Fidel Castro, who indefinitely imprisoned, tortured, and killed political dissidents. Sanders visited Cuba twice -- possibly at the invitation and funding of Castro's government -- in fact, he tried to meet with Castro, and met with the mayor of Havana, who was one of Castro's enforcers.

As Mayor of Burlington, Sanders made special efforts with the local community access cable to haver programs from Castro's government aired on the local network... and he also is on record -- on video -- idolizing Castro's revolution, calling the people who resisted him -- many of the survivors who are now Floridians -- "ugly, rich people".

By all means, let's contemplate his electability in Florida -- the most essential battleground state -- vs. the GOP under those circumstances.

Or let's talk about his first speech as Mayor of Burlington , where he railed against developers who wanted to build gentrified, upscale condos and shops right on the scenic waterfront, but, four years later, backed that same development, using closed meetings to help it become a reality. His presidential campaign took credit for the deal falling through on his watch, but the fact is, it only stopped thanks to the efforts of Vermont's *REAL* progressives, who he derided as a "democratic front group", until it was obvious that they would win on the issue.

Let's see him campaign in Texas as the candidate who wanted to ship nuclear waste across a dozen states in order to dump it in a poor latino community, and then basically refused the invitation to even visit the site and talk to the local people.

Or how about the time when he ran against a far more progressive female black Democrat, and defended George Bush Sr. as being "very reasonable" for wanting to go to war with Iraq -- he went on to support the sanctions that killed over a million Iraqis -- and opposed her stance of drug legalization as being a cheaper way to trap people in "ghetto squalor"? Oh, and he also did his utmost to refuse to even debate her.

Of course, there's also the swank DNC fundraisers he went to, with people from Goldman-Sachs. He squirreled some of that money away years ago, which is why he had about a $4M warchest left over after his last congressional election, ready for his presidential run.

I hate to say it, but in case you haven't noticed, Bernie Sanders is a career politician with a lot of vulnerabilities. I normally don't go too in depth with them, but yeah... lots of weaknesses and a helluva lot of hypocrisy there. If you thought that Dukakis got played with Willie Horton ads, or Kerry got swiftboated, you simply have no idea what the GOP would do to Sanders.
posted by markkraft at 10:48 PM on February 29, 2016

Y'all are just kind of doubling down on the "but she really is awful [link]" and I recognize that you may genuinely feel that way but it's kind of orthogonal to the point I was trying to make.

I don't genuinely, "feel", that way. It is a fact -she laughed about the death of another human being, (however repugnant he may have been), and by lobbying for bombing Libya- contributed to the destruction of a nation. I don't just think about American electoral politics. I think about the world, the people in it and how the US with people like Hillary at the helm have wreaked havoc on millions of lives. This is important to me as a human being. I feel sorrow for the refugees these wars have caused. And empathy for the pain and suffering it has brought to other human beings. I will not stand by and be silent about it and not point it out when someone who is that callous wants to be the President of the US. I have a right and responsibility as a US citizen to speak out against the powerful because those who are far worse off than I - may not have that opportunity.

I owe Hillary Clinton nothing. She has done exactly zero for me personally. So, why should I have loyalty to a person who paraphrases Caesar and laughs about the death of another human being? Who says one thing in public and then does another in private. Who gives lip service to progressive ideas to pander for votes but when the chips are down supports some of the most regressive crap the US does.

As for a plan B - I am in a state that if she wins the nomination - my vote will not really count for much anyway. I will vote left.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:53 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hang on, what? Do you think she's going to, like, bomb the Dome of the Rock?

No, but I sure as hell don't see Democratic Principles ( e.g. Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the Laws ) being promoted by her administration, so the "Separate, but unequal" status-quo will continue. Of course, the question for me is, "When will a nuclear weapon be available to say, the highest bidder?"

At that point, The Israeli Government's policy of "Massive Retaliation" becomes a liability.

The problem is, what does the Israeli Government do when someone calls their threat of destroying Mecca and Medina using nuclear armed cruise missiles launched from their fleet of submarines?

Hillary Clinton's track record shows that she has not been able to properly assess these kinds of situations, so there's a very real risk of her missteps escalating it until someone pulls the trigger.

"What Would Henry Kissinger Do?"
posted by mikelieman at 10:54 PM on February 29, 2016

Do you have any cites to back up your assertions markkraft? That would be very helpful. I could Google each one but you seem to have the info already. Not snarking! I really want to be informed/educated.
posted by futz at 10:58 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wait, so is Sen. Sanders a pie-in-the-sky lefty (with possible Communist blind spots), or a pro-polluter, pro-Wall Street, anti-feminist gentrifying fascist-in-sheep's-clothing?
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:59 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Look on the best side- if the GOP establishment decides to run Rubio (or dare we wish it, Jeb!?) as a quixotic third party challenger against Trump, maybe Florida's a moot point anyway!
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 PM on February 29, 2016

People are complicated.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:00 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

I hate to say it, but in case you haven't noticed, Bernie Sanders is a career politician with a lot of vulnerabilities.

I actually laughed out loud. Comments about Sanders "taking swank money from Wall Street" just because he participated in the bare-minimum DSCC fundraising required to caucus with the Democrats just destroy your credibility, especially when you're defending Clinton taking millions as totally fine out of the other side of your mouth. It is good to see the bottom of the oppo folder though - if that's all you have, it still isn't a patch on the oppo out there about Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 11:02 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

I have most of them on hand. One sec:

Ignoring the pleas of local environmentalists and latinos traveling all the way from Texas to see him, and sponsoring legislation to ship Vermont's nuclear waste over 2000 miles through the neighborhoods of about a dozen states to that poor latino community?!

Saying on his first day as mayor, ''We have a city that is trying to help a developer build $200,000 luxury waterfront condominiums with pools and health clubs and boutiques and all sorts of upper-middle-class junk ... 'Building luxury condominiums will not be the priority of this administration", only to go on to strongly support developers who wanted a $100 million deal for building 300 luxury condos, a seven-story hotel, parking garages, upscale stores, and business offices on the shores of Lake Champlain, closing meetings to the public on the issue, and smearing opponents as being part of a "Democratic front group", until overwhelming public opposition led to open meetings and a major reversal on an act that would've significantly contributed to that city's gentrification?

Not actually taking a stand, making the argument, and fighting for single payer health care, when it could've really mattered... not just once, but twice.

Being one of the most prominent politicians to support the deeply flawed $1.2 Trillion dollar stealth fighter and their basing near Burlington, Vermont, retroactively subjecting the homes of more than 7,700 predominantly low income people to sound levels unfit for residential areas, with no plans for compensating them, as well as numerous health and environmental risks that have Vermont activists up in arms.

Intentionally avoiding taking a stand on gay marriage, even as all the other major Vermont politicians around him did?

Arresting protesters in Burlington for trying to get GE to build something other than gatling guns in their city, and having the gall to call the protesters "anti-worker", even though they met with Sanders the day before and specifically said that the protest wasn't intended to be anti-worker in any way, but was simply aimed at getting GE to produce something else instead of making gatling guns which were being sent to kill socialists in Nicaragua?

Trying to defend Israel's bombing of hospitals, schools, and UN shelters by trying to link them to ISIS, and then throwing a fit and telling town hall attendees to shut up?

Calling Bush Sr.'s deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia to fight Saddam Hussein "quite rational, quite intelligent" (The Times Argus, Aug. 23, 1990) and supporting that conflict, as well as the sanctions that went on to kill over 1 million Iraqi civilians.

Having anti-war protesters arrested in his congressional office, because they tried to stop Bernie from voting to bomb people?

Sharing a stage with racist Sons of Confederate Veterans member Patrick Buchanan to vilify the Chinese?

Making statements supporting the largest importer of military-grade weaponry in the US, shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, even though the weapons were also being shipped to Mexican drug gangs, as they killed tens of thousands of civilians in cities like Ciudad Juarez?

Voting against DREAMers and immigration reform, and nodding along while a rightwing talking head smeared organizations like NCLR as anti-American, and poking fun at hiring overseas lifeguards, even as nearby beaches went unwatched, and Americans were drowning?

Traveling to Cuba and trying to visit Fidel Castro, someone who Sanders idolized as a kid, and who routinely tortured and killed thousands of his own people?

Making it clear in his first statement after becoming mayor that he was "not going to war with the city's financial and business community . . . I know that there is little I can do from City Hall to accomplish my dreams for society"? (NY Times, Mar 8, 1981)

I very seriously vet candidates. In my opinion, he's unelectable. All the worst stuff against Clinton is already public knowledge. Sanders is very vulnerable, though.
posted by markkraft at 11:02 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Comments about Sanders "taking swank money from Wall Street" just because he participated in the bare-minimum DSCC fundraising required to caucus with the Democrats just destroy your credibility, especially when you're defending Clinton taking millions as totally fine "

You don't get it.

The question goes to electability against the GOP candidate, who only has to point out, repeatedly, that Sanders is a hypocrite and not who people think him to be.
posted by markkraft at 11:04 PM on February 29, 2016

I think one potential best case with Hillary is that if she truly is the hard-bitten, ruthless, conniving political operator like so many think she is, the trick is to force her to use that in service of a progressive agenda. Hillary Nixon might not be so bad- if the will of the people rakes her over the coals enough so that she has no choice but to sign the EPA into existence, if you know what I mean. At the same time, attack her potential neocon ties at every turn, and force Congress to keep her away from the authorization of military actions.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:05 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

But can't the same case be made re Hillary?
posted by futz at 11:06 PM on February 29, 2016

A few comments deleted. Don't use edit to change content; typos only. Also we don't need to bring to this thread the worst shit racist relatives suggest at family dinners. Also reminder for everyone but especially markkraft, the repeated insistent wall of text/links comments end up really dominating and stifling discussion; please be mindful of your footprint in the conversation.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:08 PM on February 29, 2016

As an aside, the perfect place for HRC in a Sanders administration would be as his Secretary of War. Just rename the department, because we're not fooling anyone in the world as to what the place is for. She could run the place pretty effectively. Though make sure to balance her with a very dovish Secretary of State. Maybe bring Kucinich back into politics and make him Secretary of Peace.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:09 PM on February 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

A lot of it, in different ways. Sanders, though, hasn't been vetted. Not. Even. Close. That makes all this fresh wounds. Ones that Hillary Clinton is, kindly enough, not exploiting herself.

Time after time when you look at his record independently, it shows him basically the beneficiary of progressive Vermonters, who led the nation in many respects. Oftentimes, Bernie lagged significantly and tellingly behind.
posted by markkraft at 11:10 PM on February 29, 2016

The question goes to electability against the GOP candidate, who only has to point out, repeatedly, that Sanders is a hypocrite and not who people think him to be.

Is it "hypocrisy" or is it, "nothing gets done without tying an amendment to a bill that might be a piece of shit?"

If the core hypothesis of electability is, "We need to appoint Supreme Court Judges based on $YOUR_POLICIES, so we must be Pragmatic", what the Republican obstruction of the Sitting President's Supreme Court nomination disproves it pretty handily.
posted by mikelieman at 11:10 PM on February 29, 2016

I don't have all the other citations in a doc right in front of me, but trust me... they are there. If you want me to fill in the list more later, I can.

Thing is, I don't dislike him as a politician. I just think he's very dangerous, and more likely to get the GOP into power than actually do a damn thing to help Democrats. That said, I think a lot of his ideas will come to pass in twenty years... unless Sanders supporters really do stay home and help elect Trump. In which case, thirty might be optimistic.
posted by markkraft at 11:13 PM on February 29, 2016

Is there nothing more hypocritical than a "Goldwater Girl" running as a Democrat?
posted by mikelieman at 11:13 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Oftentimes, Bernie lagged significantly and tellingly behind.

Yeah, but he was right and on-time about Gay Rights and opposing the Iraq War that created ISIS, so there's that.
posted by mikelieman at 11:15 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Eh, people said all kinds of things about Obama's electability - a lot of them racist smears from Clinton supporters - and we elected him anyway because it turned out people cared more about making the right choices on Iraq, opposing unbalanced trade deals, electing someone honest (remember how much the "dodging sniper fire" hurt her?), and rebuilding the middle class. It won't be over tomorrow any more than it was over for Clinton in 2008 on Super Tuesday - plenty of delegates left and plenty of time for the race to change.
posted by dialetheia at 11:23 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Brittney Cooper with a great, thoughtful piece on Hillary Clinton and race, with comment on "super predators" , #WhichHillary, and feminism, among other things. Please ignore the title of the piece, as it does not at all reflect the main thrust of the article.
posted by bardophile at 1:00 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

There is a new thread/post for today, Super Tuesday.
posted by Wordshore at 1:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Five states vote or caucus today, and several more over the next week or so. There's a clean and (until it fills with comments) fast loading new thread here.
posted by Wordshore at 2:12 AM on March 5, 2016

I'll just leave these here since both Dolores Huerta and Cornel West were mentioned upthread:

Bernie or Hillary? Cornel West & Dolores Huerta Debate After Sanders' Upset Win in Michigan

"We Are Pushing Real Revolution": Black Lives Matter on Why They Don't Have Faith in Any Candidate

Bernie, Hillary or Revolution in the Streets? Cornel West, Dolores Huerta & Black Lives Matter Debate
posted by homunculus at 4:12 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

« Older How Serious Computer Geeks Count On Their Fingers | "So I had to use the moonlight alone." Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

Nevada and South Carolina
February 18, 2016 1:02 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Nevada and South Carolina February 18, 2016 1:02 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Nevada and South Carolina
February 18, 2016 1:02 PM Subscribe